Bitcoin Mining Clarified: A Misunderstood Element of Energy Use
Recent assertions that Bitcoin mining harms the environment are increasingly being contested by credible research, presenting a more nuanced view of its energy consumption.
Bitcoin mining has often been labeled as detrimental to our climate, thought to waste extensive energy, stress power infrastructures, and interfere with climate initiatives. However, this narrative is increasingly being countered with data revealing the contrary.
Disproving Bitcoin Mining Myths
ESG expert Daniel Batten has taken a stand against prevalent misconceptions regarding Bitcoin mining, stating that many beliefs are unsupported by facts and continue to spread due to outdated views. He argues that the premise suggesting Bitcoin’s consumption of significant amounts of energy, water, or e-waste per transaction is fundamentally flawed. His findings reference various peer-reviewed studies, including notable research from Cambridge University, which indicates that the resource utilization of Bitcoin is not directly proportional to transaction volumes.
Thus, the activity around transactions can grow without a corresponding increase in energy, water, or hardware usage.
The initial ‘per transaction’ narrative traces back to a commentary by Alex de Vries in 2018, which, although debunked, has been frequently referenced, leading to persistent misunderstandings.
Regarding e-waste, Batten highlights Cambridge’s 2025 findings, revealing earlier projections overshot Bitcoin’s electronic waste by over 1,200%. Furthermore, he contests claims that Bitcoin mining destabilizes power grids, pointing instead to a wealth of independent research suggesting that it may actually bolster grid stability due to its flexible and interruptible load characteristics, particularly on grids reliant on wind and solar power.
Simultaneously, investigations by Duke University and other scholars found that Bitcoin mining can aid grid stabilization and provide ancillary services, with Batten citing real-world evidence from Texas’ ERCOT grid to support these assertions. Records show that Bitcoin mining contributes to nearly daily grid stabilization through demand response capabilities and frequency regulation, even during extreme weather events like the July 2022 heatwave, where only one minor destabilizing incident has been recorded.
Electrified, Grid-Compatible, and Economically Sound
Batten additionally counters the assertion that Bitcoin mining inflates electricity costs for consumers, referencing data between 2021 and 2024 which indicates no abnormal price hikes in areas with high mining activities. According to him, Bitcoin mining can reduce overall system costs by leveraging surplus renewable energy, curtailing energy wastage, postponing infrastructure improvements, and reducing the need for additional gas peaker plants.
There are instances in Norway and Kenya where Bitcoin mining has correlated with lower electricity costs. Batten also conveys that equating Bitcoin’s energy usage to entire nations is misleading, emphasizing that climate strategies should focus on enhancing energy production and management instead of merely aiming to reduce total consumption.
Batten pointed out that Bitcoin mining is fully electrified, highly adaptable, and could minimize methane emissions. He challenges claims regarding Bitcoin’s alleged high carbon output, citing Cambridge estimates of around 39.8 MtCO2e in emissions resulting solely from electricity use. Current data, moreover, indicates that Bitcoin mining has now surpassed a 50% threshold in sustainable energy usage globally.
