https://youtu.be/W21SBG39Zwk

regarding today's article on Bitcoin Mining https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/03/climate/crypto-mining-renewables-electricity-shortage/index.html

The piece you wrote on Bitcoin Mining this morning perpetuates some unbalanced, and in some cases outright false, claims.

Further, the article makes a series of claims and inferences that are not supported by the scientific consensus (14 of the last 16 articles on Bitcoin and energy show strong environmental benefits, none of which you acknowledge). Instead you engage in what can at best be described as “selective reporting”, including.

1. Reported on how Bitcoin mining was used in a rogue way in Abkhazia, which allegedly caused grid destabilization, but didn't acknowledge that this is an anomaly, with Bitcoin mining having been embraced by both grid operators and in academic research as a critical tool for stabilizing the grid. For example, a whitepaper from Energy Experts at Duke University concluded that Controllable Load Resources (aka: Bitcoin mining) help to stabilize grids, and decarbonize grids. Lai et al states that Bitcoin mining can “balance the electrical grid” https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c05445 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)” https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/14/3/35 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.” https://https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266679242300015X

Why did you include none of this body of evidence in your article? Was it because you were unaware of it - or simply because it didn't support the story you wished to advance?

2. Advanced the (previously debunked) implication that Bitcoin mining takes renewable energy away from other operators. It doesn't.

Bitcoin mining because of its economic incentives to use cheap power is, as former ERCOT Grid operator Brad Jones attested, a “non-rival energy user”. In other words, it “powers down when the price of power becomes too expensive; the very time other people want/need that power. In fact, the opposite is true with many cases arising of people who have access to renewable energy who otherwise would not have as a direct result of Bitcoin mining. For example, Gridless in Africa has delivered renewable energy to four villages, while on a much bigger scale in Ethiopia, Bitcoin mining is helping accelerate the building of transmission lines to deliver renewable energy to people. Again, why did you include none of this context?

3. Strong Evidence of Non-investigative reporting

While you interviewed the CEO of MARA, you'd clearly already formed the basis of the piece you wanted to write before you contacted him, using the interview merely as a source of rebuttal from known Bitcoin antagonist Mandy deRoche.

Mandy is neither a Bitcoin mining expert, nor an energy expert. She is a paid Earthjustice anti-Bitcoin campaigner.

4. Cherry picking data

While Russia does indeed have mainly fossil fuels, your article makes no mention of the fact that Bitcoin is now powered 52.6% by sustainable energy sources (Bloomberg Intelligence, 2023).

5. Error by omission

You excluded a large body of research showing that far from "taking renewable energy away" from people, Bitcoin plays an important role in accelerating the green energy transition, which makes more renewable energy available to more people.

This finding is supported by numerous peer reviewed studies which found that Bitcoin mining enables halving of the payback time for solar farms (Hakimi et al, 2024) accelerating the renewable energy transition (Lal et al, 2003) accelerating renewable microgrid development (Moghimi et al 2024)

Incidentally, Bitcoin mining has also been shown to help reduce methane emissions (Sechrest et al, 2024) and obviate the need for gas peaker plants (Bruno et al, 2023) In forming your perspective on Bitcoin mining, why did you ignore this body of facts, and instead rely on a single anti-Bitcoin lobbyist's opinion ? Is this not akin to ignoring the scientific consensus on climate change and writing an article based on the opinions of a single oil industry lobbyist?

Summary

Overall, its a bit of a throwback of an article, the likes of which we used to see more of in 2021-22 before most of the mainstream media became aware of the shift in the scientific consensus around Bitcoin mining and its (largely positive) enviromental impact. Indeed, even sustainability focused media including Anthropocene, Renewables Now and Renewable Energy Magazine now report 90% on the environmental benefits of Bitcoin mining.

source: https://https://x.com/DSBatten/status/1874851606430110073

I would suggest you take time to research Bitcoin more thoroughly next time before you write about it, rather than relying on the opinions of paid lobbyists from Earthjustice.

Perhaps then, this may result in a better-informed article, which your peers in the mainstream media are now consistently writing about Bitcoin mining. source: https://https://x.com/DSBatten/status/1867026305683951660

My perspective is one of a climatetech investor who saw over 200 different climatetech propositions, but saw in Bitcoin mining the ability to mitigate multiple environmental challenges at one time.

This sort of non-evidence based, or selective-evidence based, reporting is counterproductive to the efforts of many environmental pragmatists who are working hard to accelerate the advancement of renewable energy using Bitcoin mining.

If you wish to write a piece on Bitcoin mining that is supported by evidence, please reach out. There are plenty of experts who have studied the issue deeply who we can direct you to.

Sincerely

Daniel Batten

Climatetech Investor