One of the paradoxes I noticed about us humans over the last 15 years coaching humans – and being coached myself – is that we live in this information age, yet “lack of information” is clearly not our challenge when it comes to changing the world, or changing our world for the better. Imagine you are offered the option of taking one of a series of pills, all of which have zero side effects. The first pill will boost your IQ by up to 23 points , while also combatting brain degeneration by ensuring that as you enter your 50s and beyond your brain will resemble that of a 20-year old. The second pill will lower your stress hormones by 60% and decrease any insomnia symptoms (if you have any) by 31%. The third pill will measurably increase your amount of gamma waves in the brain by 14% – these are the waves associated with higher cognition, information processing, perception, high alertness and attention. The fourth pill is focused on memory, and it will raise your performance on a memory task 10x. The fifth pill will measurably decrease each of the known psychological factors that weaken and ultimately end romantic relationship, or prevent us from finding one in the first place: including cynicism, criticism, attacking, pessimism, discontent and perfectionism. As a bonus, if you have children, it will also improve both your parenting, and improve your parent-child relationship. Which one would you take? Whatever your answer, now imagine that a smart scientist has devised a way where you can take one pill per day that has all five benefits however it does have one side effect, it will increase the amount of joy that you experience throughout the day, irrespective of outside events. So there is a catch. The pill has an initial consultation charge of $200, where a profession instructs you on when and how to administer this pill. Thereafter, the pill is free. And, it will take 20 minutes each day to administer this pill, during which time you will need to sit down in a comfortable position and relax. Would you still take the pill? Yes, the pill is a combination of meditation and a few simple breathing techniques Let’s break it down a little further: even the breathing techniques by themselves (SKY Breathing, from the Art of Living) has been shown to increase all five types of brain waves (2% higher delta waves, right up to 14%+ increase in gamma waves). Delta waves are associated with the deepest levels of relaxation, and are normally only seen in deep restorative and dreamless sleep. Theta waves are associated with learning and memory. Alpha waves are associated with concentration. There is also evidence that alpha waves have the potential to combat both depression and anxiety Beta waves are associated with a heightened state of alertness, logic and critical reasoning Gamma waves, as mentioned above, are associated with information processing, perception, high alertness and attention. Maybe next time you’re thinking of digesting some information, be it news, a book, or a podcast, you could experiment with swapping that out for some implementation time, by learning breathing and meditation techniques, which allow you to implement so much more of what you know. Disclosure: I am a breathing and meditation teacher, so you could say I’m biased. But then the research is objective, and has been reproduced many times. Also, the reason I started teaching these techniques was not random, it was because I noticed from my own direct experience tremendous benefits. Also, it’s something I do as a volunteer not as my profession, so there’s no financial incentive for me to spent time writing about meditation or teaching it. It does of course give me joy and a sense of higher purpose to see other people reproduce the same benefits I experienced. So it is not without reward. If you are interested in knowing more (ie: you’d like this last 5 minutes of reading time to result in implementation, not information) then flick me a note at @dsbatten on Twitter.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Screen-Shot-2024-11-19-at-1.54.52-PM-1024x541.png)

One of the paradoxes I noticed about us humans over the last 15 years coaching humans – and being coached myself – is that we live in this information age, yet “lack of information” is clearly not our challenge when it comes to changing the world, or changing our world for the better.

Imagine you are offered the option of taking one of a series of pills, all of which have zero side effects.

The first pill will boost your IQ by up to [23 points](https://www.inc.com/melanie-curtin/want-to-raise-your-iq-by-23-percent-neuroscience-says-to-take-up-this-simple-hab.html) , while also combatting brain degeneration by ensuring that as you enter your 50s and beyond your brain will resemble that of a 20-year old.

The second pill will lower your stress hormones by 60% and decrease any insomnia symptoms (if you have any) by 31%.

The third pill will measurably increase your amount of [gamma waves in the brain](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32669767/#&gid=article-figures&pid=figure-2-uid-1) by 14% – these are the waves associated with higher cognition, information processing, perception, high alertness and attention.

The fourth pill is focused on memory, and it will raise your performance on a [memory task 10x](https://batcoinz.com/?page_id=2856).

The fifth pill will [measurably decrease](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333155515_Mindfulness_Meditation_is_Associated_with_Decreases_in_Partner_Negative_Affect_in_Daily_Life) each of the known psychological factors that weaken and ultimately end romantic relationship, or prevent us from finding one in the first place: including cynicism, criticism, attacking, pessimism, discontent and perfectionism. As a bonus, if you have children, it will also improve both your parenting, and [improve your parent-child relationship](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327796281_Parenting-Focused_Mindfulness_Intervention_Reduces_Stress_and_Improves_Parenting_in_Highly_Stressed_Mothers_of_Adolescents).

Which one would you take?

Whatever your answer, now imagine that a smart scientist has devised a way where you can take one pill per day that has all five benefits however it does have one side effect, it will increase the [amount of joy](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02699930143000392?journalCode=pcem20) that you experience throughout the day, irrespective of outside events.

So there is a catch. The pill has an initial consultation charge of $200, where a profession instructs you on when and how to administer this pill. Thereafter, the pill is free. And, it will take 20 minutes each day to administer this pill, during which time you will need to sit down in a comfortable position and relax.

Would you still take the pill?

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Screen-Shot-2024-11-18-at-11.01.10-AM-1024x574.png)

Yes, the pill is a combination of meditation and a few simple breathing techniques

Let’s break it down a little further: even the breathing techniques by themselves (SKY Breathing, from the Art of Living) has been shown to increase all five types of brain waves (2% higher delta waves, right up to 14%+ increase in gamma waves).

Delta waves are associated with the deepest levels of relaxation, and are normally only seen in [deep restorative and dreamless sleep.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/brain-waves)

Theta waves are associated with [learning and memory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theta_wave).

Alpha waves are associated with concentration. There is also evidence that alpha waves have the potential to combat both [depression and anxiety](https://www.verywellmind.com/what-are-alpha-brain-waves-5113721)

Beta waves are associated with a heightened state of [alertness, logic and critical reasoning](https://m1psychology.com/brain-waves-and-hypnosis/)

Gamma waves, as mentioned above, are associated with information processing, perception, high alertness and attention.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Screen-Shot-2024-11-18-at-11.01.49-AM-1.png)

Maybe next time you’re thinking of digesting some information, be it news, a book, or a podcast, you could experiment with swapping that out for some implementation time, by learning breathing and meditation techniques, which allow you to implement so much more of what you know.

**Disclosure:** I am a breathing and meditation teacher, so you could say I’m biased. But then the research is objective, and has been reproduced many times. Also, the reason I started teaching these techniques was not random, it was because I noticed from my own direct experience tremendous benefits. Also, it’s something I do as a volunteer not as my profession, so there’s no financial incentive for me to spent time writing about meditation or teaching it. It does of course give me joy and a sense of higher purpose to see other people reproduce the same benefits I experienced. So it is not without reward. If you are interested in knowing more (ie: you’d like this last 5 minutes of reading time to result in implementation, not information) then flick me a note at @dsbatten on Twitter.


Bitcoin “Crossing the Chasm” and the DEATH OF ENERGY MISINFORMATION

I am an impact investor, more recently specializing in climatetech. Before that I was I ran a technology company. These experiences gave me some insights into the challenges that all new technologies face in achieving mainstream adoption. Bitcoin currently faces this same challenge. Let’s zoom in to where the chasm could be crossed, and what currently is holding it back. There is 65 Trillion of institutional investment that wants to invest in bitcoin but thinks they can’t (30 Trillion in impact funds, and another 35 Trillion in Sovereign Funds excluding Central Banks). The reason they think they can’t is they believe Bitcoin is a bad ESG story. This article investigates this claim in depth, against the backdrop of other disruptive technologies, so we can better spot trends, and filter out likely good information from likely misinformation. When I first heard the claim that Bitcoin could be positive for the environment, as an environmental campaigner and climatetech investor I was skeptical. After considerable due diligence however, I realized that there was a strong evidential basis to this claim, which I outline here. This question if very important, if not the most important question Bitcoin’s supporters must answer to the next group of potential Bitcoin adopters, because the “early majority” care deeply about environmental impact. In order that Bitcoin “crosses the chasm” from early adopters to the early majority, addressing Bitcoin’s (true) environmental impact must be addressed. There is no bypass, no shortcut for this. Unless and until this issue is addressed, Bitcoin will not “cross the chasm”. In Bitcoin’s adoption curve, the estimated 4.7% who hold Bitcoin are the early adopters. The next wave includes institutional investors, which in turn includes sovereign funds and ESG funds. They are the early majority. The early adopters tend to be highly suspicious of mainstream media. However the Early Majority are only somewhat skeptical. As a result, they have different beliefs about Bitcoin today. Here is a sample of statements that people who interface with, or sit on the Compliance Divisions and ESG Investment Committees of Sovereign Wealth Funds shared with me recently about Bitcoin. I have limited knowledge about Bitcoin other than “it’s bad for the environment, don’t touch.” “It’s conflicting with the idea of a Central Digital Currency so it can be very confusing for someone who’s not in the space” “We have other issues we have to solve before we think about Bitcoin” “I’ve heard of a lot of backlash against Bitcoin because of criminal activity and the dark web” “It’s using so much water. It’s using drinking water.” While these messages are not anchored in fact, they do represent the current opinion-set. Existing Bitcoin proponents must meet these people where they are at if they are to have any hope of changing this opinion-set, no matter how good the data. There are 3 stages to shifting these perspectives so that that early majority can invest in Bitcoin without value conflict Screening out noise Identifying false signal Reading pure signal Let’s address each in turn. 1. Noise Reduction The best way we can clear most of the noise around Bitcoin is not to start with Bitcoin, but to understand something I learnt while running my first technology company: if you’re going to bring a disruptive technology to the planet, you better be prepared for a lot of gaslighting from the people you disrupt. This has happened to every disruptive tech since the telegraph in an unbroken chain of 21 technologies across 160 years. Let’s zoom in. Here’s some samples of how disruptive technologies and devices have been greeted through in the last 160 years. As we can see, long before Bitcoin was labelled by the media as an existential threat to humanity, the teddy bear was! Let’s zoom in a little more. I could have chosen anyone one of 21 industries but have chose two that like bitcoin disrupted multiple industries. The first was the bicycle. When the bicycle first rose to prominence in the 1890s, it disrupted horse drawn transport, riding apparel, public transit and the railway industry. As the disrupted industries launched their counteroffensive, new junk science came in almost immediately. Next, without empirical evidence, medical experts and academics started referring to four invented conditions you that you could supposedly get by riding a bicycle This created the environment of moral outrage where regulators and policymakers, who gained their information primarily from mainstream media, felt the right thing to do was to call for bans and restrictions. Source The prevalence of the term “bicycle face” serves as a guide as to when misinformation about the bicycle peaked, and how long it took to eventually die out. source: Google Ngram Viewer The bicycle was no one off event. The response to another technology that disrupt multiple industries, the radio, followed an almost identical pattern. Immediately after the radio began rising to prominence in the 1920s, junk science about the radio was reported in the mainstream media. The radio was blamed for everything from jailbreaks to snowstorms. Next, without empirical evidence, medical experts and other authority figures started referring to four conditions that you could supposedly get by listening to the radio. Once again, this created the environment of moral outrage where regulators and policymakers, who gained their information primarily from mainstream media, felt the right thing to do was to call for bans and restrictions. source: pessimistsarchive.org The chart on radio misinformation in mainstream media took on an uncannily similar shape to the earlier bicycle misinformation chart: an initial peak around 7 years after inception, but then a long tail with several smaller peaks within that tail. The similarity is even more striking when we view the charts side by side. Bitcoin’s journey has been almost identical to that of the bicycle and the radio. Bitcoin disrupts (at least) four industries: Central Banks, Banking, The Gold Industry and Remittance Payments. Bitcoin has been met with similar junk science, as we will investigate in the next section “false signal”, which has again created the environment where policy-makers and regulators who rely heavily on mainstream news sources for information have felt it appropriate to call for bans and restrictions. We are currently about here in the media cycle around Bitcoin and energy. The key takeout is this, the early majority does not have to suddenly trust the media as little as the early adopters. They simply need to see that trusting mainstream media sources for accurate reporting on a disruptive technology during the first 16 years is, based on history, an extremely risky approach. Seeing Bitcoin as just another disruptive technology, which inevitably follows the same “rite of passage” towards eventual acceptable after an elongated baptism of misinformation fire can help the early majority screen out 80% of the noise about Bitcoin, and regain the intellectual curiosity to take an objective look at Bitcoin. Step two: identify false signal In Radio and the Bicycle’s case the false signal was supplied by medics. In Bitcoin’s case it was a data a see scientist named Alex de Vries who in May 2018 wrote a five-page commentary called Bitcoin’s Growing Energy Problem The word commentary is important. According to Nature, commentaries are shorter, have a lighter review process and generally reflect the author’s perspective, rather than reporting new empirical data. De Vries’s article was a commentary, and the perspective he put forward was “We can measure Bitcoin’s use of energy per transaction to show that the Bitcoin network cannot scale without vastly increasing emissions. His commentary was a hit. In 2017 there was 1 article on Bitcoin’s energy usage. In 2018, the year of de Vries’ commentary, there were more than 400. The problem is that his perspective was invalid because Bitcoin’s energy use does not come from its transactions, meaning it could handle 1000 times more transactions, yet use no more energy. Cambridge University called the per transaction measure “not a meaningful metric”. But the media and other authors kept citing it anyway. Then the regulators, Central Banks, and NGOs joined them. The per transaction metric was refuted a further four times, this time in academic journals (Masenet et al, Dittmar et al, Sedlmeir et al and Sai & Vranken). But the metric not only kept on spreading, it mutated. Specifically, energy per transaction mutated into three other variants. Emissions per transaction eWaste per transaction Water use per transaction All three were new variants of the original strain stemmed directly from new commentaries or papers authored by Alex de Vries. De Vries under his own name or that of his blog Digiconomist, became the most frequently cited researcher in the media. His commentary was the origin point for every academic article on Bitcoin’s environmental impact over the next five years, which have now amassed collectively over 4500 citations. In the Whitehouse’s 2022 report on cryptomining, de Vries/digiconomist was referenced not just more than, but four times more than anyone else. He was also the most cited author in GreenpeaceUSAs ChangeTheCode campaign. There are two fundamental issues with metric upon which this narrative was built. The first is as we have said that there is actually no causal connection between transactions and Bitcoin’s energy consumption, meaning the network can easily scale its transaction volume without adding to emissions. Just as it’s been doing over the last 4 years already, as we can see from tracking the pink emissions line in the chart below, where hashrate (orange) has increased eight-fold and price (blue) has increased six-fold, but emissions have remained static over a full four year cycle. The second issue is “semantic ambiguity”. Here’s an everyday example of how semantic ambiguity can mislead. Imagine I agree to pay you one million dollars for a job. You finish the job, ask for payment and I send you one million Zimbabwean dollars. You would probably feel aggrieved. Just as “one million dollars” has a very different meaning based on location, so does the word “transaction”. In the traditional finance world, a transaction means a ledger entry. In the Bitcoin world, a single blockchain transaction can contain over 2000 traditional transactions, and using the layer-2 network (Lightning network) billions of traditional financial transactions. Just as the idea that radio waves could shatter windows, kill birds or trigger snowstorms is now viewed as absurd, ten years from now people will be looking back at us, and these news reports that a single Bitcoin transaction could cost $100 in electricity, create two cellphones of ewaste, drain a swimming pool, emit 3 households of co2, and and say “those crazy people in the 20s, did they really believe that junk science about Bitcoin & Energy in the media? Surely not.” Yet this false signal has helped persuade a large number of impact investors, regulators and environmentalists away from adopting Bitcoin. I was almost a casualty. Part 3: Pure Signal In the last 2 years, something unexpected and remarkable happened. The quality of academic reporting on Bitcoin has now improved not just a little bit, but beyond all recognition, across a range of metrics – articles replaced commentaries, datasets are no longer anecdotal, and methodologies are now anchored in how the blockchain works. As a result, we are now getting a pure signal in stereo, both from academic consensus(10 of the last 11 papers on bitcoin and energy) and those in the field who’ve observed bitcoin firsthand. And the signal we are hearing is that Bitcoin solves major environmental problems, stabilizes the grid while providing a rare profitable path to destroy one of our most potent greenhouse gases. And the media is catching on and catching up. Media coverage on Bitcoin and energy has dropped away. And the remaining articles are now mostly picking up on the pure signal. At the same time, the eWaste issue was debunked with ERS, one of the world’s top electronics recyclers stating that Bitcoin mining units are “100% recyclable. None of the parts go into a landfill. They are easier than other electronics to recycle because they don’t have the same toxic metals”. We also discovered that far from creating water scarcity, Bitcoin was helping to resolve it in dry countries including UAE, where Bitcoin mining company MARA is recycling heat from Bitcoin mining units to run water desalination plants more efficiently, one of just 8 examples of how Bitcoin heat gets recycled. The concept that Bitcoin was only used by criminals … was laid to rest by the US Treasury, who in their 2024 National Money Laundering Report stated “the use of virtual assets for money laundering continues to remain far below that of fiat currency” So who is using Bitcoin? Alex Gladstein, Chief Strategy Officer at the Human Rights Foundation showed 19 humanitarian use cases for bitcoin, already likely positively impacting over 100M people, most of whom are unbanked, in energy poverty, refugees, or experiencing hyperinflation. He documented these humanitarian benefits in a recent conference address. There are now 21 documented environmental benefits to Bitcoin. We won’t go into all 21 here, but here are a few highlights. Building on the Cambridge model, the Digital Assets Research Institute showed that Since 2021, Bitcoin has become the world’s most sustainably powered industry. As of Nov 2024, Bitcoin Mining has risen to 56.75% sustainable energy powered. It is also the industry with the lowest emission intensity. That means that Bitcoin is now likely reducing net emissions by replacing their fossil fuel dependent prequels: banking as a medium of exchange, and gold as a store of value. Numerous studies, including this Cornell study from decorated scientist Fengqi You, found the same thing the grid owners found, that Bitcoin mining is a buyer for wasted renewable energy generated at a time or in a place other consumers cannot use it, making the renewable generator more profitable. The profit is reinvested to build more solar and wind power faster, accelerating the renewable transition. Carbon Debt and Payback Period Outside the climatetech sector, most people don’t realize that all climatetech starts off emitting more than it offsets. So as a climatetech investor, I’m interested in the net emission reduction potential and the payback period. Solar had a carbon debt for 57 years. Carbon sequestration’s carbon debt looks on track to be similar. The companies we invest in, we aim for under 30 years. Bitcoin, we estimate will be ~ 23yrs, less than half the time it took solar. But this is what excites me the most. Bitcoin mining can do something that other industries cannot do at scale, it can profitably use stranded methane as a fuel source that would otherwise have vented into the air. By destroying methane, a potent gas 84x more warming over a 20-year period than carbon dioxide, Bitcoin mining helps meet the UNs methane reduction goals without need for government incentives. The UN has called methane reduction our strongest lever to reduce climate change in the next 25 years. Unlike any other technologies, Bitcoin can profitably mitigate methane in any jurisdiction without waiting for political will. One of our 3 major storehouses of climate-change causing methane is landfills. Unreported by the media, there are now 5 Bitcoin mining companies on landfills and a total of 29 Bitcoin mining companies overall profitably carbon negative destroying methane emissions from landfills, oil fields and farms. Collectively they already mitigate 7% of the bitcoin network’s emissions. When will it reach 100%? 35 mid-sized venting landfills is all it takes to take the entire Bitcoin network carbon negative. This is something no industry has ever achieved without offsets. Bitcoin Mining and Landfills Peter Drucker once said “the best way to predict the future is to create it. So my third climatetech fund is an infrastructure fund that invests in Bitcoin mining companies using landfill gas for power. They are literally turning trash into digital gold. And because they destroy a greenhouse gas, they also generate carbon credits, which improves everyone’s returns. The landfill owner turns an environmental hazard into money. The Bitcoin mining company gets power at the bottom third of the cost curve. And as the infrastructure financiers, we get the returns of a CCC-rated asset class with the risk profile of a BB-rated one. But more importantly, this mitigates 45 times more emissions per dollar invested than the equivalent investment into photovoltaics. Summary Misunderstanding and misinformation is not new, it is the price you pay for being a very disruptive technology. Bitcoin, like all nascent disruptive technologies has followed the same rite of passage of initially being misunderstood by the masses, understood by the few. Eventually, this information asymmetry will be corrected and the masses will wish they saw Bitcoin unencumbered by the noise and false signal earlier. Bitcoin has been the best performing asset of the last 10 years by far, and for the reasons outlined above, I expect it to be the best ESG asset of the next 10 years. If it can achieve this, it will not only have “crossed the chasm”, it will be approaching the ubiquity of the Internet; something entirely possible given its current growth rate.

I am an impact investor, more recently specializing in climatetech. Before that I was I ran a technology company. These experiences gave me some insights into the challenges that all new technologies face in achieving mainstream adoption.

Bitcoin currently faces this same challenge. Let’s zoom in to where the chasm could be crossed, and what currently is holding it back.

There is **65** Trillion of institutional investment that wants to invest in **bitcoin** but thinks they can’t ([30 Trillion](https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/insights/sustainable-finance/esg-aum-set-to-top-40-trillion-by-2030-anchor-capital-markets/) in impact funds, and another 35 Trillion in Sovereign Funds excluding Central Banks).

The reason they think they can’t is they believe **Bitcoin** is a bad ESG story. This article investigates this claim in depth, against the backdrop of other disruptive technologies, so we can better spot trends, and filter out likely good information from likely misinformation. When I first heard the claim that Bitcoin could be positive for the environment, as an environmental campaigner and climatetech investor I was skeptical. After considerable due diligence however, I realized that there was a strong evidential basis to this claim, which I outline here.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-19-at-11.54.49-AM-1024x633.png)

This question if very important, if not the most important question Bitcoin’s supporters must answer to the next group of potential Bitcoin adopters, because the “early majority” care deeply about **environmental impact**.

In order that Bitcoin “crosses the chasm” from early adopters to the early majority, addressing Bitcoin’s (true) environmental impact must be addressed. There is no bypass, no shortcut for this. Unless and until this issue is addressed, Bitcoin will not “cross the chasm”.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-6.41.21-PM-1024x519.png)

**In** Bitcoin’s adoption curve, the estimated [4.7%](https://woocharts.com/bitcoin-total-users/) who hold Bitcoin are the early adopters. The **next wave** includes institutional investors, which in turn includes sovereign funds and ESG funds. They are the early majority. The early adopters tend to be highly suspicious of mainstream media. However the Early Majority are only somewhat skeptical. As a result, they have different beliefs about Bitcoin today.

Here is a sample of statements that people who interface with, or sit on the Compliance Divisions and ESG Investment Committees of Sovereign Wealth Funds shared with me recently about Bitcoin.

_I have limited knowledge about Bitcoin other than “it’s bad for the environment, don’t touch.”_

_“It’s conflicting with the idea of a Central Digital Currency so it can be very confusing for someone who’s not in the space”_

_“We have other issues we have to solve before we think about Bitcoin”_

_“I’ve heard of a lot of backlash against Bitcoin because of criminal activity and the dark web”_

_“It’s using so much water. It’s using drinking water.”_

While these messages are not anchored in fact, they do represent the current opinion-set. Existing Bitcoin proponents must meet these people where they are at if they are to have any hope of changing this opinion-set, no matter how good the data.

**There are 3 stages to shifting these perspectives so that that early majority can invest in Bitcoin without value conflict**

*   **Screening** out noise
*   **Identifying** false signal
*   **Reading** pure signal

Let’s address each in turn.

1\. **Noise Reduction**
-----------------------

The best way we can clear most of the noise around Bitcoin is not to start with Bitcoin, but to understand something I learnt while running my first technology company: if you’re going to bring a disruptive technology to the planet, you better be prepared for a lot of gaslighting from the people you disrupt.

This has happened to **every** disruptive tech since the telegraph in an unbroken chain of 21 technologies across 160 years.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-6.54.32-PM-1024x572.png)

Let’s zoom in. Here’s some samples of how disruptive technologies and devices have been greeted through in the last 160 years.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-6.56.02-PM-1024x589.png)

As we can see, long before **Bitcoin** was labelled by the media as an existential threat to humanity, the teddy bear was!

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-6.56.33-PM-1024x563.png)

Let’s zoom in a little more. I could have chosen anyone one of 21 industries but have chose two that like bitcoin disrupted multiple industries.

The first was the bicycle. When the bicycle first rose to prominence in the 1890s, it disrupted horse drawn transport, riding apparel, public transit and the railway industry.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-7.34.47-PM-1024x575.png)

As the disrupted industries launched their counteroffensive, new junk science came in almost immediately.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-7.35.52-PM-1024x569.png)

Next, without empirical evidence, medical experts and academics started referring to four invented conditions you that you could supposedly get by riding a bicycle

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-7.36.57-PM-1024x568.png)

This created the environment of moral outrage where regulators and policymakers, who gained their information primarily from mainstream media, felt the right thing to do was to call for bans and restrictions.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-7.39.12-PM-1024x304.png)

[Source](https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/uhr/1999-v28-n1-uhr0646/1016555ar.pdf)

The prevalence of the term “bicycle face” serves as a guide as to when misinformation about the bicycle peaked, and how long it took to eventually die out.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-7.40.23-PM-1024x835.png)

**source**: [Google Ngram Viewer](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=bicycle+face&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cbicycle%20face%3B%2Cc0)

The bicycle was no one off event. The response to another technology that disrupt multiple industries, the radio, followed an almost identical pattern.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-7.44.31-PM-1024x571.png)

Immediately after the radio began rising to prominence in the 1920s, junk science about the radio was reported in the mainstream media. The radio was blamed for everything from jailbreaks to snowstorms.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-7.46.52-PM-1024x574.png)

Next, without empirical evidence, medical experts and other authority figures started referring to four conditions that you could supposedly get by listening to the radio.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-7.50.08-PM-1024x573.png)

Once again, this created the environment of moral outrage where regulators and policymakers, who gained their information primarily from mainstream media, felt the right thing to do was to call for bans and restrictions.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-8.08.36-PM-1024x720.png)

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-8.09.14-PM.png)

**source**: pessimistsarchive.org

The chart on radio misinformation in mainstream media took on an uncannily similar shape to the earlier bicycle misinformation chart: an initial peak around 7 years after inception, but then a long tail with several smaller peaks within that tail. The similarity is even more striking when we view the charts side by side.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-8.14.01-PM-1024x552.png)

Bitcoin’s journey has been almost identical to that of the bicycle and the radio. Bitcoin disrupts (at least) four industries: Central Banks, Banking, The Gold Industry and Remittance Payments.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-8.22.28-PM-1024x576.png)

Bitcoin has been met with similar junk science, as we will investigate in the next section “false signal”, which has again created the environment where policy-makers and regulators who rely heavily on mainstream news sources for information have felt it appropriate to call for bans and restrictions. We are currently about here in the media cycle around Bitcoin and energy.

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-16-at-8.21.00-PM-1024x643.png)

The key takeout is this, the early majority does not have to suddenly trust the media as little as the early adopters. They simply need to see that trusting mainstream media sources for accurate reporting on a disruptive technology during the first 16 years is, based on history, an extremely risky approach.

Seeing Bitcoin as just another disruptive technology, which inevitably follows the same “rite of passage” towards eventual acceptable after an elongated baptism of misinformation fire can help the early majority screen out 80% of the noise about Bitcoin, and regain the intellectual curiosity to take an objective look at Bitcoin.

**Step two: identify false signal**
-----------------------------------

In Radio and the Bicycle’s case the false signal was supplied by medics. In Bitcoin’s case it was a data a see scientist named Alex de Vries who in May 2018 wrote a five-page commentary called Bitcoin’s Growing Energy Problem

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Screen-Shot-2024-10-17-at-12.37.16-PM-1024x670.png)

The word commentary is


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.


Rebuttal: Earthjustice report on Bitcoin Mining, Feb 2025

Original report: https://earthjustice.org/experts/mandy-deroche/how-much-do-we-subsidize-cryptocurrency-minings-electricity-use-no-one-knows This post argues that Earthjustice’s latest report on Bitcoin mining is significantly disconnected from both the scientific consensus and real-world evidence. By failing to engage with the latest research and developments, Earthjustice risks undermining efforts to leverage Bitcoin mining as a tool that benefits the environmental across a range of metrics. This rebuttal examines the inaccuracies in their report and highlights the growing body of evidence supporting Bitcoin mining’s environmental benefits. For context: in recent times, Bitcoin has emerged as arguably the most important form of climatetech in enabling not one but four critical areas of climate justice. A large volume of peer reviewed research now confirms what Bitcoin mining companies, grid operators, energy experts, and the Bitcoin mining industry have been saying for some time: Bitcoin mining is essential to progress on these four critical areas 1. Remove bottlenecks to getting more renewable energy onto the grid 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 (gas peaker plant proliferation, natural gas flaring, venting of landfill gas) source These are no longer theoretical benefits, as they were when Earthjustice first started reporting on Bitcoin mining: Finland is now supplying 2% of all district heat through recycled Bitcoin mining heat, replacing fossil fuel-dependent sources such as the burning of coal and peat. 29 Bitcoin mining operations use carbon negative sources such as flared gas or landfill gas for power. OTEC, a forgotten form of renewable energy has had a new lease of life. Finally, since Bitcoin mining moved onto the Texas grid, blackouts have been prevented, $18Billion of new gas peaker plant costs were averted, inflation adjusted electricity prices were kept stable (a rare phenomenon for jurisdictions with rapidly increasing renewable penetration), while solar/wind rose from 80 GW to 130 GW of generation capacity. source Heat recycled from Bitcoin mining rigs running on Finland’s 92% fossil-free grid is increasingly replacing 54.6% fossil-fuel dependent existing district heating sources in Finland The world has changed, leaving Earthjustice behind Earthjustice published their first anti-Bitcoin report in 2022. Since then, the world of Bitcoin mining has fundamentally changed in five major ways: 1. Scientific community puts its weight behind Bitcoin mining’s environmental benefits Bitcoin mining has been shown to accelerate the renewable energy transition (Lal et al, 2023) obviate the need for gas peaker plants (Bruno et al, 2023) stabilize the grid (Rudd et al, 2023) halve the payback time for solar farms (Hakimi et al, 2024) accelerate renewable microgrid development (Moghimi et al 2024) reduce methane emissions from landfills (Sechrest et al, 2024) avert the need for expensive grid upgrades (Norris et al, 2025) with 14 out of the last 16 peer reviewed papers on Bitcoin and energy (87.5%) showing clear positive environmental externalities. 2. Sustainability media gets behind Bitcoin mining’s environmental benefits Of the ten climate-focused media that are commenting on Bitcoin mining and energy, nine of them found strong environmental benefits (90%). 3. 180° turnaround in mainstream media reporting on Bitcoin mining Of the 14 media outlets still covering Bitcoin and energy, 12 are covering Bitcoin’s environmental benefits (85.7%) 4. Bitcoin’s sustainable energy proportion has increased from 49.1% to 56.7% source: Digital Assets Research Institute 5. Source findings of Earthjustice’s 2022 report debunked The work of Alex de Vries and authors who relied on his findings, which formed the basis of Earthjustice’s 2022 findings, has been discredited due to fundamental flaws in both data-gathering techniques and methodology. source: Sai & Vranken, 2023 Earthjustice has responded by spreading even more misinformation Earthjuistice has not revisited their 2022 position on Bitcoin mining. Rather, their approach mirrors tactics that disregard scientific consensus, which is concerning given the volume of peer-reviewed research supporting Bitcoin mining’s environmental benefits. They have either ignored the scientific consensus, or dismissed the entire body of research as being the work of “vest interest groups” But not only has Earthjustice ignored the undisputed evidence of Bitcoin mining’s environmental benefits, they have put out more misinformation. The misinformation in Earthjustice’s 2025 report falls into three categories The very widely debunked claim that Bitcoin mining destabilizes grids The more recently debunked claim that Bitcoin mining increases power prices The more recently debunked claim that Bitcoin mining does not offer community benefits Let’s address each in turn. 1. Bitcoin and grid stability This claim demonstrates considerable ignorance about the large body of evidence showing that Bitcoin mining stabilizes grids. The claim also reveals a severe lack of awareness about what Earthjustice’s peers in the environmental movement have been writing in climate media for some time. The key point is: Bitcoin does not destabilize grids. In fact, a mountain of peer-reviewed and real-world evidence shows that Bitcoin mining stabilizes grids, enabling grid operators to integrate higher concentrations of variable renewable energy. For example: Lai et al states that Bitcoin mining can “balance the electrical grid”. source Ibañez et al concludes “PoW mining emerges as an alternative that can provide additional income and ancillary services (auxiliary services designed to provide stability to the energy grid)”. source Menati et al found that “the flexibility of cryptocurrency mining loads plays a pivotal role in the reliability of electricity systems and the stability of electricity markets” and “cryptocurrency mining …is shown not to be detrimental to power grid reliability even with significant amounts at certain locations.” source A whitepaper from Energy Experts at Duke University concluded that Controllable Load Resources (aka: Bitcoin mining) help to stabilize grids, and decarbonize grids. source These findings correspond precisely to Texas’ grid operators own direct observations. “[Bitcoin mining operations] have found a way to come into the market and take some of that excess wind in offpeak periods. Then it can turn down whenever we need the power for other customers… And if a generator trips off line can very quickly respond to that frequency disruption and allow us to balance our grid more efficiently.” source: Brad Jones, Former Interim CEO, ERCOT. The early misinformation that bitcoin destabilizes grids is rarely recycled any more, with both mainstream and sustainability-focsed journalists increasingly reporting on how Bitcoin mining in fact has a stabilizing impact on Grids. 2. Bitcoin and electricity prices The Earthjustice report shows an eye-opening level of naivety about the relationship between Bitcoin mining electricity prices and the cost that other users pay for electricity, the argument basically runs like this “We found out that Bitcoin miners pay a low cost for electricity, so we postulate that this means other users are subsidizing them.” To anyone with a basic understanding of wholesale electricity markets, this demonstrates the risks of non-domain experts commenting outside their area of expertise. Not only is there no evidence, either real-world or in the academic literature for this claim, but there is a significant body of evidence to the contrary. For example, Brad Jones, Former CEO of Texas’ grid ERCOT observed that by creating a more competitive market for ancillary services and by finding a home for otherwise wasted wind energy, Bitcoin was “helping keep the cost of electricity low for all Texans” In September 2024, Norwegian residents realized that Bitcoin mining had for years been keeping their power prices 20% lower. After the Bitcoin mining operation left the grid, their prices instantly increased to meet the revenue shortfall. As for the claim “There are other types of Demand Response. We don’t need Bitcoin” As energy expert Tom Algie puts it “Turning off and providing demand response isn’t straightforward. Compensation for traditional DR assets; steel works, aluminium smelters etc, is astronomical. Bitcoin mining revenue is on par with electricity prices, so we don’t need much additional incentive to turn off. This coupled with the ability to be located anywhere, the Bitcoin mining load is one of the most cost effective ways to provide DR, FCAS and System Strength services. It also incentivises overbuild of renewables. Bitcoin miners are also building plenty of energy assets globally.” Further, Inflation-adjusted figures show no statistically significant rise or fall in either electricity or gas prices since Bitcoin mining came onto the ERCOT grid in Texas, giving support for ERCOT CEO Brad Jones’ observation that Bitcoin mining in fact “Helped keep the price of power low for all Texans.” The claim therefore seems to be a false attribution of the impact of high inflation from 2021-2023, to Bitcoin mining. There are now not one but five ways that Bitcoin mining has been shown to keep residential power prices low Creating a more competitive market for Demand Response services (Mitch Klee) Providing more revenue to the grid operators, thereby decreasing the cost burden to other users (Dan Roberts) Reducing costly curtailment payouts to VRE generators (MARA) Helping grid operators to delay the need for cost-prohibitive grid upgrades (Norris et al) Obviating the need for multi-billion dollar Gas peaker plant investment (Rian Dewhurst) Earthjustice’s habit of indulging in domain-naive speculative inference over consulting the existing large body of literature on Bitcoin mining should be viewed as a red flag to environmentalists, policymakers, regulators and others in the climate industry. All should give Earthjustice’s articles on Bitcoin mining a wide berth until there is a substantial improvement in their awareness of both the domain, and the prior body of literature germane to the subject they are addressing. 3. Bitcoin and community benefits While Earthjustice claims that Bitcoin mining fails to deliver significant community benefits, evidence from the Perryman Group and testimonials from local officials like Mayor Ward Roddam of Rockdale, Texas, demonstrate the opposite. Perryman’s report found that in the US alone, Bitcoin mining has created 31,000 jobs brought $4.1 billion in annual U.S. gross product helped stabilize the grid while offering a range of other direct community benefits Community benefits were found to be significant, and included strengthening local public services boosting school funding improving community well-being expanding career opportunities in high-tech fields Improving community infrastructure In Rockdale, one of the major Bitcoin mining hubs in Texas, the mayor confirmed these benefits were being observed: “Bitcoin miners are deeply invested in the communities where they work. [They] are among the largest taxpayers in … our local school district. These companies donate to local causes, including scholarships, police and fire departments, youth sports and … community events.” ~ Ward Roddam. Mayor, Rockdale Conclusion In this paper, two lawyers from Earthjustice have advanced the implausible theory that they know more about community impacts of Bitcoin mining than the residents and mayor of the town of Rockdale benefitted, more about the grid stabilization impacts of Bitcoin than five separate teams of energy experts who published peer reviewed research on this subject, and more about the impact of Bitcoin on cost to other grid users than the Grid operator himself. They have ignored the scientific consensus, the environmental consensus and even the media reporting in the liberal media on Bitcoin mining. While the Earthjustice report of 2022 was arguably forgivable, as none of these five shifts had occurred in our understanding of Bitcoin mining, to write such a report in 2025 reflects a lack of engagement with recent research and real-world evidence, which calls into question its credibility on this issue. But Earthjustice’s report is not just misguided, its irresponsible. As a climatetech investor, I am continually looking for landfill operators where bitcoin mining operations can be set up, because bitcoin mining is usually the only way to profitably mitigate landfill gas methane (a horrendous greenhouse gas). We face considerable pushback on an almost daily basis because landfill owners have read factually incorrect accounts of bitcoin mining’s environmental impact. Such uncritical appraisals slow down our efforts to mitigate methane. I also travel around the world encouraging renewable operators to use bitcoin mining for their otherwise wasted renewable energy, so that they can become more profitable, and pour that profit back into expanding their renewable operation faster. Unfortunately, my efforts to do this are severely compromised by the misinformation they have heard about Bitcoin mining that was circulated widely by Alex de Vries from 2018-2022, and which unfortunately you are still recirculating, and which despite your good intentions actually slow down the efforts of those seeking pragmatic solutions to advancing the green energy transition. By promoting misinformation, Earthjustice risks delaying the adoption of innovative solutions like Bitcoin mining, which have been shown to accelerate the transition to renewable energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, they risk delaying the point at which we will be able to phase out gas peaker plants, while increasing the chances that retail users of electricity will have to pay a premium for their power. It is important that anyone who chances upon Earthjustice’s report should know that they are an outlier in the environmental movement in that they are still publishing misinformation on Bitcoin mining in 2025. We urge Earthjustice to revisit its stance on Bitcoin mining in light of the latest scientific research and real-world evidence. By doing so, they can align their advocacy with the most effective strategies for achieving climate justice.

Original report: [https://earthjustice.org/experts/mandy-deroche/how-much-do-we-subsidize-cryptocurrency-minings-electricity-use-no-one-knows](https://earthjustice.org/experts/mandy-deroche/how-much-do-we-subsidize-cryptocurrency-minings-electricity-use-no-one-knows)

This post argues that Earthjustice’s latest report on Bitcoin mining is significantly disconnected from both the scientific consensus and real-world evidence. By failing to engage with the latest research and developments, Earthjustice risks undermining efforts to leverage Bitcoin mining as a tool that benefits the environmental across a range of metrics. This rebuttal examines the inaccuracies in their report and highlights the growing body of evidence supporting Bitcoin mining’s environmental benefits.

For context: in recent times, Bitcoin has emerged as arguably the most important form of climatetech in enabling not one but four critical areas of climate justice. A large volume of peer reviewed research now confirms what Bitcoin mining companies, grid operators, energy experts, and the Bitcoin mining industry have been saying for some time: Bitcoin mining is essential to progress on these four critical areas

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

**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** (gas peaker plant proliferation, natural gas flaring, venting of landfill gas)

[source](https://batcoinz.com/why-climate-action-doesnt-just-benefit-from-bitcoin-mining-it-requires-it/)

These are no longer theoretical benefits, as they were when Earthjustice first started reporting on Bitcoin mining:

Finland is now supplying [2% of all district heat](https://x.com/DSBatten/status/1872740512555315559) through recycled Bitcoin mining heat, replacing fossil fuel-dependent sources such as the burning of coal and peat. 29 Bitcoin mining operations use carbon negative sources such as flared gas or landfill gas for power. OTEC, a forgotten form of renewable energy has had a new lease of life. Finally, since Bitcoin mining moved onto the Texas grid, blackouts have been prevented, $18Billion of new gas peaker plant costs were averted, inflation adjusted electricity prices were kept stable (a rare phenomenon for jurisdictions with rapidly increasing renewable penetration), while solar/wind rose from 80 GW to 130 GW of generation capacity.

[source](https://batcoinz.com/why-climate-action-doesnt-just-benefit-from-bitcoin-mining-it-requires-it/)

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Screen-Shot-2025-02-23-at-8.56.17-PM-1024x726.png)

Heat recycled from Bitcoin mining rigs running on [Finland’s 92% fossil-free grid](https://www.treasuryfinland.fi/investor-relations/sustainability-and-finnish-government-bonds/data-and-facts-energy-transition/#:~:text=Finland's%20energy%20mix%20is%20well,second%20highest%20in%20the%20EU.) is increasingly
replacing [54.6% fossil-fuel dependent](https://www.statista.com/statistics/660023/finland-type-of-fuels-used-for-district-heating/) existing district heating sources in Finland

The world has changed, leaving Earthjustice behind
--------------------------------------------------

Earthjustice published their first anti-Bitcoin report in 2022. Since then, the world of Bitcoin mining has fundamentally changed in five major ways:

**1\. Scientific community puts its weight behind Bitcoin mining’s environmental benefits**

Bitcoin mining has been shown to

*   accelerate the renewable energy transition ([Lal et al](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c05445), 2023)
*   obviate the need for gas peaker plants ([Bruno et al](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928765523000313), 2023)
*   stabilize the grid ([Rudd et al](https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/14/4/47), 2023)
*   halve the payback time for solar farms ([Hakimi et al](https://www.cell.com/heliyon/fulltext/S2405-8440\(24\)15796-9), 2024)
*   accelerate renewable microgrid development ([Moghimi et al](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142061524001364) 2024)
*   reduce methane emissions from landfills ([Sechrest et al](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652624029652?via%3Dihub), 2024)
*   avert the need for expensive [grid upgrades](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/danielsbatten_waited-34-months-for-this-moment-in-march-activity-7296373253453819905-Y2SK?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAAOueQB3LYz-BPTBFwVPl9wJVYdGJiKUow) ([Norris et al](https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/publications/rethinking-load-growth.pdf), 2025)

with [14 out of the last 16](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/danielsbatten_from-mining-to-mitigation-how-bitcoin-can-activity-7280429495679963136-2E-q?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAAOueQB3LYz-BPTBFwVPl9wJVYdGJiKUow) peer reviewed papers on Bitcoin and energy (87.5%) showing clear positive environmental externalities.

**2\. Sustainability media gets behind Bitcoin mining’s environmental benefits**

Of the ten climate-focused media that are commenting on Bitcoin mining and energy, [nine of them](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/danielsbatten_bitcoin-miner-mara-buying-114-mw-wind-farm-activity-7280432749180559360-AaWO/) found strong environmental benefits (90%).

**3\. 180° turnaround in mainstream media reporting on Bitcoin mining**

Of the 14 media outlets still covering Bitcoin and energy, [12 are covering](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&rcm=ACoAAAAOueQB3LYz-BPTBFwVPl9wJVYdGJiKUow) Bitcoin’s environmental benefits (85.7%)

**4\. Bitcoin’s sustainable energy proportion has increased from 49.1% to 56.7%**

source: D[igital Assets Research Institute](https://woocharts.com/esg-bitcoin-mining-sustainability/)

![](https://batcoinz.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Screen-Shot-2025-02-23-at-4.14.23-PM-1024x638.png)

**5\. Source findings of Earthjustice’s 2022 report debunked**

The work of Alex de Vries and authors who relied on his findings, which formed the basis of Earthjustice’s 2022 findings, has been discredited due to fundamental flaws in both data-gathering techniques and methodology.

source: [Sai & Vranken](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2096720923000441?via%3Dihub), 2023

Earthjustice has responded by spreading even more misinformation
----------------------------------------------------------------

Earthjuistice has not revisited their 2022 position on Bitcoin mining. Rather, their approach mirrors tactics that disregard scientific consensus, which is concerning given the volume of peer-reviewed research supporting Bitcoin mining’s environmental benefits. They have either ignored the scientific consensus, or dismissed the entire body of research as being the work of “vest interest groups”

But not only has Earthjustice ignored the undisputed evidence of Bitcoin mining’s environmental benefits, they have put out more misinformation.

The misinformation in Earthjustice’s 2025 report falls into three categories

1.  The very widely debunked claim that Bitcoin mining destabilizes grids
2.  The more recently debunked claim that Bitcoin mining increases power prices
3.  The more recently debunked claim that Bitcoin mining does not offer community benefits

Let’s address each in turn.

### 1\. Bitcoin and grid stability

This claim demonstrates considerable ignorance about the large body of evidence showing that Bitcoin mining stabilizes grids. The claim also reveals a severe lack of awareness about what Earthjustice’s peers in the environmental movement have been writing in climate media for some time.

The key point is: Bitcoin does not destabilize grids. In fact, a mountain of peer-reviewed and real-world evidence shows that Bitcoin mining stabilizes grids, enabling grid operators to integrate higher concentrations of variable renewable energy.

For example:

1.  [Lai et al](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c05445) states that Bitcoin mining can “balance the electrical grid”. [source](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c05445)
2.  [Ibañez et al](https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/14/3/35) concludes “PoW mining emerges as an alternative that can provide additional income and ancillary services (auxiliary services designed to provide stability to the energy grid)”. [source](https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/14/3/35)
3.  [Menati et al](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266679242300015X) found that “the flexibility of cryptocurrency mining loads plays a pivotal role in the reliability of electricity systems and the stability of electricity markets” and “cryptocurrency mining …is shown not to be detrimental to power grid reliability even with significant amounts at certain locations.” [source](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266679242300015X)
4.  A whitepaper from Energy Experts at Duke University concluded that Controllable Load Resources (aka: Bitcoin mining) help to [stabilize grids](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/danielsbatten_waited-34-months-for-this-moment-in-march-activity-7296373253453819905-Y2SK?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAAOueQB3LYz-BPTBFwVPl9wJVYdGJiKUow), and decarbonize grids. [source](https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/publications/rethinking-load-growth.pdf)
5.  These findings correspond precisely to Texas’ grid operators own direct observations.

###### **“\[Bitcoin mining operations\] have found a way to come into the market and take some of that excess wind in offpeak periods. Then it can turn down whenever we need the power for other customers… And if a generator trips off line can very quickly respond to that frequency disruption and allow us to balance our grid mor