ESG Researcher Debunks Bitcoin Energy Myths: The Truth Behind the Headlines
For years, Bitcoin's energy consumption has been the go-to criticism for skeptics and traditional finance pundits. Now, an ESG researcher is flipping the script—calling the narrative a myth built on outdated data and selective reporting.
The Flawed Math Behind the Fear
The researcher's analysis cuts through the noise. It highlights how common comparisons—like pitting Bitcoin's total energy use against small countries—ignore context. They bypass the fact that global banking and gold mining operate on an energy scale that makes crypto look like a rounding error. The focus on absolute consumption, they argue, misses the efficiency revolution happening in mining.
Green Energy's Silent Partner
Bitcoin mining is increasingly powered by stranded and renewable energy sources. Miners act as a flexible, global battery—soaking up excess solar, wind, and hydro power that would otherwise be wasted. This creates a financial incentive to build more renewable infrastructure in remote locations, a point often omitted from mainstream critiques. It's a symbiotic relationship that traditional asset managers, still cozy with fossil fuel portfolios, seem reluctant to acknowledge.
A Provocative Reality Check
The closer you look, the clearer it becomes: the energy debate is less about watts and more about worldview. Is it wasteful to secure a decentralized, global monetary network? Or is it wasteful to maintain a century-old financial system that excludes billions and takes days to settle transactions? The ESG framework, when applied without bias, might just reveal Bitcoin as a catalyst for a cleaner, more efficient grid—not its enemy. Of course, that would require Wall Street to admit that innovation can come from outside its gilded towers, a concept about as palatable as a 0% management fee.
Batten: Energy misuse and electronic waste claims are unfounded
One of the accusations the article cited was that bitcoin consumes excessive energy, water, and is leading in electronic waste per transaction. Batten said the theory is fundamentally flawed and has been rejected by four peer-reviewed papers, alongside assessments by Cambridge University.
The studies conclude that Bitcoin’s resource use is not driven by transaction volume, which means transaction throughput can increase without drawing excessive energy, water, or hardware consumption.
The per-transaction metric’s origin came from Alex de Vries’ “Bitcoin’s Growing Energy Problem” commentary published in 2018. Batten insists the analysis was non-empirical, and it was later discredited, even though several media agencies had already consumed the perception as reality.
In his analytical critique of Bitcoin mining’s energy consumption, De Vries measured energy per transaction and extended the same methodology to emissions, water use, and electronic waste.
Cambridge University later found the Digiconomist founder had overestimated Bitcoin mining’s electronic waste by 1,204%, placing annual eWaste at 2.3 kilotonnes and below de Vries’ 30 kilotonnes.
Bitcoin does not destabilize electricity grids and increase prices
Batten also debunked the myth about Bitcoin mining causing a distortion in power grids through research from Duke University. The North Carolina learning institution concluded that controllable load resources like the crypto coin’s mining can instead stabilize grids.
These findings are supported by data from ERCOT, the Texas grid operator of the largest concentration of Bitcoin mining in the world. According to ERCOT records, Bitcoin miners provide frequency regulation and demand response services.
During Texas’s July 2022 heatwave, mining operations reportedly cut back energy demand during grid stress and helped prevent outages. ERCOT documented only one mild grid-destabilizing incident, which came in April 2024.
“Bitcoin mining operations have found a way to come into the market and take some of that excess wind in off-peak periods. Then it can turn down whenever we need the power for other customers… And if a generator trips offline, it can very quickly respond to that frequency disruption and allow us to balance our grid more efficiently,” said former ERCOT interim CEO Brad Jones.
On the energy consumption side of the criticism, Batten compared US electricity cost data from 2021 to 2024, showing inflation-adjusted increases of 7.7% nationally and 7.0% in Texas. He said no peer-reviewed study supports the claim that Bitcoin mining raises consumer power prices, but there are cases where it can lower costs, including reducing curtailment fees and investments in gas peaker plants.
In September 2024, Norwegian residents reportedly learned that Bitcoin mining had kept power prices 20% lower for years, before prices jumped after miners exited the grid. CNBC reported that adding a Bitcoin mine to rural microgrids in Kenya reduced electricity costs from 35 cents per kilowatt hour to 25 cents.
Carbon emissions, renewable energy, and methane mitigation
Cambridge University also stated that comparing industries to nations is “presenter bias,” because environmental policy focuses on transforming energy systems rather than reducing absolute consumption.
Moreover, per Batten’s own assessment, Bitcoin mining is the only global industry with third-party data showing more than 50% sustainable energy usage and emissions at 39.8 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent.
The ESG researcher propounded that Bitcoin mining produces only indirect emissions from electricity use, similar to electric vehicles. EVs produced 80 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions in China and the United States alone.
Batten also rejected assertions that mining diverts renewable energy from other users, saying ERCOT data and Brad Jones coined mining a “non-rival energy user” that powers down when prices rise.
Concluding his rebuttal piece, he shared peer-reviewed studies of mining integration that almost fully eliminate wasted energy on microgrids while cutting operating costs by 46.5%.
If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.
