Cambridge Validates Our Bitcoin Energy Mix Estimates
Cambridge has released its 2024 update on Bitcoin electricity consumption, and the results align closely with the data we have independently published over the past year.
According to the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance:
- 42.6% of Bitcoin’s electricity usage comes from renewable energy
- 52.4% is classified as sustainable energy, including renewables and low-carbon sources like nuclear
Our own dataset, covering the 2023–2024 period, found:
- 41.5% renewable
- 50.3% sustainable
This level of consistency between two independently developed models is not incidental. It reflects a growing convergence around a more accurate, empirically grounded picture of Bitcoin mining’s energy profile. Despite using different methodologies — Cambridge incorporates survey data, while our model does not — both approaches arrive at nearly identical results. That is what independent validation looks like.
We have also long maintained that Bitcoin’s e-waste impact has been significantly overstated, in some cases by more than half. The Cambridge report supports this view.
.
The Problem With Legacy Estimates
While this alignment marks an important turning point, many widely cited estimates still reflect significantly lower figures:
- CCRI: 32.3% renewable, approximately 41% sustainable
- CRM: 15.1% renewable, no sustainability estimate
- Digiconomist: 25.1% renewable, 36% sustainable, with the highest reported emissions and e-waste assumptions
These estimates rely on older data and methodologies that predate both our findings and the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance’s latest report. Critically, they exclude off-grid mining entirely — despite Cambridge now confirming that 26% of global Bitcoin mining is powered off-grid, often by cleaner sources such as hydro, curtailed renewables, or flared gas.
In addition, some of these legacy models depend on outdated proxies like mining pool IP addresses to determine miner location. This fails to reflect miner migration, regional energy procurement strategies, or seasonal changes in energy supply. Many also rely on national grid carbon intensity averages that do not capture real-time or location-specific energy use.
A Methodology Built for Accuracy
Our approach offers a more comprehensive and realistic assessment of Bitcoin’s energy mix. It is grounded in up-to-date, location-specific data and tracks how miner behavior intersects with global energy systems. Key features of our methodology include:
- One of the world’s most robust databases of miner locations
- Dynamic grid energy profiles and emissions factors that reflect real-time conditions
- Incorporation of mining powered by otherwise flared or vented methane gas
- Adjustments for off-grid and curtailed renewable energy sources
This model captures the complexity and fluidity of Bitcoin’s energy usage with far greater precision, avoiding oversimplified assumptions and static baselines.
A Turning Point for Bitcoin ESG Narratives
The convergence between our data and the findings of the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance represents a pivotal moment for Bitcoin’s environmental conversation. For years, overstated claims about Bitcoin’s carbon footprint have dominated headlines. But as research methods evolve, a clearer and more accurate picture is emerging — one that highlights meaningful progress and reinforces the importance of methodological rigour.
This is especially relevant in the context of Europe’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation. Articles 6, 7, 15, and 29 of MiCA, along with Recital 3 of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/422, require CASPs to provide environmental disclosures that are complete, up to date, and not misleading. Relying on models that exclude off-grid activity or use outdated assumptions could result in material misstatements and expose providers to compliance risk.
As the European Commission, Trinomics, and the University of Luxembourg work toward a standardised environmental methodology for crypto assets, we strongly recommend that empirically validated, data-rich approaches — such as those now confirmed by Cambridge — be included in the framework.
A Turning Point for Bitcoin ESG Narratives
The convergence between our data and the findings of the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance represents a pivotal moment for Bitcoin’s environmental conversation. For years, overstated claims about Bitcoin’s carbon footprint have dominated headlines. But as research methods evolve, a clearer and more accurate picture is emerging — one that highlights meaningful progress and reinforces the importance of methodological rigour.
This is especially relevant in the context of Europe’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation. Articles 6, 7, 15, and 29 of MiCA, along with Recital 3 of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/422, require CASPs to provide environmental disclosures that are complete, up to date, and not misleading. Relying on models that exclude off-grid activity or use outdated assumptions could result in material misstatements and expose providers to compliance risk.
As the European Commission, Trinomics, and the University of Luxembourg work toward a standardised environmental methodology for crypto assets, we strongly recommend that empirically validated, data-rich approaches — such as those now confirmed by Cambridge — be included in the framework.
Looking Ahead
The ESG conversation around Bitcoin is entering a more mature phase — one where accuracy, transparency, and context matter more than ever. We are proud to have contributed to this shift by producing data that is both field-informed and scientifically validated.
We are also reviewing Cambridge’s findings on e-waste and recycling and look forward to implementing new insights into our methodology in the months ahead.
Sources
.png)
