Since Bitcoin's inception in 2009, the amount of energy required to mine has always been less than the amount of Bitcoin you got for mining. But that was never going to last; there was a limit of 21 million possible Bitcoins baked into the system from the jump, and the rate of new coins mined has gotten slimmer as competition has increased, making the economics worse and worse over time.
These days, one Bitcoin trades for around $94,000, but costs about $137,000 in electricity for small-scale operations to mine, making new coins an economic liability for all but the largest players. For those whales, Gizmodo estimates the most optimal cost for mining a bitcoin at around $82,000 — slim margins which are shrinking fast.
Right now, the top 8 percent of crypto wallets own a little under 99 percent of all Bitcoin in circulation. Zooming in even farther, we see that the top 1 percent of crypto wallets control over 90 percent — so much for all that decentralization that Bitcoin was supposed to represent.
It's self-adjusting isn't it? The more people mining, the smaller share of the pie you get? It isn't very meaningful then to say how a particular electricity price compares to the Bitcoin price for profitability. That isn't much of a metric for the strength of the network. I feel like a better measure would be something like, the bitcoin marketcap divided by current hash rate; how much computing power is available to protect the network relative to how much value it is protecting. I'm kind of skeptical they will be able to keep that one up given that block rewards are going to decline and stop entirely to assure the 21 million, and actual use of Bitcoin for transactions is discouraged so potential fee revenue is limited.