Bitcoin Mining Cleaner Than Most People Think

Source: CoinTribune Original Title: Bitcoin Mining Cleaner Than Most People Think Original Link: https://www.cointribune.com/en/bitcoin-mining-cleaner-than-you-imagine/ Bitcoin carries a persistent label: that of an energy sink. And like all labels, it sticks all the better because it avoids details. This weekend, Daniel Batten, an ESG researcher, put the file back on the table in a thread on X, with a rare bias in this debate: going back to data, and especially to peer-reviewed studies. Nine “classic” criticisms would, according to him, be out of step with what the figures show at the level of electrical networks.

In Brief

• Daniel Batten claims that nine criticisms of Bitcoin energy do not hold up against data and studies.
• According to him, mining is not linked to transaction volume and can even support the stability of electrical networks.
• The real debate is about energy sources and the real impact on the system, not simplistic comparisons.

A Bitcoin Energy Trial Where the Numbers Don’t Always Enter the Room

While China mines bitcoin, the energy debate naturally regains prominence. The first confusion is almost comfortable: reducing Bitcoin to a “consumption per transaction”. It’s intuitive, so it’s repeated well.

Except that, according to Batten, this metric tells a misleading story. Several studies conclude that the energy footprint of mining depends more on competition among miners and price, not on the number of transactions processed per day. In other words, more activity on the chain does not mechanically imply more energy.

It’s a point that many articles touch on, sometimes unintentionally: Bitcoin is not an energy toll charged per transaction. It’s more like a permanent “insurance” for the network, a fixed cost that varies with economic incentives. The nuance changes everything, because it shifts the question. We no longer ask “how much does a transaction cost?” but “what makes security vary, and at what price?”.

Next comes the most politically explosive accusation: mining destabilizes electrical networks. Batten argues the opposite, citing “grid-level” data: in some markets, notably Texas, miners act as a flexible load, able to shut down quickly when the grid is under stress. In a system where renewables are growing (and so supply is sometimes capricious), flexibility has value. Mining, in this scenario, looks less like a parasite and more like an industrial switch that can be controlled.

Electricity Prices, National Comparisons and Carbon Footprint: The Blind Spots

The debate hardens when it touches the wallet. The idea is simple: “miners arrive, your bill goes up”. Batten claims we don’t find this link in the data, nor in peer-reviewed studies.

In some cases, he even suggests that the presence of flexible loads can contribute to better grid utilization and, indirectly, less pressure on prices. This is not a universal promise, obviously. But it is enough to crack the certainty of slogans.

Then comes the media classic: comparing Bitcoin to a country. “More than Poland”, “as much as Thailand”… These phrases hit hard because they give a scale. The problem is that they also imply an implicit conclusion: “so it’s too much”.

Batten responds that the right question is not just “how much”, but “where the energy comes from” and “what trade-offs the energy system already makes”. Even the IPCC framework often emphasizes the transformation of sources and uses, not a simple meter to lower without context.

On the carbon footprint, Batten’s thread emphasizes a distinction that the general public rarely hears: mining does not produce direct industrial emissions (no chimney on the blockchain). The associated emissions are mostly related to electricity consumption. This does not make the subject trivial. But it requires talking about energy mix, supply contracts, location, and… public policies. In short: a grid debate, not a blind moral trial.

Proof-of-Work, Proof-of-Stake and Renewables: The Debate Beyond Crypto

Perhaps the most interesting part concerns comparison with Ethereum since proof-of-stake. Yes, PoS consumes much less energy. But Batten says concluding “so PoS is automatically greener” confuses energy with nuisance. It’s provocative, and it’s deliberate: he wants to bring analysis back to real impact, not just electricity quantity. In his reading, Bitcoin’s proof-of-work has “physical” properties that can align with energy: absorbing surpluses, valuing lost sources, or financing renewable capacities otherwise hard to make profitable.

This is where Bitcoin steps out of crypto framework to enter infrastructure. If a miner sets up near intermittent production, they can buy energy when no one wants it, then stop when the grid needs it. This logic touches a very concrete subject. Renewable energy wasted because the grid cannot absorb it at a given instant. Batten cites studies suggesting mining can reduce this waste and improve microgrid economics.

At bottom, the debate is not settled by easy comparisons but by data. And if Batten is right on one point about Bitcoin, it is this: to judge Bitcoin, you have to look at the energy system as it is, not as you imagine it. The question is not only “how much it consumes”, but also “when, where, with what source and with what effect on the grid”.