Also the bitcoin network does only transactions not mortgages or credit cards.
Although your post and its conclusion are overall correct, I am not convinced that the quoted things are okay...
You compared transactions with customers and that sounds like apples vs oranges. And of course, comparing banking customers with active wallets is also not OK.... so let's better not compare them.
Then you talked about credit cards. Well, they are handled by Visa/Mastercard afaik. All the bank has to do is to make the corresponding transactions which, for credit cards can be done at a later point and somehow batched.
Let's deal with the things till here.
The one comparing oranges with bananas is the author of the article who compares the consumption of bitcoin mining to the impact in GDP of the banking sector (which included Visa/Mastercard/Amex and more).
Now, the 200 mils figure comes from a mistake in my math, and unfortunately, the error was not in favor of the banks, quite contrary.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/other/2016-payments-study-20161222.pdf
Imho the power consumption for Bitcoin is a "hater" subject, because it doesn't get all the data into a fair equation. And the comparison with the banks also doesn't get us anywhere useful...
So we count banks offices but we don't count the offices of Coinbase, Bitfinex...and many more.
Not to mention the factories of Bitmain or Innosillicon.
Banks are closing their branches and going online, BTC is adding millions after millions of power-hungry miners to the network.
I actually see it more like a zealot subject where somebody tries desperately to make bitcoin look like the marvel of God.
Which in its current state it is not...unfortunately.