Bitcoin’s environmental impact remains contested, but ESG researcher Daniel Batten says several common criticisms of bitcoin mining don’t match peer-reviewed research or grid-level data.
Batten wrote in a Saturday X thread that nine “myths” about bitcoin’s energy use are contradicted by studies and operational evidence.
He said:
“Every nascent disruptive technology is accompanied by claims that are based on lack of understanding, lack of data, and a fear of something unknown.”
Claims about transactions and grids
Batten disputed the idea that bitcoin is resource-intensive “per transaction,” arguing that energy, water, and e-waste are not driven by transaction volume.
He cited research summarized in the University of Cambridge’s 2025 Digital Mining Industry Report, which found bitcoin’s energy use is largely independent of transaction volume.
Batten also challenged claims that mining destabilizes power grids.
He argued it can stabilize grids through flexible load management, particularly on renewable-heavy systems such as Texas.
Power prices and emissions
Batten said there is no data showing consumers pay more for electricity because of bitcoin miners.
He also argued that comparing bitcoin’s energy use to entire countries is misleading, saying the focus should be on energy-source transformation.
Batten disputed the claim that bitcoin has a “high carbon footprint,” arguing mining produces no direct emissions and instead creates scope-2 emissions from electricity use.
Proof-of-work and renewables
Batten said proof-of-stake is not automatically “better,” arguing that equating lower energy use with lower harm is a category error.
He also said mining can reduce renewable curtailment.
He cited studies claiming bitcoin mining improved solar and wind utilization and supported microgrid economics.
On miner economics, the hash price and miner monthly revenue charts show how incentives change over time.
