Bitcoin data on emissions and environmental data continue to improve at a rapid pace. Finally, we have an accurate energy consumption model for Bitcoin. Not political propaganda bullshit (Alex de Vries / Cambrigde), just data, and numbers.

Today Daniel Batten, ESG Analyst, climate technology investor, and activist, released his latest research in which there is strong reason to believe that the Bitcoin network’s true energy consumption is at least 23.7% less than CBECI suggests.

I quote Daniel:

"For several years the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) has been the most quoted source for Bitcoin energy and power consumption estimates. However, our analysis of CCAF’s Bitcoin power and energy consumption) model (CBECI) shows two issues that result in an overestimation of energy and power consumption.

The Cambridge (CCAF) data on Bitcoin has these issues:

1. energy consumption (20.6% overstated)

2. emission intensity (69.4% overstated)

3. sustainable energy mix (39.9% understated)

4. emissions (106% overstated)"

Daniel and his team have been working with Luxor, Blockware, and over 30 miners over the last few months to build an up-to-date model based on the Network's current miner mix, mining map, and energy sources.

Their analysis led them to the conclusion that for example Blockware has a more up-to-date miner mix and a superior methodology (reflects the real-world ways that miners choose whether to mine with less efficient machines, which is determined primarily by wholesale electricity price, with Bitcoin price being the secondary factor).

They found that both Blockware, Luxor, and Marathon approaches to be based on the more up-to-date data, and a more industry-aware understanding of current mining practices relative to CCAF. They haven’t been granted permission to see the methodologies of Khazzaka, so cannot comment on his model at this time.

Source: