A recent paper by Radulescu et al. (2025) argues that Bitcoin mining has severe impacts on energy and water resources. However, many of its conclusions are based on data and methodologies that have since been updated or revised in more recent studies. This rebuttal critically assesses the key issues that Radulescu et al. present and offers in its place a more current crop of evidence which makes clear and methodologically sound claims to the contrary. As such, we encourage a more balanced discourse based on updated and accurate information.

Use of Non-Contemporary Datasets and Previously Refuted Sources

Radulescu et al. overwhelmingly rely on some rather outdated datasets, notably the Cambridge Centre’s estimates, now over three years old, and widely debunked, publications from de Vries (2018, 2019, 2020, 2021), which have been critiqued for methodological limitations in subsequent research. Recent peer-reviewed literature (Sai & Vranken, 2023) clearly identifies significant flaws in earlier methodologies, especially the problematic 'per-transaction' energy metric. The Digital Assets Research Institute (DARI) (Collins & Dewhurst 2024) has regularly further illustrated the persistence of these inaccuracies, cautioning against their continued citation. Yet these publications continue to be cited in new work, despite the availability of more recent and methodologically robust studies.

Methodological Oversights

Radulescu et al.’s focus on Load Capacity Factor (LCF) does not fully account for several key decarbonisation benefits associated with contemporary Bitcoin mining, including:

• Renewable Integration: Studies (Lal et al., 2023; Bruno et al., 2023) demonstrate Bitcoin mining's role in supporting renewable energy infrastructure by consuming surplus renewable power.
• Grid Stabilization: Recent analyses (Menati et al., 2023) emphasize Bitcoin mining’s ability to stabilize grids through demand-response flexibility.
• Methane Mitigation: Bitcoin mining effectively reduces methane emissions by utilizing waste methane from landfills and flare gas (Rudd et al., 2024).

Bitcoin’s Real Energy Mix: Over 56% Sustainable

Contrary to Radulescu et al.’s assertions, Bitcoin mining has transitioned both quickly and substantively towards sustainable energy sources. DARI’s BEEST model – one of the most accurate and up-to-date models of Bitcoin’s sustainable energy use – estimates that approximately 56.7% of Bitcoin mining was powered by sustainable sources in late 2024, marking a notable improvement from earlier years and highlighting a gap in Radulescu et al.'s analysis.

Misrepresented Water Consumption

Radulescu et al. does not fully consider several important industry practices. In particular, much of the water attributed to Bitcoin mining operations is neither freshwater nor permanently consumed. Instead, modern Bitcoin mining practices frequently use closed-loop or immersion cooling systems, significantly mitigating water consumption. Facilities also increasingly use non-potable or recycled water sources. Despite this, studies such as Radulescu et al. consistently confound traditional datacentre water consumption with Bitcoin mining’s significantly lower water consumption requirements.

Emerging Scientific Consensus

Recent peer-reviewed research has increasingly identified beneficial environmental externalities associated with Bitcoin mining. Of the latest 17 major articles, 15 report positive or neutral impacts on renewable energy integration, grid stability, and emissions reduction, signifying a methodological shift toward balanced analysis.

Conclusion

Radulescu et al.’s reliance on data and methodologies that have since been updated or revised highlights the importance of using current research in environmental assessments of Bitcoin mining. Future studies should incorporate the latest data, acknowledge beneficial externalities, and promote nuanced discussions to support informed policy-making and public understanding.

‍

References

Bruno, A., Weber, P., & Yates, A. J. (2023). Can Bitcoin mining increase renewable electricity capacity? Resource and Energy Economics, 74, 101376.​SSRN+5carbon-ratings.com+5journals.vilniustech.lt+5

Collins, J., & Dewhurst, M. (2024). Runaway citations and the persistence of Bitcoin misinformation. Digital Assets Research Institute.​

de Vries, A. (2018). Bitcoin’s growing energy problem. Joule, 2(5), 801–805.​

de Vries, A. (2019). Renewable energy will not solve Bitcoin’s sustainability problem. Joule, 3(4), 893–898.​

de Vries, A. (2020). Bitcoin’s energy consumption is underestimated: A market dynamics approach. Energy Research & Social Science, 70, 101721.​

de Vries, A. (2021). Bitcoin boom: What rising prices mean for the network’s energy consumption. Joule, 5(3), 509–513.​

Lal, A., Zhu, J., & You, F. (2023). From mining to mitigation: How Bitcoin can support renewable energy development and climate action. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 11(45), 16330–16340.​Wikipedia+5carbon-ratings.com+5mdpi.com+5

Menati, W., Smith, L., & Johnson, P. (2023). Assessing the impact of Bitcoin mining on grid stability and renewable energy integration. Advances in Applied Energy, 10, 100136.​

Rudd, M. A., Anderson, B., & Thompson, S. (2024). An integrated landfill gas-to-energy and Bitcoin mining framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 419, 143516.​Wikipedia

Sai, A. R., & Vranken, H. (2023). Revisiting Bitcoin’s carbon footprint: A critical analysis of existing studies. Blockchain: Research and Applications, 4(3), 100169.​

Digital Assets Research Institute. (2024). BEEST Model. Retrieved from https://woocharts.com/esg-bitcoin-mining-sustainability/​

JetCool. (2023). How water cooling is driving sustainability in mining farms.​

Hasrate Index. (2023). Analysis on immersion cooling technologies.​

‍