Timechain Wiki

Bitcoin mining and renewables

10 min read

Daniel Batten's BEEST (Bitcoin Energy & Emissions Sustainability Tracker), developed with Willy Woo and refined since 2022, is the principal contemporary empirical assessment of Bitcoin mining's energy mix. BEEST's headline figure — 52.6% of network electricity from sustainable sources (renewables + nuclear) at its 2023-2024 baseline, growing +4.49 percentage points per year (a trajectory that puts 2026 estimates in the ~56-57% range) — sits substantially above the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) estimate of 37.6%; the gap reflects facility-level survey methodology vs. country-electricity-mix-by-hashrate-proportion. Independent of the headline sustainability percentage, the methane-mitigation framing is the most distinctive Bitcoin-side response to environmental critique: flare-gas operations (~168 MW at 7.45% of network hashrate per BEEST) convert methane (84× the 20-year GWP of CO2) into combustion products dominated by CO2, producing a net climate benefit that exceeds Bitcoin mining's own CO2 emissions. The on-grid-portion-matches-global-grid-average data refutes the framing of Bitcoin as preferentially coal-targeting. Substantive analytical critique of energy-consumption concerns lives in Environmental and energy-consumption critiques.

Why this note matters

The Bitcoin-vs-environmental-critique debate has been one of the most-publicly-contested aspects of Bitcoin’s reception. The Bitcoin-side empirical response has matured substantially since 2022, with Daniel Batten’s BEEST methodology providing rigorous facility-level data that competes with the CCAF country-level methodology. The methane-mitigation framing — engaging Bitcoin mining as climate-net-beneficial rather than merely climate-neutral — is the most-distinctive Bitcoin-side counter-narrative.

This section treats the empirical landscape as it has developed. Substantive analytical critique (where the critique has merit, where the framing is contested, where the empirical picture is genuinely uncertain) lives in Environmental and energy-consumption critiques (Criticisms). This section presents the empirical Bitcoin-side framing; the analytical engagement-with-critics homes in the dedicated Criticism note.

The BEEST methodology

The Bitcoin Electricity Estimating Statistical Tool (BEEST) is the principal contemporary Bitcoin-side empirical methodology for assessing the mining network’s energy mix. Co-developed by Daniel Batten and Willy Woo, with subsequent refinements:

Methodology overview. BEEST uses facility-level data — direct surveys of mining operators, hashrate-by-facility data, and locally-specific electricity-mix data — to compute weighted-average sustainability percentages. Where facility-level data is unavailable, BEEST uses regional-grid-mix data at the smallest available geography.

Comparison with CCAF. The Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index uses country-level data: estimated mining hashrate by country times country-level electricity-mix data. The methodology produces lower sustainability estimates because: (1) it does not account for mining operators preferentially co-locating with renewable generation within a country, (2) it does not capture stranded-energy and methane-mitigation operations, and (3) it has limited visibility into facility-level energy contracts (renewable power purchase agreements, etc.).

Specific BEEST findings (2023-2024 baseline; trajectory continuing):

  • Total mining sustainable share: 52.6% sustainable (renewables + nuclear) at the published baseline; ~56-57% by 2026 on the growth trajectory below
  • Growth rate: +4.49 percentage points per year, structural trend
  • Top-jurisdiction sustainability: Specific jurisdictions (Iceland, Norway, Quebec, parts of Texas) operate at >85% sustainable
  • Coal share: 6-8% globally (substantially lower than common perceptions; concentrated in Kazakhstan and limited Chinese operations)

Methodological transparency. BEEST methodology is published on batcoinz.com/beest with detailed documentation. The data is updated continuously and reviewed by external analysts. The methodology has been the subject of academic engagement (SSRN papers on the methane-mitigation framework).

The BEEST-vs-CCAF empirical debate. The two methodologies produce meaningfully different numbers (52.6% vs 37.6%). The Bitcoin-side framing is that BEEST is more accurate because it captures facility-level data that CCAF cannot; the critic-side framing emphasizes that BEEST relies on industry-engagement (potential survey bias). The methodological debate is genuine and the empirical picture has uncertainty bands wider than either point estimate suggests.

The methane-mitigation framing

The most-distinctive empirical Bitcoin-side response to environmental critique:

The science. Methane (CH4) has a global-warming potential approximately 84× that of CO2 over a 20-year horizon (per IPCC AR5; varies in different IPCC reports). Flaring methane converts it to CO2 (plus water), reducing the GWP by a factor of ~84. Capturing methane and using it to generate electricity (instead of flaring) provides the same GWP reduction plus the additional benefit of useful electricity generation.

The Bitcoin-mining application. Flare-gas-mining operations co-locate generators and mining hardware at oil-and-gas wellheads. The associated methane (which would otherwise be flared if pipeline capacity is insufficient) is captured, run through generators, and used to power Bitcoin mining. The economic incentive: oil-and-gas operators receive payment for what was previously a waste stream; miners receive cheap electricity; the climate receives substantial methane-mitigation.

The net-emission calculation. A simplified per-MW comparison:

  • 1 MW of flared methane (no mining): produces CO2-equivalent emissions equal to the methane’s GWP after combustion
  • 1 MW of methane captured for mining: produces CO2 emissions from combustion plus eliminates the methane-leakage-during-flaring (small but non-zero), generates electricity displacing other generation
  • Per BEEST analysis, the net effect is climate-NEGATIVE — the methane-mitigation benefit exceeds the CO2 emissions from combustion plus the displacement of cleaner electricity

Empirical scale. Per BEEST’s June-2024 data, flare-gas mining operations represent approximately 168 MW of mining capacity globally (7.45% of network hashrate). The methane-mitigation contribution is substantial enough that, integrated across the operation, the Bitcoin-mining network as a whole has potentially climate-NEGATIVE rather than climate-POSITIVE emissions impact when methane-mitigation is included in the accounting.

The SSRN landfill-gas paper. A 2024 paper published on SSRN (and engaged by Batten’s research) extended the methane-mitigation framework to landfill-gas mining — landfills produce methane as organic matter decomposes; mining on landfill-gas reduces methane emissions similarly to wellhead operations. Several pilot operations have demonstrated the methodology at scale.

Operators in the space. Specific operators include:

  • Crusoe Energy — flare-gas mining at oil-and-gas wellheads in the Bakken, Permian, and other US fields
  • Upstream Data — flare-gas-mining technology provider
  • Various smaller operators in international fields (Argentina, Oman, others)

The methane-mitigation framing has been adopted by Daniel Batten and propagated through the Bitcoin-aligned environmental discourse; it has begun to receive engagement from non-Bitcoin-aligned climate analysts as the empirical evidence has accumulated.

The on-grid-matches-global-grid-average data

A second empirical contention from BEEST: the on-grid portion of Bitcoin mining (i.e., excluding stranded-energy and methane-mitigation operations) matches or exceeds the global grid average for sustainability.

The framing context. Critics frequently describe Bitcoin mining as coal-targeting or fossil-fuel-targeting. The implicit claim is that mining preferentially uses dirtier electricity than the global average.

The BEEST counter-data. On-grid mining operations (i.e., those participating in normal grid electricity markets rather than stranded-energy or methane-mitigation) appear to use electricity at sustainability percentages comparable to global grid averages. Specific jurisdictions where mining is concentrated (Texas with substantial wind and solar; Quebec with substantial hydroelectric; Iceland with substantial geothermal; parts of the western US with substantial renewable share) suggest mining operators preferentially select renewable-heavy jurisdictions for site selection rather than coal-heavy jurisdictions.

The empirical implication. Bitcoin mining as a whole — including grid-tied operations, stranded-energy operations, and methane-mitigation operations — has a sustainability mix substantially better than the global grid average and improving structurally over time.

The contested-data acknowledgment. The data is contested. CCAF estimates produce lower sustainability percentages; critics argue BEEST overstates sustainability through industry-engagement bias. The methodological debate is ongoing. The Bitcoin-side framing is that the structural-data-trend favors the BEEST framework; the critic-side framing prefers CCAF.

Specific jurisdictional examples

Iceland. ~100% sustainable energy mix (geothermal + hydroelectric); host to substantial Bitcoin mining since the early 2010s. Sustainability percentage is essentially structural rather than incidental.

Norway. ~95-98% sustainable (predominantly hydroelectric); recent mining growth in northern regions with surplus hydroelectric capacity.

Quebec, Canada. ~95%+ sustainable (predominantly hydroelectric); substantial Bitcoin mining; hydroelectric surplus during specific seasons.

British Columbia, Canada. Iris Energy and others operate substantial mining on BC hydroelectric power.

Paraguay. Itaipu Dam (world’s largest hydroelectric facility by certain measures) provides essentially all electricity; sovereign Bitcoin mining program emerging.

Bhutan. ~99% hydroelectric; sovereign Bitcoin mining program via Druk Holding & Investments.

El Salvador. Geothermal-based sovereign Bitcoin mining program; volcanic-energy framing.

Ethiopia. Substantial hydroelectric (Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam); emerging mining presence.

Texas (US). Mixed grid; substantial wind, growing solar, plus thermal generation. The empirical mining-energy mix in Texas-based operations is mixed but trending toward higher renewable share. The Riot Rockdale facility and many others operate in this grid.

Kazakhstan. Substantial coal share; one of the higher-fossil-fuel jurisdictions where mining operates. Mining in Kazakhstan has been the principal contributor to the higher-fossil-fuel-share concerns in CCAF data.

The jurisdictional-mix trajectory. The geographic shift away from Kazakhstan-concentrated mining (which peaked after the 2021 China ban) and toward US-and-renewable-rich jurisdictions has been a structural sustainability trend. This is engaged at depth in Geographic distribution of mining.

Tradeoffs and design choices

BEEST methodology vs CCAF methodology. Different methodologies produce meaningfully different empirical pictures. The Bitcoin-side framing favors BEEST as more facility-accurate; the critic-side framing favors CCAF as less industry-engaged. The empirical question is genuinely uncertain at the margins; the structural sustainability trend is favorable under either framework.

Methane-mitigation framing vs alternative emissions accounting. The methane-GWP-vs-CO2 accounting framework Batten uses is standard climate-science accounting but does require methodological choices (20-year vs 100-year GWP horizon; specific GWP values). Alternative accounting frameworks produce different numbers; the structural climate-benefit framing holds under most reasonable accounting choices.

Stranded-energy vs grid-tied energy framing. The Bitcoin-side framing emphasizes that mining can use stranded energy (truly net-positive) while still being honest that much mining is grid-tied. The honest framing acknowledges both dimensions; rhetorical-defensive framings sometimes overstate the stranded-energy share.

Sustainability trajectory vs static snapshot. The sustainability percentage is improving structurally (+4.49 pp/year per BEEST). Static-snapshot critiques don’t capture this trajectory; trajectory-aware framings emphasize the directional improvement.

The CCAF-vs-BEEST methodological debate. Both methodologies have genuine merits; both have specific limitations. The empirical picture is converging over time as data quality improves on both sides. The contested-methodology framing should be honest rather than triumphalist on either side.

Substantive analytical critique of mining’s energy use, including the empirical-methodology debate and the GWP-accounting questions, lives in Environmental and energy-consumption critiques.

Open questions for further development

  • How does the BEEST-CCAF methodology debate resolve? Both methodologies have refined over time; the empirical convergence question is ongoing.
  • Can the methane-mitigation framing scale to a meaningful fraction of total mining? Currently ~7.45% of hashrate; technical potential is much higher but deployment is constrained by capital and site-logistics.
  • What is the realistic sustainability trajectory through 2030? BEEST projects continued ~+4.49 pp/year growth; the structural drivers (cheap renewables, mining geographic mobility) support this trajectory.
  • How do regulatory and political frameworks engage the methane-mitigation framing? EPA, EU climate frameworks, and international climate-accounting standards are evolving; specific treatment of crypto-mining-related methane mitigation is emerging.
  • What is the appropriate engagement with the AI-infrastructure-pivot’s energy implications? AI compute has similar but distinct sustainability profiles; the mining-and-AI-shared-infrastructure question affects empirical accounting.

Canonical sources for this note

Primary empirical sources

  • Daniel Batten — BEEST methodology developer; principal Bitcoin-side empirical voice
  • BEEST methodology documentation: batcoinz.com/beest
  • bitcoinminingmap.com — Daniel Batten’s facility-level data visualization
  • Willy Woo various Bitcoin-energy analytical work — co-developer of BEEST

Comparison sources

  • Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) — Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index (the principal alternative methodology)
  • IPCC reports on methane GWP and global warming potentials

Methane-mitigation operators and research

  • Crusoe Energy, Upstream Data — operational engagement with flare-gas mining
  • SSRN papers on landfill-gas methane-mitigation Bitcoin mining
  • Various academic papers on methane GWP and emission accounting

discussion references

Graph View

Backlinks