Bitcoin Magazine Bitcoin Price Crashes Below $110,000 After Whale Sold 24,000 BTC The price of Bitcoin has plunged below $110,000 in the past 24 hours, marking one of its steepest corrections in weeks. According to data from Bitcoin Magazine Pro, the world’s largest cryptocurrency dropped to $108,890 and remains below the $110,000 threshold at the time of writing. The decline represents a sharp sell-off from just last Friday, when Bitcoin traded as high as $117,000, before tumbling to $109,894 over the weekend. The downward momentum was accelerated by a massive whale sale. Over the weekend, a single Bitcoin holder offloaded 24,000 BTC worth more than $2.7 billion, sparking additional selling pressure and driving the price lower. The large transaction caused heightened volatility and weighed heavily on market sentiment. This entity liquidated their entire 24k balance, sending all of it to Hyperunite. They transferred 12k just today and are still actively selling, which is likely contributing to the ongoing price drop. https://t.co/HYPBiGzjRf pic.twitter.com/crML9AqvvV — Sani | TimechainIndex.com (@SaniExp) August 24, 2025 Despite the sharp move down, sentiment has not yet tipped fully into fear. The Bitcoin Fear and Greed Index, a widely watched market sentiment tool, currently sits at 48/100, which is categorized as “neutral” but hovers just above “fear.” The Fear and Greed Index is a tool that helps investors and traders analyze the Bitcoin and Crypto market from a sentiment perspective. It identifies the extent to which the market is becoming overly fearful or overly greedy. Hence why it is called the Fear and Greed Index. Bitcoin Magazine Pro explains that the Index helps investors separate their emotions from broader market reactions, offering insights into when assets may be overbought or oversold. Scores near zero reflect “extreme fear,” while scores close to 100 represent “extreme greed.” With Bitcoin currently at 48, sentiment is edging toward concern but has not yet fully entered bearish territory. Meanwhile, underlying network fundamentals remain strong despite price weakness. Bitcoin’s hash rate—a measure of the total computational power securing the network—is approaching a new record high. The current daily value stands at 909,080,589 Th/s, just shy of the all-time high of 1,084,828,947 Th/s set on August 4 when Bitcoin was trading at $115,149. Long-term holders may find reassurance in historical profitability data. Bitcoin Magazine Pro notes that holding Bitcoin has been profitable for 99.1% of its existence: Number of profitable days: 5,437 Total number of days tracked: 5,487 Percent of profitable days: 99.1% While the recent drop below $110,000 has rattled short-term traders, Bitcoin’s track record and network strength suggest resilience. Investors will be closely watching whether the Fear and Greed Index shifts further into fear territory, and if whales continue to unload large holdings, potentially adding more turbulence to the market in the coming days. JUST IN: Holding #Bitcoin has still been profitable for over 99% of its history. HODL pic.twitter.com/Fd6cTxFIMD — Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) August 26, 2025 This post Bitcoin Price Crashes Below $110,000 After Whale Sold 24,000 BTC first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Nik.

[Bitcoin Magazine](https://bitcoinmagazine.com)
![](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Bitmine-Accumulates-BTC-1.jpg)
[Bitcoin Price Crashes Below $110,000 After Whale Sold 24,000 BTC](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/markets/bitcoin-price-crashes-below-110000-after-whale-sold-24000-btc)

The [price of Bitcoin](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/bitcoin-price) has plunged below $110,000 in the past 24 hours, marking one of its steepest corrections in weeks. According to data from [Bitcoin Magazine Pro](https://www.bitcoinmagazinepro.com/bitcoin-price-live/), the world’s largest cryptocurrency dropped to $108,890 and remains below the $110,000 threshold at the time of writing. The decline represents a sharp sell-off from just last Friday, when Bitcoin traded as high as $117,000, before tumbling to $109,894 over the weekend.

![](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/AD_4nXc6NxUE_R-JMRpPWpBeaaZ8uyi5RCE4AAfhVLXhAzh7hXdRlb3tGTDmyOzRMI5q7WIMllUs4c1iXdEGPB7jUfJja4pwdIe-XXPlLC4vge_fgY4prUnp3Jh8R1-a522u6wu_DqkhvwkeyR93d1n3fNktaeHVkiBCCfw.png "Bitcoin Price Crashes Below $110,000 After Whale Sold 24,000 BTC 12")

The downward momentum was accelerated by a massive whale sale. Over the weekend, a single Bitcoin holder offloaded 24,000 BTC worth more than $2.7 billion, sparking additional selling pressure and driving the price lower. The large transaction caused heightened volatility and weighed heavily on market sentiment.

> This entity liquidated their entire 24k balance, sending all of it to Hyperunite. They transferred 12k just today and are still actively selling, which is likely contributing to the ongoing price drop. [https://t.co/HYPBiGzjRf](https://t.co/HYPBiGzjRf) [pic.twitter.com/crML9AqvvV](https://t.co/crML9AqvvV)
>
> — Sani | TimechainIndex.com (@SaniExp) [August 24, 2025](https://twitter.com/SaniExp/status/1959717227302941109?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

Despite the sharp move down, sentiment has not yet tipped fully into fear. The Bitcoin Fear and Greed Index, a widely watched market sentiment tool, currently sits at 48/100, which is categorized as “neutral” but hovers just above “fear.”

The Fear and Greed Index is a tool that helps investors and traders analyze the Bitcoin and Crypto market from a sentiment perspective. It identifies the extent to which the market is becoming overly fearful or overly greedy. Hence why it is called the Fear and Greed Index.

![](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/AD_4nXfYFZ5HVnHN_zkG3nhUu8IwNNqUl9W0f0JVhRVWn1IBZQ8fdNk_zqwihja-Y7BDOO-xQBiRbsl3Nvt0scxIQAc5vYSviFsn9DwB7YHFKKiNiPNPza06RnpV-r5QpQ2m_TNanj8gdAkeyR93d1n3fNktaeHVkiBCCfw.png "Bitcoin Price Crashes Below $110,000 After Whale Sold 24,000 BTC 13")

Bitcoin Magazine Pro explains that the Index helps investors separate their emotions from broader market reactions, offering insights into when assets may be overbought or oversold. Scores near zero reflect “extreme fear,” while scores close to 100 represent “extreme greed.” With Bitcoin currently at 48, sentiment is edging toward concern but has not yet fully entered bearish territory.

Meanwhile, underlying network fundamentals remain strong despite price weakness. Bitcoin’s [hash rate](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/tags/hashrate)—a measure of the total computational power securing the network—is approaching a new record high. The current daily value stands at 909,080,589 Th/s, just shy of the all-time high of 1,084,828,947 Th/s set on August 4 when Bitcoin was trading at $115,149.

![](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/AD_4nXcPegYkdRyyJhcJMQtZsTRIsC8MDBKXcIeTRlagEn3K55-F6kioBlgMDxq7g-st6HpPQdF58glHulNdZncB8YLD0ugdz7SES48Jrf4iMaf-p6AkS8Q7YUtB5oceTBKqFRMw0HNlCAkeyR93d1n3fNktaeHVkiBCCfw.png "Bitcoin Price Crashes Below $110,000 After Whale Sold 24,000 BTC 14")

Long-term holders may find reassurance in historical profitability data. Bitcoin Magazine Pro notes that holding Bitcoin has been profitable for 99.1% of its existence:

*   Number of profitable days: 5,437
*   Total number of days tracked: 5,487
*   Percent of profitable days: 99.1%

While the recent drop below $110,000 has rattled short-term traders, Bitcoin’s track record and network strength suggest resilience. Investors will be closely watching whether the Fear and Greed Index shifts further into fear territory, and if whales continue to unload large holdings, potentially adding more turbulence to the market in the coming days.

> JUST IN: Holding [#Bitcoin](https://twitter.com/hashtag/Bitcoin?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) has still been profitable for over 99% of its history.
>
> HODL ![✊](https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/16.0.1/72x72/270a.png) [pic.twitter.com/Fd6cTxFIMD](https://t.co/Fd6cTxFIMD)
>
> — Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) [August 26, 2025](https://twitter.com/BitcoinMagazine/status/1960371138413961267?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

This post [Bitcoin Price Crashes Below $110,000 After Whale Sold 24,000 BTC](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/markets/bitcoin-price-crashes-below-110000-after-whale-sold-24000-btc) first appeared on [Bitcoin Magazine](https://bitcoinmagazine.com) and is written by [Nik](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/authors/nik).


The Role of Bitcoin Mining in Climate ACTION

Overview As a climatetech investor, I consider our top four climate issues that technology can help us resolve to be: 1. Remove bottlenecks to getting more renewable energy onto the Grid Accelerating the green energy transition means we must overcome these four sub-challenges: reduce interconnection queues reduce wasted solar and wind energy and cut curtailment fees reduce the 8.1 year payback period for solar and wind generation facilities raise flexible energy generation demand 2. Replace Fossil fuel based heat with electrically based heat 3. Increase the speed and profitability of R&D into new renewable energy projects 4. Urgently end three carbon-intensive practices: Use of Gas Peaker Plants, methane venting and methane flaring This paper will examine, using existing case studies and research, how Bitcoin mining could be an important catalysts for climate action in each of these four categories. Background: why the narrative on Bitcoin and the environment changed? From 2018-2022, most of the narrative on Bitcoin mining focused on negative environmental impacts. These commentaries focused on issues such as excessive emissions, water use and e-waste “per transaction”. This narrative started to shift in late 2022, and by 2024 had been replaced with a narrative that focused mainly on positive environmental externalities. There was no single factor that caused this shift. The changes were due to a combination of Better data. Earlier data relied heavily on the work of Alex de Vries. In 2023 however Sai and Vranken found significant flaws in his methodologies concerning how he measured eWaste, water consumption, energy consumption and emissions. Cambridge recently reinforced this, finding that de Vries’ eWaste estimation was overestimated by more than 1000%. Other studies such as Lei et al found fundamental flaws in his use of Bitcoin resource consumption “per transaction” (Bitcoin does not in fact consume energy or water per transaction). The greening of the Bitcoin mining network itself. In 2018-2021, Bitcoin mining did indeed use a higher fossil fuel consumption than other sectors such as the banking sector. However more recent studies show that Bitcoin mining now uses predominantly sustainably sourced power As the research community has better understood the nascent technology, more nuanced and complete studies on Bitcoin mining in academic circles has emerged. 14 of the last 16 papers on Bitcoin and energy now support the thesis that numerous positive environmental impacts arise from Bitcoin mining. Media outlets then shifted their reporting to reflect the new data. Today, the majority of sustainability magazines who cover Bitcoin mining highlight its benefits, while 85.7% of mainstream news coverage on Bitcoin mining and energy since 2023 has also been positive. This shift is covered at length in our earlier piece “Is Bitcoin good or bad for the environment?” which we would recommend that readers who are unfamiliar with the changing view in the academic community and among energy commentators read first. To date, despite the improved studies on Bitcoin mining, they have tended to appear only in academic journals which may be inaccessible to the general public or those not familiar with the idiosyncracies of how grid infrastructure or methane mitigation works. Specifically, there not yet been an evidence-based article that attempts to objectively synthesize the different ways Bitcoin supports, or could in the future support, climate action. This article makes a first humble attempt to do so, using a combination of peer reviewed research sources, case studies and Whitepapers, to come up with an overall perspective on how Bitcoin is, and could in the future, promote Climate Action. 1. Remove bottlenecks to getting more renewable energy onto the Grid Why resolving these four challenges is critical Interconnection Queues Lengthy interconnection queues delay renewable projects from connecting to the grid. Reasons for delay include old transmission infrastructure, regulatory bottlenecks, limited grid capacity, lack of financing for the renewable project, and concern from the grid operator about the impact on the grid of more intermittent power sources. These delays can be as long as 10-15 years, slowing the renewable transition, and compromising our net zero emission goals. Wasted Renewable Energy and Curtailment Intermittent renewable generation often exceeds grid demand, forcing renewable operators to curtail excess energy. Curtailment can have far-reaching consequences, impacting not only the financial viability of renewable projects but also grid stability. It also hurts economically, with added costs often being handed on to consumers, because the grid operator must often pay the renewable generator a fee for not being able to take their energy. Australia for example is currently wasting 25% of all renewable energy. Such waste not only hurts economically, it slows down the renewable transition both directly and indirectly: directly by reducing the profitability and therefore the expansion-speed of renewable operators, and indirectly by giving fuel to opponents of renewable energy to question the viability of the renewable transition itself. Create more demand-side flexibility Variable Renewable Energy such as solar and wind generation require electrical grids to balance variable supply with adaptable demand. Lack of flexible demand (industries that can adjust usage) or demand response programs results in grid instability, making it harder to justify expanding renewables without risking grid reliability. Flexible consumers provide grid operators with the confidence to be able to increase the amount of variable renewable energy generation on a grid, knowing they have a demand-side shock-absorber in place. Long Payback Periods for Solar/Wind Facilities High upfront costs and slow returns (often 8–10+ years) limit cash flow for reinvestment. Extended payback periods deter investors and slow the scaling of renewable projects, delaying the transition from fossil fuels. How Bitcoin mining alleviates each renewable grid transition challenges By acting as a flexible, location-agnostic energy buyer, Bitcoin mining can reduce bottlenecks in renewable energy deployment, cut waste, and incentivize the construction of new renewable energy infrastructure. Let’s explore how Bitcoin mining achieves this through four key mechanisms: reducing interconnection queues, minimizing wasted energy, raising flexible energy demand, and shortening the payback period for renewable energy projects. 1.1 Reduce Renewable Energy Interconnection Queues One of the biggest challenges in deploying renewable energy is the lengthy interconnection queue process. In the U.S. alone, there are over 2,000 gigawatts (GW) of renewable energy projects waiting to be connected to the grid, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. These projects often face delays of several years due to regulatory hurdles, grid capacity constraints, and the need for costly infrastructure upgrades. Bitcoin mining can help alleviate this bottleneck by providing a flexible customer for renewable energy projects. Unlike other electricity consumers, miners can set up operations near renewable energy sites, bypassing the need for grid interconnection altogether. This allows energy producers to start generating revenue immediately, rather than waiting years for approval. For example, in West Texas, Bitcoin miners have partnered with wind farms to monetize excess energy that would otherwise be stranded due to grid constraints. In Ethiopia, the Electric Power Agency has welcomed Bitcoin miners to buy excess energy from the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), in turn, powering growth and green energy and earning the country $55M in 10 months, which they are using to build out additional transmission capacity to deliver more renewable energy The scientific community agrees: by reducing the financial and logistical barriers to renewable energy deployment, Bitcoin mining accelerates the adoption of clean energy, a finding that is supported by You et al, 2023 (Mining to Mitigation: How Bitcoin Can Support Renewable Energy Development and Climate Action) and Menati et al, 2023 (High resolution modeling and analysis of cryptocurrency mining’s impact on power grids) 1.2 Reduce Wasted Solar and Wind Energy Waste and Cut Curtailment Fees Renewable energy sources like solar and wind are inherently intermittent, meaning they generate energy only when the sun shines or the wind blows. This intermittency often leads to overproduction during peak generation periods, forcing grid operators to curtail (waste) excess energy. In 2020, California curtailed over 1.5 million megawatt-hours (MWh) of solar and wind energy—enough to power 150,000 homes for a year. This wasted energy represents lost revenue for renewable energy producers and undermines the economic viability of clean energy projects. In Texas, there have been many cases of underutilized solar or wind farms. For example In 2022 Compute North (Now US Bitcoin Corp) purchased a 280 wind farm in West Texas. The farm had been known for high curtailment fees rates when wind was produced that could not be utilized by the grid due to weak demand. By providing a guaranteed customer for that surplus wind energy, the Bitcoin facility reduced waste, ended curtailment fees, and helped stabilize the grid. Also on the ERCOT grid, when Bitcoin mining company Jiachi West began operating in Texas, they reported that renewable energy curtailment dropped by 4%, and renewable energy profitability increased by 12%. By monetizing curtailed energy, Bitcoin mining not only reduces waste but also improves the financial sustainability of renewable energy projects. 1.3 Slash the Payback Period for Solar and Wind Generation Facilities The high upfront costs of renewable energy projects often result in long payback periods, discouraging investment. According to a recent peer-reviewed study, the average payback period for solar and wind facilities is 8.1 years. However, Bitcoin mining can reduce this payback period to 3.5 years by providing a reliable and lucrative revenue stream for energy producers. But these are not just academic theoretical possibilities. Indeed academia has lagged behind a large volume of real-world projects that have already integrated Bitcoin mining with renewable energy in order to increase the payback time. For example, Deutsche Telecom, Germany’s largest telco has begun using Bitcoin mining to monetize its otherwise wasted wind and solar power. It hopes to use the increased revenue to make solar and wind production more profitable, and reinvest the profits into more renewable generation. Tepco, Japan’s largest Utility company also recently announced a project to begin using Bitcoin mining on its wasted renewable energy. It’s goal is to further reduce waste of renewable electricity by using Bitcoin mining’s time-of-day agnostic properties to use solar/wind that otherwise would have been curtailed. 1.4 Create More Demand Side Flexibility Saul Griffiths, a leading energy expert and author of Electrify: An Optimist’s Playbook for Our Clean Energy Future, argues that flexible energy demand is essential for incentivizing the construction of new renewable energy infrastructure. Unlike traditional industries, which require a constant and predictable energy supply, Bitcoin mining is highly flexible. Miners can scale their operations up or down in response to energy availability, making them ideal partners for renewable energy producers. This flexibility creates a symbiotic relationship between Bitcoin miners and renewable energy developers. For example, during periods of low energy demand (e.g., sunny afternoons or windy nights), miners can ramp up operations, providing a steady revenue stream for energy producers. Conversely, during peak demand periods, miners can power down, freeing up energy for the grid. This dynamic helps stabilize the grid and encourages the development of more renewable energy capacity. In places like Norway, where hydropower dominates the energy mix, Bitcoin miners have become key players in balancing supply and demand, ensuring that renewable energy remains profitable and scalable. By improving the economics of renewable energy projects, Bitcoin mining helps unlock the capital needed to build more solar, wind, and hydropower facilities. These real-world examples highlight how Bitcoin mining is not just a consumer of energy but a strategic partner in the global transition to a sustainable energy future. Brad Jones, former CEO of ERCOT Texas’ grid, used Bitcoin mining to stabilize the grid after winter storm Uri, saying that Bitcoin mining ‘Helps us get more renewables onto the grid” but also “helps us counterbalance the intermittency of renewables” 1.5 Summary Bitcoin mining accelerates the green energy transition by helping both grid operators and renewable generators to overcome four challenges reduce interconnection queues reduce wasted solar and wind energy and cut curtailment fees reduce the 8.1-year payback period for solar and wind generation facilities raise flexible energy generation demand While it is by no means the only technology required to solve the first two challenges, there is equally strong evidence that it is the most profitable way to reduce both solar/wind payback periods and increase the flexibility of energy consumption. Additionally, it should be noted that sustainably-powered Bitcoin mining companies are not an anomaly, but rather they are an increasing norm. Currently there are 70 sustainably powered Bitcoin mining companies. 41 of these companies use 98%+ zero-emission power sources, and a further 29 using carbon-negative sources. Collectively these mining companies have helped make Bitcoin the world’s most sustainably powered global industry (52.4% as of April 2025). Like eVs, Bitcoin is a fully electrified technology with no direct emissions. Also like eVs, Bitcoin produces secondary emissions because a portion of the power used comes from fossil fuel sources. Also like eVs it is important to remember that this power obviates a more emission-intensive predecessor: petrol and diesel transport in the case of eVs; banking services and the extractive and fossil-fuel dependent gold industry in the case of Bitcoin. 2. Replace Fossil fuel based heat with electrically based Heat Why it matters According to the IEA, 50% of all the world’s energy is used for heating. Most of that heat is fossil fuel based. In parallel to greening the grid, prominent environmental campaigners and energy experts such as Saul Griffiths in his book Electrify state that we must also electrify as many industrial processes as possible, with heating being the single largest candidate for rapid electrification. While Bitcoin mining cannot replace the intense heat of a coal furnace, there are significant amounts of other heat forms that the exhaust heat of Bitcoin miners can replace and is now replacing. The potential uses for heat from Bitcoin mining are significant and growing. Some of these are one-off applications, whereas others such as delivering district heating to 2% of Finland’s population are already operating at a significant scale. The first reported example of a commercial operation using heat recycling from Bitcoin mining was Heatmine which started using Bitcoin heat for home heating in Canada in 2018. Since then, the use of heat recycling from Bitcoin mining has rapidly expanded. Since then, the applications of heat recycling have grown significantly. Cambridge University for example recently reported that “by redirecting this heat for applications such as district heating, greenhouse cultivation, or pool heating,miners can transform a byproduct into a resource. Meanwhile the International District Energy Association in their Q3, 2025 report stated “Electrifying heat production, especially in regions with low-carbon or renewable electricity, offers one of the most direct and effective ways to reduce emissions from district heating. Using the heat generated from bitcoin mining could significantly advance this electrification, transforming digital energy infrastructure into a source of high-temperature, low-carbon heat.” source 2.1 Evidence that heat-recycling is now occuring at scale District heating and water heating: MARA is now warming a town of ~80,000 residents in Finland using heat generated from Bitcoin mining operations. This is possible through district heating which involves centrally heating water using Bitcoin mining-generated heat and distributing it through underground pipes to local buildings. Heating public swimming pools: Global News recently covered how Bitcoin mining recycled electrical heat could be used to heat a public swimming pool, while earning money for the community Residential space heating: Home heating has grown from a fledgling industry in 2021 to a competitive market in 2025 with multiple vendors offering options to heat homes using electric heaters that mine Bitcoin in parallel, including 21energy, Heatbit and D-Central. Drying Lumber requires huge amounts of energy at a constant rate, but not so high as to “cook” the wood, making it a perfect candidate for Bitcoin mining exhaust heating. This started at scale in Norway, and is now being investigated in other countries. Heating for Horticulture: Bitcoin Brabant, led by Bert de Groot, has been helping decarbonize the greenhouse industry in the Netherlands by using solar-powered Bitcoin mining to deliver heat for the greenhouses. This reduces the greenhouse industry’s reliance on natural gas. There are already many such greenhouses being heated by Bitcoin mining, and this use has the potential to scale to help industrial greenhouses wean themselves off the need for natural-gas based heating. Replacing gas heating of greenhouses is a common use of Bitcoin exhaust heat. Bitcoin Brabant is now scaling this up, using solar powered Bitcoin mining Fish farming: Meanwhile, in Germany, there’s the Green Bitcoin Farm which harvests solar energy and uses it to operate high-performance computers in the Bitcoin network. They then use the waste heat generated by the ASIC miners for drying medicinal herbs, indoor rearing of edible fish, and vertical farming. Using Bitcoin recycled heat to heat the water for fish farms is also a common use in China. 2.2 One-off applications with the potential to scale In 2023, Shelter Point Distillery in Campbell River, Canada, created the ‘world’s first sustainable digital tumbler‘ by attaching a Bitcoin miner to provide heat for the whiskey aging process. Genesis Digital Assets (GDA) launched a Bitcoin mining heat repurposing project in Norsjö, Sweden, using renewable hydro-energy. The recycled heat is used to reduce the costs of preventing snow-cleaning trucks from freezing in an area prone to harsh winters. Constellation Heating uses its Star Heater to repurpose heat to maintain pool temperatures, replacing more emission intensive techniques such as gas heating. A car and truck wash in Idaho replaced its fossil-fuel based gas heating system with a Bitcoin mining heating system, using a Fog Hashing B6 immersion tank and Bitcoin ASIC miners to generate heat. When this New York Bath House started using Bitcoin heat to heat its water, it drew attention to how common the practice of using Bitcoin mining to heat water is now becoming. 3. Lift speed and profitability of R&D into new renewable energy projects 3.1 OTEC Bitcoin mining has been responsible for reviving mothballed renewable energy technologies such as OTEC, that the Reagan administration stopped funding in the 1980s. Unlike Solar and Wind technologies which are intermittent, OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Technology) is able to deliver reliable baseload electricity. OTEC however suffered from a lack of funding, because it is very expensive to develop novel offshore energy generation capacity in the tropics which is grid-tethererd. In addition to the challenge that offshore wind faces in supplying power back to the grid, OTEC must also develop hurricane resistance. Nate Harmon: Hawaiian Oceanographer, Clean Energy Pioneer and CEO of OceanBit, which uses Bitcoin mining to catalyze OTEC R&D Bitcoin mining on sea barges removes these constraints by providing a consumer of OTEC energy in situ. This means that the next scale-up R&D effort for OTEC is suddenly economically viable, because the operation will not need the considerable cost of being grid-tethered and made hurricane-proof. While eventually the aim of OTEC is that it will deliver power back to the grid, Bitcoin mining is playing a critical role in catalyzing the economic viability of the scale-up phase of R&D that prior to Bitcoin mining had been mothballed since the 1980s. OceanBit, which is developing OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Technology) was recently profiled in Forbes Magazine. OTEC was mothballed in the 1980s for political rather than technological reasons. OceanBit aims to produce abundant baseload renewable energy. Bitcoin mining is according to CEO Nate Harnon what enabled them to dust the mothballs off OTEC and start working on making OTEC economically viable. 3.2 Renewable Microgrids Gridless Compute, a Nairobi-based startup, is tackling one of Africa’s most persistent challenges: bringing reliable, renewable energy to remote communities. Traditional microgrid projects often fail due to high upfront costs and lack of consistent demand. Gridless Compute’s innovation? Pairing solar and hydropower microgrids with Bitcoin mining to create a guaranteed, flexible energy buyer. Image Source: CNBC In this presentation, Erik Hersman, the founder of Gridless showcases how broken the energy model in Africa is, resulting in 600 Million African living without electricity, and demonstrated how Bitcoin mining is already starting to unlock untapped renewable energy resources to solve this issue. Gridless says it’s sites have already powered 8,000 homes that were without electricity: 1,200 houses in Zambia, 1,800 in Malawi and 5,000 in Kenya. Academic studies have long argued that demand flexibility is key to microgrid viability. Gridless proves this by using Bitcoin mining as a “digital battery,” monetizing surplus energy that would otherwise go unused. As CEO Erik Hersman notes, “Bitcoin mining turns stranded energy into economic lifelines.” With plans to deploy 20 microgrids across sub-Saharan Africa by 2025, Gridless is demonstrating how Bitcoin can democratize energy access while accelerating decarbonization. 3.3 Other climatetech endeavors As humans adapt to Climate Change, the challenge of getting enough drinking water to arid countries becomes an increasing challenge. There is no one solution to this challenge, but part of the solution is to improve the cost-effectiveness of desalination, which is very energy intensive. MARA, who have also pioneered Landfill Gas powered Bitcoin mining, home heating, flare-gas mitigation and wind-powered Bitcoin mining, has begun investing in improving desalination technology while concurrently using Bitcoin mining heat, rather than natural gas, to desalinate water. This results in more water desalination per dollar of energy spent. This innovation if scaled, has the potential to increase water abundance in arid countries. 4. End carbon-intensive environmental practices (Gas Peaker Plant utilization, methane venting and methane flaring) 4.1 Gas Peaker Plants Gas peaker plants, notorious for high emissions and idle-time inefficiencies, are being obviated in Texas thanks to Bitcoin mining’s demand flexibility. Following Winter Storm Uri in 2021, ERCOT CEO Brad Jones integrated Bitcoin miners into grid stability programs. By 2024, 3 GW of mining capacity participated in demand response. In a recent report from the Digital Assets Research Institute (DARI,) the data shows that Bitcoin mining has now become a critical part of Texas’ ability to scale up the concentration of renewable energy on the electrical grid to meet the needs of their population growth. The ability for Bitcoin miners to curtail usage at peak times was sown to have saved Texas taxpayers $18 Billion because ERCOT did not need to purchase highly polluting peaker plants. During extreme weather, miners power down within seconds, freeing electricity for critical needs. For instance, during the July 2023 heatwave, Texas miners curtailed 1.2 GW (equivalent to three peaker plants’ output). Peer-reviewed studies by Bruno et al. (2023) support Bitcoin mining’s ability to eliminate grid reliance on peaker plants. ERCOT’s success demonstrates that flexible load resources like Bitcoin mining are not just alternatives to peaker plants—they are superior, more cost-effective replacements that support a greater concentration of renewable energy on the grid. 4.2 Turning Landfill Methane into a Climate Asset Landfills account for 17% of global methane emissions, a gas 84x more potent than CO2. Traditional solutions, like flaring or building gas pipelines, are often impractical because very few commercial operations can co-locate next to a landfill, or prohibitively expensive due to the cost required to upgrade the grid to handle additional electricity upload. Bitcoin mining offers a breakthrough: mobile mining units can convert vented methane into electricity on-site, eliminating emissions and generating revenue. In 2023, Vespene launched its 1.6 MW landfill gas-powered Bitcoin mining operation in Marathon County, one of five Bitcoin mining companies to do so. The project will mitigate 20,000 tonnes of CO2e per year. A new study was released in 2024 demonstrating that using landfill gas (LFG) for Bitcoin mining is economically viable, sustainable, and environmentally beneficial. Meanwhile, NodalPower now conduct landfill gas powered Bitcoin mining on two separate sites. Bitcoin mining companies like NodalPower and Vespene Energy deploy modular data centers at landfills, using methane to power miners. Over the duration of a project, Municipalities earn millions in power which can be reinvested into community programs, while saving millions in flare maintenance costs. Meanwhile, the methane becomes a climate asset rather than a liability. There are currently five Bitcoin mining operations operating on landfills, who are turning trash into digital gold. It would only take 35 mid-sized venting landfills with Bitcoin-mining power-generation operations on them to take the entire Bitcoin network carbon-negative. 4.3 Ending Oilfield Flaring Gas flaring, which wastes energy while emitting the climate super-warmer methane, persists globally despite World Bank efforts to stop almost all flaring by 2030. To date we have found few ways to make good that intention, with flaring in regions including the Middle East having recently been shown to cause more toxic gases than previously feared. Bitcoin mining is increasingly recognized in independent reports to be a potential scalable solution to this problem. Cambridge’s April 2025 Bitcoin Mining Report for example called Bitcoin mining a “Potential Solution to Gas Flaring” that shows the “potential for innovation to simultaneously address environmental challenges”, estimating that Bitcoin mining was mitigating 2.2 MT of CO2e emissions per year. In North Dakota for example, Crusoe’s projects reduced flaring by 99% at partnered sites. Similarly, Upstream Data’s Canadian operations have been cutting flaring since 2017. In another example, climate tech company Unblock Global has achieved 15MW of flare gas powered bitcoin mining in Argentina. The company has a mission to eliminate flaring in Latin America and raised $15 million to use flared gas from Argentina’s Vaca Muerta, to power its operations. These are three of the 29 Bitcoin mining companies that have found a way to solve the 160-year old problem of wasted flare gas. It is for this reason that the World Economic Forum recently praised Crusoe’s Bitcoin mining operation for helping the UN in its efforts to reduce methane emissions. Yet NGOs like Sierra Club continue to reflexively dismiss measurable progress such as this as “greenwashing”, saying that any company partnering with Oil&Gas to reduce flaring is “perpetuating the profits of oil companies.” As our earlier article on Gas Flaring highlights, this argument is not only flawed, but it has arguably led to the elongation of the practice of gas flaring. Without Bitcoin mining, the alternative is continued flaring. However, by monetizing waste gas, Bitcoin mining uniquely aligns economic incentives with environmental progress. 4.4 Summary: How Bitcoin Mining helps cut methane emissions and end environmentally harmful gas dependencies These Bitcoin mining projects are neither one-offs, not small. There are 29 Bitcoin mining companies who are carbon negative that we know of (using methane emissions as their fuel source), and 3 GW of gas peaker plants (that we know of) that have been obviated as a direct result of Bitcoin mining. The combined impact of carbon-negative Bitcoin mining is that mitigation has already reached 7% of the Bitcoin network’s emissions. As mentioned above, according to the Digital Assets Research Institute, and another 35 mid-sized venting landfills is all it will take for the entire Bitcoin network to become carbon negative. Remarkable, Bitcoin mining has in the last three years demonstrated an ability to profitably and scaleably tackle all three of these thorny environmental challenges where other technologies have proven either unprofitable, unscalable or both. Remarkable, Bitcoin mining has in the last three years demonstrated an ability to profitably and scaleably tackle all three of these thorny environmental challenges where other technologies have proven either unprofitable, unscalable or both. 5. Preserving nature Monetizing wasted renewable energy not only accelerates the energy transition but also helps save nature. For example, in East Congo, lies Virunga National Park, a 7,800 Km2 terrain that’s home to half of Africa’s terrestrial species. During COVID the park was threatened with closure, having lost most of its income, and having no way to pay its staff that protected the park from poachers, and militias who cut down trees to use as charcoal for fuel due to energy shortages in the region. Park Director Emanuel de Mode stated that Virunga “would have gone bust as a national park if not for Bitcoin mining.” The jobs created through the Bitcoin mining operation also provide an alternative income for the militias currently burning down rainforest to sell charcoal. Also, within Virunga National Park lies a chocolate factory that the exhaust heat from Bitcoin mining is providing the drying for, reducing costs and helping to pay those who work there a living wage. This is not a one-off example. In Costa Rica, Bitcoin mining prevented the loss of a 60Ha of land which had been in Eduardo Kopper’s family for 5 generations, and financed its transformation into an eco-sanctuary. The model used was identical to Virunga: utilize the otherwise stranded and wasted surplus hydropower to do Bitcoin mining onsite, and reinvest that into saving the land. Critics often assume, without research, “they could have done something else with that stranded energy”. Such a view is not only naive, it also diminishes the environmental contributions of stewards of the land such as de Mode in Virunga Kenya, and Kopper in Poaz Costa Rica, neither of whom were Bitcoiners, and both who spent years researching what to do with that stranded energy before realizing that Bitcoin mining was their one available option due to its unique location-agnostic, time-of-day agnostic features. 6. The unintended consequence of uninformed criticism While in some cases Bitcoin mining companies have looked for opportunities that enhance nature, it is equally true that sometimes they have neglected it. Before late-2021, a lot of Bitcoin mining was coal-based, A Bitcoin mining operation stole considerable electricity from the grid, while another in Niagara Falls was fined for being being an excessively noisy neighbor. There have been other instances of such noise complaints also. Critics and journalists should expose genuine bad actors. When it comes to this reporting, three glaring problems stand out. Firstly, for every genuinely bad actor, there have been misreported reports of bad actors that weren’t. For example, Greenidge Generation was misreported both as opening a gas plant for Bitcoin mining, which caused toxic algal blooms in an adjacent lake (it didn’t, it opened to provide power back to the grid, and there was no elevated lake temperature). Other reports have falsely accused Bitcoin mining companies of raising Texas electricity prices, destabilizing the grid and using excessive water. These claims all turned out to be not only baseless or based on very poor data, but contradicted by studies which reveal Bitcoin mining in fact has stabilized the grid (see claim 21) and helped lower electricity prices (see claim 22) by reducing curtailment fees while raising grid operator revenues. An anti-Bitcoin reporting bias only antagonizes those in the Bitcoin mining industry towards reporters, and deflects the attention that should be given to genuinely bad actors. The second issue is that those reporting on one off examples where Bitcoin mining operations are alleged to have negatively impacted a community have tended to also take a subjective side-swipe at the entire industry. Time Magazine did this in their Feb 2024 coverage of a Bitcoin mining company’s noise levels. More recently, the Cooldown used this same recipe by adding to an otherwise accurate piece of reporting on the Thai Bitcoin operation a wholly inaccurate statement “Whether done legally or illegally, the environmental impact of cryptocurrency mining cannot be understated.” The comment is an example of a side-swipe that ignores the scientific consensus. In this instance, the article cited a comprehensively debunked outlier study on Bitcoin mining to back up the statement. Again, such statements antagonize the industry against the reporting organization, rather than keeping the focus on what may be a genuine issue worthy of examination. But the third issue is the most severe, because it doesn’t just hurt Bitcoin mining but the wider climate movement. Criticism, particularly from Environmental NGOs, without understanding of Bitcoin’s ability to end gas peaker plant reliance and substantially reduce flaring has directly contributed to the elongation of both the need for gas peaker plants, and the practice of natural gas flaring. (See linked studies for evidence of how NGO criticism of Bitcoin mining has backfired for the Climate movement). 7. The Carbon Payback Time of Climatetech It should not be trivialized that Bitcoin mining currently emits 46 Mt CO2-eq of emissions annually according to the Digital Assets Research Institute (up from the already significant 41 MT CO2e in 2021). The habit of some in the Bitcoin ecosystem of saying “But other industries omit much more” has earned the ire of some in the environmental movement and rightly so; every industry must take steps to reduce its environmental footprint. Equally, context matters: the photovoltaic (PV) industry, despite its critical role in decarbonizing energy systems, did not achieve a net-positive carbon balance until 2011—57 years after the first solar cell was invented in 1954. PV manufacturing continues to this day to rely on energy-intensive processes and coal furnaces to melt silicon during the manufacture process, however it is widely accepted that the photovoliatic industry is net emission producing, because it now reduces many times more emissions than it creates. All climatetech, including solar, has a carbon debt in the initial phase. Yet few recognize this when evaluating a nascent technology’s net environmental impact Similarly, Bitcoin’s emissions must be considered alongside its proven role in cutting methane (84x more potent than CO2), scaling renewables and other factors mentioned in this article. More importantly, like EVs, those emissions are not “additional”. By using the Bitcoin network, one is utilizing a fully electrified technology in preference to two substantially more emission intensive industries, The Banking system (as a method of transacting), and the Gold mining (as a store of value). The combination of much more careful research by critics and less trivializing of the real current-day emissions of Bitcoin mining will go a long way to ensuring Bitcoin mining realizes its full potential as a key tool of climate action. A balanced evaluation of Bitcoin mining, as with any emerging climate technology, requires assessing both its current footprint and its future potential. Just as early solar investments paved the way for today’s carbon-negative PV industry, Bitcoin mining’s ability to fund renewable infrastructure, eliminate methane emissions, and stabilize grids may ultimately yield net reductions far exceeding its operational emissions. Policymakers and environmental stakeholders must adopt this balanced lens, looking not only at current emissions but future potential. A good rule of thumb is this: if our rubric for evaluating a nascent technology’s climate impact would have resulted in solar panels being banned in the 1990s (when the photovoltaic industry created considerably more emissions than it abated), then it is likely to be a bad methodology. Conclusion: Bitcoin Mining is Tier 1 Climate Action Bitcoin mining has emerged as a linchpin for addressing four systemic barriers to climate progress, as demonstrated by both real-world data and case studies. First, Bitcoin mining directly tackles renewable energy bottlenecks. It does this by monetizing stranded power, miners reduced interconnection queues in Texas and Ethiopia, enabling wind farms like US Bitcoin Corp’s 280 MW Texas project, while cutting curtailment fees. Jaichi West for example found that just a 4% reduction of curtailment led to a 12% increase in profitability. Solar and wind payback periods, once 8.1 years, now fall to 3.5 years when paired with mining, which has led Germany’s largest Telco, Deutsche Telekom and Japan’s largest Utility, Tepco, to start utilizing Bitcoin mining for their previously wasted renewable energy. Second, Bitcoin mining replaces fossil-based heat at scale. MARA’s district heating system now warms 80,000 residents in Finland. Collectively, Bitcoin mining in Finland supplies district heat to 2% of the country’s population. Similar projects, from drying lumber in Norway to decarbonizing Dutch greenhouses (Bitcoin Brabant), prove that waste heat can displace gas-dependent processes. Third, Bitcoin mining accelerates R&D for neglected climatetech. OceanBit revived OTEC, a previously mothballed baseload renewable energy source, by using Bitcoin mining as a catalyst to bypass otherwise prohibitive R&D costs. Gridless Compute’s Kenya-based microgrids, powered by biomass and hydro paired with mining, electrified 8,000 homes across Africa and aim to deploy 20 grids by the end of 2025. Fourth, Bitcoin mining curtails methane emissions with measurable impact. Bitcoin mining collectively mitigates 3.2 million tons of CO2e annually, while Texas’ ERCOT saved taxpayers $18 billion by using 3 GW of mining demand flexibility to avoid building new fossil-fuel intensive gas peaker plants. Critics who dismiss these efforts as “greenwashing” overlook not only the sheer volume and scale at which Bitcoin mining is now measurably enabling climate action across multiple areas, but also the hard data: 61.5% of Bitcoin mining now uses >98% sustainable energy, and carbon-negative mining (29 companies) already offsets 7% of the network’s emissions. Projects like Virunga National Park—which credits Bitcoin mining for saving its 7,800 km² rainforest and funding anti-poaching and deforestation efforts—show that Bitcoin mining’s value extends beyond energy systems to biodiversity preservation. To policymakers and NGOs: the evidence is clear. Bitcoin mining is no longer a hypothetical solution—it is already resolving the grid instability issues at scale that accompany higher concentrations of solar/wind energy, electrifying parts of rural Africa, and funding OTEC breakthroughs. Rejecting Bitcoin mining’s contribution to climate action risks prolonging reliance on gas peakers, methane flaring, and methane venting. In the race to net-zero, Bitcoin mining is not optional—it’s operational. Let’s embrace it, research it, and leverage its unique ability to solve some of the toughest roadblocks en route to our Net Zero Emission goals. Footnote: Bitcoin achieves these climate outcomes while providing a number of equally numerous humanitarian benefits at an increasing scale. But that is a subject for another article.

Overview
--------

As a climatetech investor, I consider our top four climate issues that technology can help us resolve to be:

**1\. Remove bottlenecks to getting more renewable energy onto the Grid**

Accelerating the green energy transition means we must overcome these four sub-challenges:

*   reduce interconnection queues
*   reduce wasted solar and wind energy and cut curtailment fees
*   reduce the 8.1 year payback period for solar and wind generation facilities
*   raise flexible energy generation demand

**2\. Replace Fossil fuel based heat with electrically based heat**

**3\. Increase the speed and profitability of R&D into new renewable energy projects**

**4\. Urgently end three carbon-intensive practices**: Use of Gas Peaker Plants, methane venting and methane flaring

This paper will examine, using existing case studies and research, how Bitcoin mining could be an important catalysts for climate action in each of these four categories.

Background: why the narrative on Bitcoin and the environment changed?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

From 2018-2022, most of the narrative on Bitcoin mining focused on negative environmental impacts. These commentaries focused on issues such as excessive emissions, water use and e-waste “per transaction”. This narrative started to shift in late 2022, and by 2024 had been replaced with a narrative that focused mainly on positive environmental externalities.

There was no single factor that caused this shift. The changes were due to a combination of

1.  Better data. Earlier data relied heavily on the work of Alex de Vries. In 2023 however [Sai and Vranken](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2096720923000441) found significant flaws in his methodologies concerning how he measured eWaste, water consumption, energy consumption and emissions. Cambridge recently reinforced this, finding that de Vries’ eWaste estimation was overestimated by more than 1000%. Other studies such as Lei et al found fundamental flaws in his use of Bitcoin resource consumption “per transaction” (Bitcoin does not in fact consume energy or water per transaction).
2.  The [greening](https://forkast.news/bitcoin-minings-green-mile-54-5-sustainable-energy-use/) of the Bitcoin mining network itself. In 2018-2021, Bitcoin mining did indeed use a higher fossil fuel consumption than other sectors such as the banking sector. However more recent studies show that Bitcoin mining now uses predominantly sustainably sourced power
3.  As the research community has better understood the nascent technology, more nuanced and complete studies on Bitcoin mining in academic circles has emerged. [14 of the last 16 papers](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/danielsbatten_from-mining-to-mitigation-how-bitcoin-can-activity-7280429495679963136-2E-q?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop) on Bitcoin and energy now support the thesis that numerous positive environmental impacts arise from Bitcoin mining. Media outlets then shifted their reporting to reflect the new data. Today, the majority of [sustainability magazines](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/danielsbatten_bitcoin-miner-mara-buying-114-mw-wind-farm-activity-7280432749180559360-AaWO/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop) who cover Bitcoin mining highlight its benefits, while 85.7% of [mainstream news coverage](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/danielsbatten_why-bitcoin-is-key-to-the-future-of-finance-activity-7278907968035700737-9IwO/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop) on Bitcoin mining and energy since 2023 has also been positive.

This shift is covered at length in our earlier piece “[Is Bitcoin good or bad for the environment?](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/bitcoin-good-bad-environment-im-confused-daniel-batten-racec/?trackingId=wax2F0yrRQ2xupf%2BsSl9bA%3D%3D)” which we would recommend that readers who are unfamiliar with the changing view in the academic community and among energy commentators read first.

To date, despite the improved studies on Bitcoin mining, they have tended to appear only in academic journals which may be inaccessible to the general public or those not familiar with the idiosyncracies of how grid infrastructure or methane mitigation works. Specifically, there not yet been an evidence-based article that attempts to objectively synthesize the different ways Bitcoin supports, or could in the future support, climate action. This article makes a first humble attempt to do so, using a combination of peer reviewed research sources, case studies and [Whitepapers](https://www.da-ri.org/science-hub), to come up with an overall perspective on how Bitcoin is, and could in the future, promote Climate Action.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/image-5-1024x576.png)

1\. Remove bottlenecks to getting more renewable energy onto the Grid
---------------------------------------------------------------------

### Why resolving these four challenges is critical

**Interconnection Queues** Lengthy interconnection queues delay renewable projects from connecting to the grid. Reasons for delay include old transmission infrastructure, regulatory bottlenecks, limited grid capacity, lack of financing for the renewable project, and concern from the grid operator about the impact on the grid of more intermittent power sources. These delays can be [as long as 10-15 years](https://ratedpower.com/blog/UK-interconnection-delays/), slowing the renewable transition, and compromising our net zero emission goals.

**Wasted Renewable Energy and Curtailment** Intermittent renewable generation often exceeds grid demand, forcing renewable operators to curtail excess energy. Curtailment can have [far-reaching consequences](https://www.pfnexus.com/blog/what-is-curtailment), impacting not only the financial viability of renewable projects but also grid stability. It also hurts economically, with added costs often [being handed on to consumers](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-02497-0), because the grid operator must often [pay the renewable generator a fee](https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/lord/lord-ashcombe2/bill/2024-26/greatbritishenergy) for not being able to take their energy. Australia for example is currently [wasting 25%](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-08/renewable-energy-wasted-as-australia-greens/104321770) of all renewable energy. Such waste not only hurts economically, it slows down the renewable transition both directly and indirectly: directly by reducing the profitability and therefore the expansion-speed of renewable operators, and indirectly by giving fuel to [opponents of renewable energy](https://www.britannica.com/procon/alternative-energy-debate) to question the viability of the renewable transition itself.

**Create more demand-side flexibility** Variable Renewable Energy such as solar and wind generation require electrical grids to balance variable supply with adaptable demand. Lack of flexible demand (industries that can adjust usage) or demand response programs results in grid instability, making it harder to justify expanding renewables without risking grid reliability. Flexible consumers provide grid operators with the confidence to be able to increase the amount of variable renewable energy generation on a grid, knowing they have a demand-side shock-absorber in place.

**Long Payback Periods for Solar/Wind Facilities** High upfront costs and slow returns (often 8–10+ years) limit cash flow for reinvestment. Extended payback periods deter investors and slow the scaling of renewable projects, delaying the transition from fossil fuels.

#### How Bitcoin mining alleviates each renewable grid transition challenges

By acting as a flexible, location-agnostic energy buyer, Bitcoin mining can reduce bottlenecks in renewable energy deployment, cut waste, and incentivize the construction of new renewable energy infrastructure.

Let’s explore how Bitcoin mining achieves this through four key mechanisms: reducing interconnection queues, minimizing wasted energy, raising flexible energy demand, and shortening the payback period for renewable energy projects.

### 1.1 Reduce Renewable Energy Interconnection Queues

One of the biggest challenges in deploying renewable energy is the lengthy interconnection queue process. In the U.S. alone, there are over 2,000 gigawatts (GW) of renewable energy projects waiting to be connected to the grid, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. These projects often face delays of several years due to regulatory hurdles, grid capacity constraints, and the need for costly infrastructure upgrades.

Bitcoin mining can help alleviate this bottleneck by providing a flexible customer for renewable energy projects. Unlike other electricity consumers, miners can set up operations near renewable energy sites, bypassing the need for grid interconnection altogether. This allows energy producers to start generating revenue immediately, rather than waiting years for approval. For example, in West Texas, Bitcoin miners have partnered with wind farms to monetize excess energy that would otherwise be stranded due to grid constraints.

In Ethiopia, the Electric Power Agency has welcomed Bitcoin miners to buy excess energy from the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), in turn, powering growth and green energy and earning the country [$55M in 10 months](https://bitcoinke.io/2024/11/bitcoin-mining-revenue-in-ethiopia/), which they are using to build out additional transmission capacity to deliver more renewable energy

The scientific community agrees: by reducing the financial and logistical barriers to renewable energy deployment, Bitcoin mining accelerates the adoption of clean energy, a finding that is supported by [You et al](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c05445), 2023 _(Mining to Mitigation: How Bitcoin Can Support Renewable Energy Development and Climate Action)_ and [Menati et al](https://www.sciencedirect.


How Activist NGOs Have Unintentionally STALLED Progress TOWARDS Ending Gas Flaring

The World Bank set an ambitious goal: eliminate nearly all gas flaring by 2030. Flaring, the burning of excess natural gas during oil extraction, is a major environmental problem, releasing millions of tons of CO2e (CO2 equivalents) in the form of methane and other toxic pollutants into the atmosphere annually. The problem is, flaring only burns 91.1% of the methane, so the other 8.9% goes unburnt directly into the atmosphere. This contributes to climate change significantly because methane is 84 times more warming over a 20 year period than CO2. In regions like the Middle East, flaring has been shown to cause more harm than previously thought, with recent studies revealing higher levels of toxic gases like benzene and sulfur dioxide (source: World Bank Global Gas Flaring Tracker, 2023). Despite the urgency, progress to end flaring has been slow. While there are many factors at play, but one of the most significant barrier is also the most overlooked: environmental NGOs themselves, specifically a small handful of the more ideologically-driven activist environmental NGOs. These organizations, while well-intentioned, have consistently criticized and undermined almost all efforts from outside commercial organizations to collaborate with oil and gas companies to reduce flaring. In this article, we’ll examine how this tendency to label such initiatives as “greenwashing,” their failure to offer viable alternatives, and their creation of an environment of fear have disincentivized other industries from partnering with oil companies to address this critical issue. The result? Flaring continues unabated and the environment, that these NGOs exist to be faithful stewards to, suffers. False positives: The harmful side-effect of calling something “greenwash” that’s not One counter-productive tendency of these NGOs has been their eagerness to label any and all collaboration with oil and gas companies as “greenwashing.” This term, which refers to superficial or misleading environmental claims, has become a catch-all critique for any effort to reduce flaring. These environmental NGO critiques are often reactive rather than analytical. For instance, when General Electric (GE) and Baker Hughes developed technologies to capture and utilize stranded gas, environmental groups like Sierra Club and Greenpeace accused them of “enabling continued fossil fuel extraction” without acknowledging the tangible emissions reductions these technologies achieved (source: Sierra Club Statement, 2020; Greenpeace International, 2020). By focusing on ideological purity rather than measurable outcomes, these NGOs have created a chilling effect, discouraging companies from pursuing innovative solutions to flaring. Incredibly, these criticisms have continued even when direct, measurable, and significant reduction of methane emissions has been the result. For example, when Crusoe Energy, a Bitcoin mining company, partnered with oil producers to convert flared gas into electricity, Jesse Simons, Deputy Director of Sierra Club’s Beyond Dirty Fuels Campaign, dismissed the initiative as “propping up the fossil fuel industry” (source: Sierra Club Press Release, 2022). Similarly, John Noël, Senior Climate Campaigner at Greenpeace USA, criticized ExxonMobil’s pilot project with Crusoe in the Permian Basin, calling it a “distraction from the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels entirely” (source: Greenpeace USA Statement, 2021). Criticism Without Solutions Another issue is the tendency of these NGOs to criticize without offering alternatives. For example, when BP partnered with Climeworks, a carbon capture company, to explore using captured methane for industrial purposes, and when Shell worked with Enerflex, a gas processing company to reduce flaring at their oilfields, Carroll Muffett, President of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), accused both companies of using flaring reduction as a “public relations tool” (source: CIEL Press Release, 2021). Similarly, Friends of the Earth criticized waste-to-energy startup Ener-Core for “perpetuating the fossil fuel economy” without proposing a practical alternative for addressing stranded gas (source: Friends of the Earth Report, 2019). While it is an absolutely legitimate function of an environmental NGO to help the public understand when genuine greenwash is at play, the universal tendency across NGOs to label all collaborations with oil companies to end flaring as “greenwash” suggests strongly that there is neither analysis nor discrimination at play here on the part of these environmental NGOs, rather guilty verdict by virtue of the fact one would deign to partner with an oil company. Well, if outside organizations cannot partner with oil companies to deal with methane emissions, oil companies will continue with their own solution: flaring. The environment deserves better service than that. This pattern of criticism without constructive solutions is not only unhelpful but counterproductive. Flaring is a complex problem that requires immediate action. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that oil will still account for 22% of global energy demand in 2050, even in a net-zero scenario (source: IEA Net Zero by 2050 Report, 2021). Given this reality, the choice is not between oil production and no oil production—it is between flaring/venting and utilizing the gas in a way that reduces emissions. By dismissing efforts to address flaring without offering viable alternatives, these NGOs have effectively pushed the industry toward the most environmentally harmful option: continued flaring. How an Environment of Fear Disincentivizes Collaboration Perhaps the most counterproductive consequence of these NGOs’ actions is the environment of fear they have created. Companies that might otherwise partner with oil and gas producers to reduce flaring are often deterred by the risk of reputational damage. For example, renewable energy developers like NextEra Energy and Ørsted have considered using stranded gas for power generation but faced backlash from groups like 350.org and Oil Change International. These organizations accused NextEra of “betraying its renewable energy mission” and Ørsted of “legitimizing the fossil fuel industry” (source: 350.org Press Release, 2021; Oil Change International Report, 2021). This environment of fear has stifled innovation and collaboration. Waste-to-energy startups, renewable energy developers, and even technology giants like GE and Baker Hughes have been reluctant to engage with oil and gas companies, fearing the wrath of activist NGOs. The result is a missed opportunity to reduce emissions and accelerate the transition to a cleaner energy future. Bitcoin Mining: A Pragmatic Exception In this context, Bitcoin mining has emerged as a rare exception. Companies like Crusoe Energy and Upstream Data have been willing to partner with oil producers to convert flared gas into electricity, reducing emissions and generating economic value. These initiatives have been praised by the World Economic Forum for their tangible impact on flaring reduction, even as they face criticism from some NGOs. Crusoe’s projects in North Dakota and Wyoming have reduced flaring by over 90% at partnered sites (source: Crusoe Energy Case Studies, 2023). Similarly, Upstream Data’s operations in Canada have prevented millions of tons of CO2-equivalent emissions annually (source: Upstream Data Reports, 2022). Bitcoin mining’s success in addressing flaring highlights the importance of focusing on outcomes over ideology. NGOs like Sierra Club and Greenpeace were highly criticized of these partnerships at their inception, but have not acknowledged the measurable emissions reductions they ended up achieving. Analysis before ideology For us to have any hope of working collaboratively to end flaring, it’s critical for enviromental NGOs to step up and stop crying “greenwash” without analysis, as has been their tendency, to the detriment of the environment and collaborative action. The fight against flaring is too important to be derailed by ideological purity, and there is a phrase in the environmental movement that they would do well to remember “the perfect is the enemy of the good”. While the intentions of activist NGOs are good, good intentions divorsed from nuanced thinking can and has been counterproductive to the very environmental progress they only exist to create. Their reactive criticism, lack of viable alternatives, and creation of an environment of fear have hindered progress on this critical issue. To truly address flaring, we need a new approach—one that prioritizes measurable outcomes and encourages collaboration. These critiques, while well-intentioned, are misguided. By discouraging collaboration with oil companies, these NGOs inadvertently push the industry to deal with methane emissions in the most environmentally harmful way: flaring or venting. Continued inaction is simply not an option. It’s time for environmental organizations to stop criticicing every imperfect effort to move forward, and get their own house in order. In practical terms, this means: Properly evaluating whether collaborations are greenwash, or whether they can make a measurable difference Learning to work alongside commercial operations to better understand their motivations and strategies before simply criticizing them Taking time to do their own research, including engaging with experts in the domain (something that has been conspicuous by its absent in NGOs criticisms of Bitcoin mining and other industries) Take responsibility for the fact that they have the power to aid environmental progress, but equally the power to hinder progress through criticizing they may not fully understand and which may in fact be a solution, or part of the solution. Free themselves from the trap of overzealously declaring “greenwashing” even when it’s a false positive, and focus on what really matters: working collaboratively to reduce emissions and protecting the environment.

The World Bank set an ambitious goal: eliminate nearly [all gas flaring by 2030](https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/zero-routine-flaring-by-2030). Flaring, the burning of excess natural gas during oil extraction, is a [major environmental problem](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63051458), releasing millions of tons of CO2e (CO2 equivalents) in the form of methane and other toxic pollutants into the atmosphere annually. The problem is, flaring only burns 91.1% of the methane, so the other 8.9% goes unburnt directly into the atmosphere. This contributes to climate change significantly because methane is [84 times more warming](https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/speech/methane-action-tackling-warming-planet) over a 20 year period than CO2.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Screen-Shot-2025-01-28-at-9.59.33-AM-1024x679.png)

In regions like the Middle East, flaring has been shown to cause more harm than previously thought, with recent studies revealing [higher levels of toxic gases](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67522413) like benzene and sulfur dioxide (source: _World Bank Global Gas Flaring Tracker, 2023_). Despite the urgency, progress to end flaring has been slow. While there are many factors at play, but one of the most significant barrier is also the most overlooked: environmental NGOs themselves, specifically a small handful of the more ideologically-driven activist environmental NGOs.

These organizations, while well-intentioned, have consistently criticized and undermined almost all efforts from outside commercial organizations to collaborate with oil and gas companies to reduce flaring. In this article, we’ll examine how this tendency to label such initiatives as “greenwashing,” their failure to offer viable alternatives, and their creation of an environment of fear have disincentivized other industries from partnering with oil companies to address this critical issue.

The result? Flaring continues unabated and the environment, that these NGOs exist to be faithful stewards to, suffers.

* * *

### False positives: **The harmful side-effect of calling something “greenwash” that’s not**

One counter-productive tendency of these NGOs has been their eagerness to label any and all collaboration with oil and gas companies as “greenwashing.” This term, which refers to superficial or misleading environmental claims, has become a catch-all critique for any effort to reduce flaring.

These environmental NGO critiques are often reactive rather than analytical. For instance, when General Electric (GE) and Baker Hughes developed technologies to capture and utilize stranded gas, environmental groups like Sierra Club and Greenpeace accused them of “enabling continued fossil fuel extraction” without acknowledging the tangible emissions reductions these technologies achieved (source: _Sierra Club Statement, 2020_; _Greenpeace International, 2020_). By focusing on ideological purity rather than measurable outcomes, these NGOs have created a chilling effect, discouraging companies from pursuing innovative solutions to flaring.

Incredibly, these criticisms have continued even when direct, measurable, and significant reduction of methane emissions has been the result. For example, when Crusoe Energy, a Bitcoin mining company, partnered with oil producers to convert flared gas into electricity, Jesse Simons, Deputy Director of Sierra Club’s Beyond Dirty Fuels Campaign, dismissed the initiative as “propping up the fossil fuel industry” (source: _Sierra Club Press Release, 2022_). Similarly, John Noël, Senior Climate Campaigner at Greenpeace USA, criticized ExxonMobil’s pilot project with Crusoe in the Permian Basin, calling it a “distraction from the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels entirely” (source: _Greenpeace USA Statement, 2021_).

* * *

### **Criticism Without Solutions**

Another issue is the tendency of these NGOs to criticize without offering alternatives. For example, when BP partnered with Climeworks, a carbon capture company, to explore using captured methane for industrial purposes, and when Shell worked with Enerflex, a gas processing company to reduce flaring at their oilfields, Carroll Muffett, President of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), accused both companies of using flaring reduction as a “public relations tool” (source: _CIEL Press Release, 2021_). Similarly, Friends of the Earth criticized waste-to-energy startup Ener-Core for “perpetuating the fossil fuel economy” without proposing a practical alternative for addressing stranded gas (source: _Friends of the Earth Report, 2019_).

While it is an absolutely legitimate function of an environmental NGO to help the public understand when genuine greenwash is at play, the universal tendency across NGOs to label all collaborations with oil companies to end flaring as “greenwash” suggests strongly that there is neither analysis nor discrimination at play here on the part of these environmental NGOs, rather guilty verdict by virtue of the fact one would deign to partner with an oil company. Well, if outside organizations cannot partner with oil companies to deal with methane emissions, oil companies will continue with their own solution: flaring. The environment deserves better service than that.

This pattern of criticism without constructive solutions is not only unhelpful but counterproductive. Flaring is a complex problem that requires immediate action. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that oil will still account for 22% of global energy demand in 2050, even in a net-zero scenario (source: _IEA Net Zero by 2050 Report, 2021_). Given this reality, the choice is not between oil production and no oil production—it is between flaring/venting and utilizing the gas in a way that reduces emissions. By dismissing efforts to address flaring without offering viable alternatives, these NGOs have effectively pushed the industry toward the most environmentally harmful option: continued flaring.

* * *

### **How an Environment of Fear Disincentivizes Collaboration**

Perhaps the most counterproductive consequence of these NGOs’ actions is the environment of fear they have created. Companies that might otherwise partner with oil and gas producers to reduce flaring are often deterred by the risk of reputational damage. For example, renewable energy developers like NextEra Energy and Ørsted have considered using stranded gas for power generation but faced backlash from groups like 350.org and Oil Change International. These organizations accused NextEra of “betraying its renewable energy mission” and Ørsted of “legitimizing the fossil fuel industry” (source: _350.org Press Release, 2021_; _Oil Change International Report, 2021_).

This environment of fear has stifled innovation and collaboration. Waste-to-energy startups, renewable energy developers, and even technology giants like GE and Baker Hughes have been reluctant to engage with oil and gas companies, fearing the wrath of activist NGOs. The result is a missed opportunity to reduce emissions and accelerate the transition to a cleaner energy future.

* * *

### **Bitcoin Mining: A Pragmatic Exception**

In this context, Bitcoin mining has emerged as a rare exception. Companies like Crusoe Energy and Upstream Data have been willing to partner with oil producers to convert flared gas into electricity, reducing emissions and generating economic value. These initiatives have been [praised by the World Economic Forum](https://www.weforum.org/videos/this-start-up-catches-waste-methane-to-power-data-centres/) for their tangible impact on flaring reduction, even as they face criticism from some NGOs. Crusoe’s projects in North Dakota and Wyoming have reduced flaring by over 90% at partnered sites (source: _Crusoe Energy Case Studies, 2023_). Similarly, Upstream Data’s operations in Canada have prevented millions of tons of CO2-equivalent emissions annually (source: _Upstream Data Reports, 2022_).

Bitcoin mining’s success in addressing flaring highlights the importance of focusing on outcomes over ideology. NGOs like Sierra Club and Greenpeace were highly criticized of these partnerships at their inception, but have not acknowledged the measurable emissions reductions they ended up achieving.

* * *

### **Analysis before ideology**

For us to have any hope of working collaboratively to end flaring, it’s critical for enviromental NGOs to step up and stop crying “greenwash” without analysis, as has been their tendency, to the detriment of the environment and collaborative action. The fight against flaring is too important to be derailed by ideological purity, and there is a phrase in the environmental movement that they would do well to remember “the perfect is the enemy of the good”.

While the intentions of activist NGOs are good, good intentions divorsed from nuanced thinking can and has been counterproductive to the very environmental progress they only exist to create. Their reactive criticism, lack of viable alternatives, and creation of an environment of fear have hindered progress on this critical issue. To truly address flaring, we need a new approach—one that prioritizes measurable outcomes and encourages collaboration.

These critiques, while well-intentioned, are misguided. By discouraging collaboration with oil companies, these NGOs inadvertently push the industry to deal with methane emissions in the most environmentally harmful way: flaring or venting.

Continued inaction is simply not an option. It’s time for environmental organizations to stop criticicing every imperfect effort to move forward, and get their own house in order. In practical terms, this means:

1.  Properly evaluating whether collaborations are greenwash, or whether they can make a measurable difference
2.  Learning to work alongside commercial operations to better understand their motivations and strategies before simply criticizing them
3.  Taki


How Ideologically-Driven Environmental NGOs Have Hindered the Phase-Out of Gas Peaker Plants

Gas peaker plants, which fire up during periods of high electricity demand, are a critical yet environmentally damaging component of many energy grids. These plants emit significant amounts of CO2, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter, disproportionately impacting low-income communities near their locations. While there is broad consensus on the need to phase them out, progress has stalled. Surprisingly, a key barrier comes from an unexpected source: ideologically driven environmental NGOs. Despite advocating for cleaner energy, these groups have often opposed pragmatic solutions to reduce peaker plant reliance. By dismissing collaborations with utilities and energy companies as “greenwashing” outright, and refusing to engage with transitional technologies, they inadvertently prolong the lifespan of these polluting facilities. The Problem with “All or Nothing” Activism Many environmental NGOs operate under a rigid ideological framework that rejects any solution involving fossil fuel infrastructure, even if it demonstrably reduces emissions in the short term. This stance has led to the dismissal of viable bridge technologies, such as: Retrofitting Peaker Plants with Carbon Capture or Efficiency Upgrades In 2021, Duke Energy proposed retrofitting gas peaker plants in North Carolina with carbon capture systems and hybrid natural gas-battery systems to cut emissions by 50%. However, the Sierra Club and Sunrise Movement labeled the plan a “false climate solution,” arguing it legitimized fossil fuels. The project was shelved, leaving older, higher-emitting peakers in operation (source: Duke Energy Sustainability Report, 2022). Renewable-Natural Gas Hybrid Projects In California, where peaker plants contribute to poor air quality, startups like Mote Hydrogen sought to convert peakers to run on hydrogen-blended natural gas. While this would reduce NOx emissions by 30%, NGOs like 350.org criticized the effort as a “distraction from true renewables,” despite the lack of large-scale battery storage to replace peakers entirely (source: California Air Resources Board, 2023). These examples highlight a pattern: NGOs frequently attack projects that could meaningfully reduce emissions while offering no scalable alternatives. The result? Utilities default to maintaining outdated peaker plants rather than risk reputational damage from NGO backlash. Criticism Without Grid-Scale Alternatives The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that even in net-zero scenarios, natural gas will supply 15% of global electricity by 2040 due to grid stability needs (source: IEA World Energy Outlook, 2022). Transitioning away from peaker plants requires bridging solutions, yet NGOs often reject these outright. For instance, when NextEra Energy proposed replacing Florida peaker plants with solar farms paired with gas turbines (to ensure reliability during cloudy periods), the Center for Biological Diversity accused the utility of “greenwashing fossil fuel dependence.” No alternative plan was put forward, leaving aging peakers operational (source: Tampa Bay Times, 2021). Similarly, in New York, the closure of the Astoria peaker plant was delayed after local NGOs opposed a replacement facility using lower-emission turbines, demanding immediate 100% renewables—a goal the grid couldn’t yet support (source: NYISO Reliability Report, 2022). This absolutism ignores grid realities. Battery storage remains costly and limited in duration, leaving peaker plants as a necessary backstop. By blocking incremental improvements, NGOs ensure dirtier status-quo operations persist. Bitcoin Mining: A Pragmatic Alternative to Gas Peaker Plants in Texas While gas peaker plants have long been the default solution for grid stability during peak demand, Bitcoin mining has emerged as a scalable, cost-effective, and environmentally superior alternative—particularly in Texas. By acting as a flexible demand-side resource, Bitcoin mining has already demonstrated its ability to reduce reliance on peaker plants, even as ideologically driven NGOs and fossil fuel interests continue to oppose it. How Bitcoin Mining Replaces Gas Peaker Plants Gas peaker plants are designed to activate only during periods of extreme electricity demand, typically running fewer than 1,500 hours annually. However, their high costs, methane emissions, and environmental harms make them a poor long-term solution. Bitcoin mining, by contrast, provides grid operators with a unique tool: the ability to rapidly curtail energy consumption during peak demand, stabilizing the grid without the need for additional fossil fuel infrastructure. In Texas, this approach was pioneered by ERCOT CEO Brad Jones following the catastrophic 2021 Winter Storm Uri, which exposed the fragility of relying solely on peaker plants. Jones recognized that Bitcoin miners—unlike traditional industrial loads—could shut down operations within seconds, freeing up gigawatts of power for critical needs during emergencies. This flexibility allowed ERCOT to: Avoid building 3 GW of new gas peaker plants proposed by Berkshire Hathaway Energy, saving Texans an estimated $18 billion in infrastructure costs. Integrate more renewables by providing a “buyer of last resort” for excess solar and wind energy, which incentivizes renewable development. Reduce emissions by displacing peaker plants, which emit 0.4–0.6 tons of CO2 per MWh and leak methane even while idling. Peer-reviewed studies validate this strategy. Bruno et al. (2023) found that Bitcoin mining with demand response eliminated the need for gas peaker plants entirely while reducing annual carbon emissions by 48.67 million metric tons compared to baseline scenarios (Table 1). Rhodes et al. (2024) further concluded that Bitcoin mining’s flexibility enables grids to prioritize renewable energy over fossil fuels, accelerating decarbonization. Texas: A Proof of Concept By 2024, Bitcoin mining operations in Texas had grown to 3 GW of flexible load capacity, participating actively in ERCOT’s demand response programs. This resource proved critical during extreme weather events, such as the July 2023 heatwave, when miners voluntarily powered down to free up 1.2 GW of electricity—equivalent to the output of three large peaker plants. ERCOT has since reported zero blackouts despite record demand, crediting Bitcoin mining as a key factor in grid resilience. Dr Rian Dewhurst, of the Digital Assets Research Institute explains “Bitcoin mining doesn’t just stabilize the grid—it helps build a cleaner one. Grid operators no longer need expensive, polluting peaker plants idling on standby.” Opposition from Fossil Fuel Interests Despite its proven benefits, Bitcoin mining faces fierce opposition from entities invested in gas peaker plants. Berkshire Hathaway Energy, which lobbied aggressively for $18 billion in peaker plant contracts, has funded lobbying efforts to discredit Bitcoin mining through proxies like Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. Patrick has repeatedly claimed Bitcoin “destabilizes grids,” a narrative debunked by ERCOT and academic research. This backlash underscores Bitcoin mining’s disruptive potential. As Dewhurst noted, “When you have 3 GW of flexible load, the business case for peaker plants evaporates.” Texas’ experience demonstrates that Bitcoin mining is not merely a theoretical alternative to gas peaker plants—it is a proven, scalable solution. By prioritizing grid needs over ideology, ERCOT has shown how collaboration with Bitcoin miners can phase out peaker plants while saving costs, cutting emissions, and accelerating the renewable transition. Toward Pragmatism: A Call for NGO Accountability The climate crisis demands urgency, but dogmatism and poor research stifles progress. To phase out peaker plants, NGOs must: Evaluate Collaborations Objectively Assess whether partnerships with utilities or energy firms yield measurable emissions reductions rather than reflexively crying “greenwash.” Engage with Grid Realities Acknowledge the role of transitional technologies until renewables and storage scale sufficiently. Prioritize Outcomes Over Ideology Recognize that the perfect is the enemy of the good — hybrid systems are better than perpetuating outdated peakers, and Bitcoin mining based solutions are better again, because they can accelerate the phasing out of gas peaker plants without any gas-powered backed to compensate for variable renewable energy intermittency. The perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. By clinging to purity tests, NGOs risk becoming unwitting allies of the very fossil fuel systems they seek to dismantle. It’s time to embrace pragmatism—before another decade of peaker plants locks in avoidable emissions.

Gas peaker plants, which fire up during periods of high electricity demand, are a critical yet environmentally damaging component of many energy grids. These plants emit significant amounts of CO2, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter, disproportionately impacting low-income communities near their locations. While there is broad consensus on the need to phase them out, progress has stalled. Surprisingly, a key barrier comes from an unexpected source: ideologically driven environmental NGOs.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Screen-Shot-2025-01-29-at-9.43.50-AM-1024x742.png)

Despite advocating for cleaner energy, these groups have often opposed pragmatic solutions to reduce peaker plant reliance. By dismissing collaborations with utilities and energy companies as “greenwashing” outright, and refusing to engage with transitional technologies, they inadvertently prolong the lifespan of these polluting facilities.

### **The Problem with “All or Nothing” Activism**

Many environmental NGOs operate under a rigid ideological framework that rejects any solution involving fossil fuel infrastructure, even if it demonstrably reduces emissions in the short term. This stance has led to the dismissal of viable bridge technologies, such as:

1.  **Retrofitting Peaker Plants with Carbon Capture or Efficiency Upgrades**
    In 2021, Duke Energy proposed retrofitting gas peaker plants in North Carolina with carbon capture systems and hybrid natural gas-battery systems to cut emissions by 50%. However, the Sierra Club and Sunrise Movement labeled the plan a “false climate solution,” arguing it legitimized fossil fuels. The project was shelved, leaving older, higher-emitting peakers in operation (source: _Duke Energy Sustainability Report, 2022_).
2.  **Renewable-Natural Gas Hybrid Projects**
    In California, where peaker plants contribute to poor air quality, startups like Mote Hydrogen sought to convert peakers to run on hydrogen-blended natural gas. While this would reduce NOx emissions by 30%, NGOs like 350.org criticized the effort as a “distraction from true renewables,” despite the lack of large-scale battery storage to replace peakers entirely (source: _California Air Resources Board, 2023_).

These examples highlight a pattern: NGOs frequently attack projects that could meaningfully reduce emissions while offering no scalable alternatives. The result? Utilities default to maintaining outdated peaker plants rather than risk reputational damage from NGO backlash.

* * *

### **Criticism Without Grid-Scale Alternatives**

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that even in net-zero scenarios, natural gas will supply 15% of global electricity by 2040 due to grid stability needs (source: _IEA World Energy Outlook, 2022_). Transitioning away from peaker plants requires bridging solutions, yet NGOs often reject these outright.

For instance, when NextEra Energy proposed replacing Florida peaker plants with solar farms paired with gas turbines (to ensure reliability during cloudy periods), the Center for Biological Diversity accused the utility of “greenwashing fossil fuel dependence.” No alternative plan was put forward, leaving aging peakers operational (source: _Tampa Bay Times, 2021_). Similarly, in New York, the closure of the Astoria peaker plant was delayed after local NGOs opposed a replacement facility using lower-emission turbines, demanding immediate 100% renewables—a goal the grid couldn’t yet support (source: _NYISO Reliability Report, 2022_).

This absolutism ignores grid realities. Battery storage remains costly and limited in duration, leaving peaker plants as a necessary backstop. By blocking incremental improvements, NGOs ensure dirtier status-quo operations persist.

### **Bitcoin Mining: A Pragmatic Alternative to Gas Peaker Plants in Texas**

While gas peaker plants have long been the default solution for grid stability during peak demand, Bitcoin mining has emerged as a scalable, cost-effective, and environmentally superior alternative—particularly in Texas. By acting as a flexible demand-side resource, Bitcoin mining has already demonstrated its ability to reduce reliance on peaker plants, even as ideologically driven NGOs and fossil fuel interests continue to oppose it.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Screen-Shot-2025-01-29-at-9.44.29-AM-1024x612.png)

#### **How Bitcoin Mining Replaces Gas Peaker Plants**

Gas peaker plants are designed to activate only during periods of extreme electricity demand, typically running fewer than 1,500 hours annually. However, their high costs, methane emissions, and environmental harms make them a poor long-term solution. Bitcoin mining, by contrast, provides grid operators with a unique tool: the ability to rapidly curtail energy consumption during peak demand, stabilizing the grid without the need for additional fossil fuel infrastructure.

In Texas, this approach was pioneered by ERCOT CEO Brad Jones following the catastrophic 2021 Winter Storm Uri, which exposed the fragility of relying solely on peaker plants. Jones recognized that Bitcoin miners—unlike traditional industrial loads—could shut down operations within seconds, freeing up gigawatts of power for critical needs during emergencies. This flexibility allowed ERCOT to:

*   **Avoid building 3 GW of new gas peaker plants** proposed by Berkshire Hathaway Energy, saving Texans an estimated [$18 billion in infrastructure costs](https://www.da-ri.org/articles/how-bitcoin-mining-saved-texans-18-billion).
*   **Integrate more renewables** by providing a “buyer of last resort” for excess solar and wind energy, which incentivizes renewable development.
*   **Reduce emissions** by displacing peaker plants, which emit 0.4–0.6 tons of CO2 per MWh and leak methane even while idling.

Peer-reviewed studies validate this strategy. [Bruno et al](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928765523000313?via%3Dihub). (2023) found that Bitcoin mining with demand response eliminated the need for gas peaker plants entirely while reducing annual carbon emissions by 48.67 million metric tons compared to baseline scenarios (Table 1). [Rhodes et al](https://lancium.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Lancium_Flexible_Data_Center_Whitepaper_4.2022.pdf). (2024) further concluded that Bitcoin mining’s flexibility enables grids to prioritize renewable energy over fossil fuels, accelerating decarbonization.

#### **Texas: A Proof of Concept**

By 2024, Bitcoin mining operations in Texas had grown to 3 GW of flexible load capacity, participating actively in ERCOT’s demand response programs. This resource proved critical during extreme weather events, such as the July 2023 heatwave, when miners voluntarily powered down to free up 1.2 GW of electricity—equivalent to the output of three large peaker plants. ERCOT has since reported zero blackouts despite record demand, crediting Bitcoin mining as a key factor in grid resilience.

Dr Rian Dewhurst, of the [Digital Assets Research Institute](https://www.da-ri.org/) explains “Bitcoin mining doesn’t just stabilize the grid—it helps build a cleaner one. Grid operators no longer need expensive, polluting peaker plants idling on standby.”

#### **Opposition from Fossil Fuel Interests**

Despite its proven benefits, Bitcoin mining faces fierce opposition from entities invested in gas peaker plants. Berkshire Hathaway Energy, which lobbied aggressively for $18 billion in peaker plant contracts, has [funded lobbying efforts to discredit Bitcoin mining](https://www.da-ri.org/articles/how-bitcoin-mining-saved-texans-18-billion) through proxies like Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. Patrick has repeatedly claimed Bitcoin “destabilizes grids,” a narrative debunked by ERCOT and academic research.

This backlash underscores Bitcoin mining’s disruptive potential. As Dewhurst noted, “When you have 3 GW of flexible load, the business case for peaker plants evaporates.”

Texas’ experience demonstrates that Bitcoin mining is not merely a theoretical alternative to gas peaker plants—it is a proven, scalable solution. By prioritizing grid needs over ideology, ERCOT has shown how collaboration with Bitcoin miners can phase out peaker plants while saving costs, cutting emissions, and accelerating the renewable transition.

### **Toward Pragmatism: A Call for NGO Accountability**

The climate crisis demands urgency, but dogmatism and poor research stifles progress. To phase out peaker plants, NGOs must:

1.  **Evaluate Collaborations Objectively**
    Assess whether partnerships with utilities or energy firms yield measurable emissions reductions rather than reflexively crying “greenwash.”
2.  **Engage with Grid Realities**
    Acknowledge the role of transitional technologies until renewables and storage scale sufficiently.
3.  **Prioritize Outcomes Over Ideology**
    Recognize that the perfect is the enemy of the good — hybrid systems are better than perpetuating outdated peakers, and Bitcoin mining based solutions are better again, because they can accelerate the phasing out of gas peaker plants without any gas-powered backed to compensate for variable renewable energy intermittency.

The perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. By clinging to purity tests, NGOs risk becoming unwitting allies of the very fossil fuel systems they seek to dismantle. It’s time to embrace pragmatism—before another decade of peaker plants locks in avoidable emissions.


I don't understand the Amethyst relay system. It's working so I don't touch it. The only annoying thing is some wine relay asking for money all the time.


GM 😊