9 Myths About Bitcoin’s Energy Use — Debunked With Real Data, Says ESG Expert

Despite Bitcoin’s growing institutional adoption in 2025, misconceptions about its environmental impact continue to circulate. According to ESG analyst Daniel Batten, many of the most common criticisms of Bitcoin mining are based on outdated assumptions rather than empirical evidence.

In a recent post on X, Batten outlined nine widespread myths about Bitcoin’s energy use, arguing that peer-reviewed studies and real-world data directly contradict them.

“Every disruptive technology faces criticism rooted in misunderstanding, limited data, and fear of the unknown,” Batten noted.

High-profile media outlets have fueled these narratives in recent years. In November, Dow Jones criticized Harvard University for allocating part of its endowment to Bitcoin, calling it an environmental disaster. Earlier, Bloomberg claimed Bitcoin “consumes electricity meant for the world’s poor.”

Myth 1: Bitcoin Is Resource-Intensive Per Transaction

One of the most persistent claims is that Bitcoin uses excessive energy, water, and hardware resources per transaction. Batten says this is factually incorrect.

Multiple peer-reviewed studies have shown that Bitcoin’s resource usage is independent of transaction volume, meaning the network can scale without increasing energy consumption.

Myth 2: Bitcoin Mining Destabilizes Power Grids

Contrary to popular belief, Bitcoin mining does not strain electrical grids. In fact, Batten argues it often improves grid stability through flexible load management.

This effect is especially visible in renewable-heavy regions such as Texas, where miners can quickly shut down during peak demand and absorb excess energy when supply is high.

Myth 3: Bitcoin Mining Raises Electricity Prices for Consumers

There is no credible data showing that Bitcoin miners drive up electricity costs for households. According to Batten, neither peer-reviewed research nor market data supports this claim.

In several documented cases, mining operations have actually contributed to lower prices by stabilizing demand and funding infrastructure upgrades.

Myth 4: Comparing Bitcoin’s Energy Use to Countries Is Meaningful

Comparisons between Bitcoin’s energy consumption and that of entire nations are misleading. Batten cites the IPCC, which emphasizes that climate impact depends more on energy sources than on raw consumption.

The relevant question is not how much energy Bitcoin uses, but where that energy comes from.

Myth 5: Bitcoin Has a Massive Carbon Footprint

Bitcoin mining itself produces no direct emissions. Its environmental impact comes solely from electricity generation, making its emissions “scope-2” rather than direct.

Importantly, Batten highlights that Bitcoin is the only global industry with verified third-party data showing more than 50% of its energy comes from sustainable sources—a milestone few sectors have reached.

Myth 6: Proof-of-Stake Is Automatically Greener Than Proof-of-Work

Some argue that Ethereum’s proof-of-stake model is inherently more environmentally friendly than Bitcoin’s proof-of-work. Batten disagrees, saying this argument confuses energy use with environmental harm.

Proof-of-work mining can:

Reduce methane emissions

Stabilize energy grids

Support renewable energy expansion

Monetize wasted or stranded energy

These benefits, he argues, are often overlooked in simplified comparisons.

Myth 7: Methane and Flare Gas Could Be Used More Productively Elsewhere

While it’s technically possible to repurpose landfill or flare gas, Batten says it is economically unviable without Bitcoin mining.

Bitcoin’s unique incentive structure makes it one of the few solutions capable of turning stranded methane into a usable and profitable energy source.

Myth 8: Bitcoin Mining Diverts Renewable Energy From Communities

Evidence suggests the opposite. Bitcoin mining has enabled renewable energy access in regions that previously lacked it.

Batten points to projects like Gridless in Africa, which has helped bring renewable electricity to an estimated 28,000 people through Bitcoin-powered microgrids.

Myth 9: Bitcoin Mining Wastes Energy

The idea that Bitcoin “wastes energy” ignores the reality of renewable generation. Solar and wind often produce excess power that would otherwise be discarded.

Studies cited by Batten show Bitcoin mining can achieve over 90% utilization of renewable energy, significantly reducing waste.

Moreover, labeling energy use as “waste” is subjective. Energy can only be considered wasted if it produces no benefit—and Bitcoin, Batten argues, delivers clear economic and social value.

Conclusion: Data Over Dogma

According to Batten, the environmental debate around Bitcoin should be grounded in data, not narratives. Peer-reviewed research increasingly shows that Bitcoin mining is becoming cleaner, more efficient, and more aligned with renewable energy development.

As institutional adoption grows, understanding these realities may be critical to shaping informed policy and investment decisions.