ESG Expert Challenges 9 Myths on Bitcoin’s Energy Use with Data
News
Bitcoin’s environmental footprint remains under debate, but ESG researcher Daniel Batten has challenged a series of widely cited criticisms. In a post on X on Saturday, Batten said nine recurring claims about Bitcoin mining’s energy usage are contradicted by peer-reviewed research and grid-level data.
“Every nascent disruptive technology is accompanied by claims that are based on lack of understanding, lack of data, and a fear of something unknown,” Batten said. In November, Dow Jones criticized Harvard University for allocating part of its endowment to BTC, calling it a “fake currency and money-laundering tool that is also an environmental catastrophe.” In July, Bloomberg wrote that Bitcoin “devours the electricity meant for the world’s poor.” Some environmental researchers have questioned these conclusions, noting that indirect emissions and opportunity costs tied to mining are difficult to measure.
Myth: Bitcoin is resource-intensive and destabilizes power grids
Batten said the notion that Bitcoin consumes large amounts of energy, water, or e-waste per transaction is “not true.” He cited four peer-reviewed studies concluding that Bitcoin’s resource consumption does not scale with transaction volume. Peer-reviewed findings summarized in the University of Cambridge’s 2025 Digital Mining Industry Report indicate Bitcoin’s energy use is largely independent of transaction counts, implying transaction throughput can rise without increasing resource usage.
He added that claims Bitcoin mining destabilizes power systems are also unfounded. According to Batten, miners can provide flexible demand response that helps balance grids, particularly those with high shares of renewable generation such as in Texas.
Bitcoin mining does not increase power costs
Batten said there is no evidence that residential customers pay higher electricity prices because of Bitcoin miners. “Neither in the data, nor in a peer-reviewed study is there evidence to support the claim,” he said, pointing to several cases where Bitcoin mining has been associated with lower prices.
He also argued that comparing Bitcoin’s electricity use with that of entire countries is misleading. Citing guidance from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), he said the priority should be shifting energy sources to cleaner alternatives rather than focusing solely on aggregate consumption. In November, Morningstar reported that the “global computing network used to support Bitcoin already uses more energy than Thailand or Poland — yes, really.”
Batten further disputed that Bitcoin inherently has a “high carbon footprint,” noting that mining itself produces no direct emissions and that impacts are scope-2, tied to electricity generation. He said Bitcoin mining is the only global industry with robust, independent data indicating it has surpassed the 50% sustainable energy threshold.
Bitcoin mining emissions intensity is falling. Source: Daniel Batten
Proof-of-stake is not necessarily better
Batten challenged the assertion that Ethereum’s move to proof-of-stake (PoS) in 2022 makes it environmentally superior to Bitcoin’s proof-of-work (PoW). He said equating lower energy usage with lower harm “errs by conflating energy use with harm.” In 2022, the Australian Financial Review described pre-Merge Ethereum as consuming as much power as Chile.
Screenshot of a 2022 article about Ethereum’s Merge. Source: AFR
According to Batten, PoW delivers distinct benefits, including methane mitigation, grid stabilization, added renewable capacity, and monetization of otherwise stranded renewable energy. He added that while landfill and flare gas might theoretically be used for other purposes, alternatives have not proved economically viable at scale.
Bitcoin mining promotes renewable energy usage
Batten said evidence does not support the claim that Bitcoin mining diverts renewable power from other users. Instead, he argued, mining has helped expand access. He cited Gridless projects in Africa that have provided renewable electricity to an estimated 28,000 people.
He also rejected the view that “Bitcoin mining wastes energy,” stating that mining can reduce renewable curtailment and raise utilization. Batten referred to peer-reviewed research by Moghimi et al. and Lai and You, which found mining significantly lowered curtailment and improved microgrid economics, achieving over 90% utilization rates for solar and wind in the studies.
He added that labeling energy “waste” is a value judgment rather than an objective standard, arguing it applies only when no benefit to society is produced.
Stay informed, read the latest news right now!
Disclaimer
The content on TrustsCrypto.com is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency markets are highly volatile, always do your own research before making decisions.
Some content may be assisted by AI and reviewed by our editorial team, but accuracy is not guaranteed. TrustsCrypto.com is not responsible for any losses resulting from the use of information provided.
