Science denies the environmental damage of Bitcoin: Daniel Batten

Daniel Batten, an energy and Bitcoin mining expert, published an analysis on March 10 in which he stated that the narrative about Bitcoin’s negative environmental impact originated in a single 2018 work by Dutch researcher Alex de Vries.

The central problem with De Vries’s approach, according to Batten’s analysis, is methodological. Dutch researcher measured the environmental impact of Bitcoin using the “energy per transaction” metricwhich assumes that the network’s energy consumption grows with the volume of transactions.

The premise used by De Vries is incorrect: Bitcoin energy consumption is determined by the network hashratenot by the number of transactions it processes.

Bitcoin’s energy consumption does not depend on the number of transactions, so the network can exponentially increase transaction volume without increasing its emissions.

Daniel Batten, Bitcoin mining specialist.

Using Litmaps, an academic research tracking tool, Batten noted that De Vries’ work was a «six-page opinion piece published in an academic journal» which, due to its format, did not go through a full peer review process or use original empirical data.

The four scientific studies that refute the harmful narrative about Bitcoin

Researcher De Vries’ ideas, as presented by Batten, were subsequently refuted in four independent academic studies published in fully peer-reviewed journals. Those studies are: Masanet (2019), Dittmar (2019), Sedlmeir (2020) and Sai and Vranken (2023). Each of these names refers to the main authors of each study.

The last of those four, according to Batten, «systematically dismantled» De Vries’ work and, after its publication, the main media stopped quoting it.

Sai and Vranken’s study reviewed 128 academic and non-academic research on the energy impact of Bitcoin and concluded that most of the then-existing analysis models suffered from «known flaws that limit its reliability».

Among the most serious problems they documented were incorrect use of the “energy per transaction” metricthe same one used by De Vries: the authors themselves explicitly point out that networks like Bitcoin and Ethereum do not consume electricity per transaction but per block, and that comparing both values ​​»may be inaccurate or misleading.»

Sai and Vranken’s diagnosis also identified the following specific flaws in De Vries’ work:

• He assumed that mining equipment has a useful life of 1 to 2 years, when the data shows that the same ASIC for mining BTC can operate for 4 or 5 years.

• Used hardware distributions without empirical support.

• Extrapolated partial geographic data to represent the entire network without verifiable justification.

For Sai and Vranken, that job «does not build on any existing theory and presents its own methods without contextualizing them in the scientific literature”, which makes it difficult to evaluate the solidity of its conclusions.

Furthermore, Batten, in his comment on March 10, also assured that the change in media coverage is already visible: mainstream media and 15 media specialized in sustainability currently cover the environmental benefits of Bitcoin, backed by 24 peer-reviewed academic studies.

The debate: the IMF and Bitcoin’s energy consumption

Batten’s analysis is not the only front of the debate. As NoticiasVE reported in August 2025, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) published a study in which it compared the electricity consumption of Bitcoin mining with that of all of Argentina.

In quantitative terms, Argentina consumed 140.2 terawatt hours (TWh) in 2024, a figure comparable to the consumption estimates of the Bitcoin network, according to that IMF report.

Batten, at the time, responded directly to that report calling it misleading. Its central argument is that the IMF omits that much of the energy consumed by Bitcoin mining comes from stranded sourcesthat is, generated energy that cannot be transported or consumed by other users due to infrastructure limitations.

According to Batten, 20 peer-reviewed articles and 7 independent studies prove that Bitcoin mining stabilizes electrical networks, mitigates methane emissions and reduces electricity pricesand that, for example, in 2023, 52.4% of its energy came from sustainable sources.

Batten also accuses the IMF of having conflict of interest against Bitcoinarguing that the body competes with BTC in the money sector and has a history of opposing its adoption.

Documented cases: Bitcoin mining as an energy tool

Batten’s arguments about the environmental benefits of mining are supported by specific cases reported by NoticiasVE.

In July 2024, Mara Holdings (MARA) announced a pilot project in Satakunta, Finland, to use waste heat from a 2-megawatt mining data center as district heating system for 11,000 inhabitants.

In that model, 95% of the energy a Bitcoin miner consumes is converted to heat. Then, through immersion technology, that heat is captured and pumped as hot water to homes. The community pays MARA the same rate they would pay for electricity to generate heat, reducing emissions and operating costs simultaneously.

In March 2025, the Gridless company installed a container with 120 ASICs next to the Zengamina hydroelectric plant, in a rural area of ​​Zambia, Africa, 14 hours from the nearest city.

The plant had excess capacity that could not be distributed due to lack of network infrastructure. The miners consume this surplus, optimizing the electrical network of that region, also generating income that represented 30% of the total turnover of the hydroelectric plant, allowing the latter to maintain operations and offer affordable electricity to a community of 10,000 inhabitants.

In September 2025, NoticiasVE reported on the case of Laos, a Southeast Asian nation with abundant hydroelectric production that exceeds its export capacity.

The Laotian government began to allocate that surplus to mining crypto assets, with the objective of converting the income generated into payments of its external debtin which China appears as the main creditor. For authorities, mining represents a way to convert unusable energy into economic value without depending on additional export infrastructure.