Daniel Batten Profile picture
Sep 16 17 tweets 7 min read
Can Bitcoin become carbon negative?

How does that even work?

Is it realistic?

What data do I have to support POW (what Bitcoin uses) being better for the climate than POS (what Ethereum now uses)?

Lot's of genuinely curious people. I'll do my best to summarize.
Let's start at the top.

Whether something is good, bad or neutral to the environment is NOT determined by energy consumption alone.

Energy source also matters

In laypeople's terms:

Emissions = (energy consumption) x (carbon footprint of energy source)
When the energy source is coal, more consumption = worse environmental impact

When its renewable: more consumption = neutral impact (+ve 'cos it displaces ff)

When it's carbon negative, more consumption = good for the environment

Ethereum chose to minimise their environmental impact by lowering energy consumption to near zero

That's fine. They're entitled to do that

But it's not the only green path

There's also is a cost: with a zero multiplier, you can never become a net good for the environment
The other green path is to transition to carbon negative energy then increase energy consumption

Remember our formula: emissions = (energy consumption) x (carbon footprint of energy source)

When consumption is high & energy source is -ve, you have negative emissions
So how is this possible?

Well it's possible because methane is 84x more warming to our climate than CO2 over a 20-year period

What that means is, when you combust methane that would gone into the air ... it's considered carbon negative

source: trilliumenergy.com/en/news/archiv…
This is not carbon-accounting or offsets. This is carobn chemistry. It's is a recognised form of carbon capture, recognised as carbon negative by Carboncredits.com, EPA and Trillium Energy ... and more recently the Whitehouse.

Source: carboncredits.com/the-ultimate-g…
That's why the climate scientists behind the recent Whitehouse OTSP report wrote

"crypto-asset mining operations that capture methane to produce electricity can yield positive results for the climate."

source: whitehouse.gov/wp-content/upl…
So just how negative is using carbon negative power sources such as vented methane?

The answer, its 13x more good for the environment than coal is bad.

source: batcoinz.com/how-carbon-neg…
OK, so even the Whitehouse acknowledge that Bitcoin mining can be environmentally positive provided when uses vented methane.

But right now, very little of the Bitcoin network uses vented methane as a power-source, so surely this is theory not reality?
Not so.

There was 132.5 MW of new flared gas powered Bitcoin mining in the last 16 months. That’s 8.3 MW/month.

Source: batcoinz.com/quantifying-th…

@Vespene_Energy recently won it's first contract to mine using vented methane from landfills


There is enough landfill gas in the US to power the bitcoin network more than 1.5x over. There are another 4 vented methane companies capital raising right now

Of the 20 renewable mining operations I have spoken to, 6 of them are now actively considering vented methane
The trendline analysis I've done suggests a slightly slower vented methane growth of 7 MW/month, which puts the Bitcoin network on target to be carbon negative in Q4, 2024.

So these are not big projections, in line with what's already been achieved off flared methane
The other objection I commonly here is "Well, why can't we use that power for something else?"

Simply put, its generally uneconomic, because landfills are usually too far from the grid for the buildout cost ($2m/mile) to be profitable

15/ 17
As for flaring that gas,
that's expensive, only burns 92% of the methane, puts soot into the air (global warmer + pollutant), and wastes resources. That's why WEF + a host of environmental NGOs want to end flaring

source: iea.org/reports/flarin…
So Bitcoin mining is the most viable way to use the world's vented methane

At 7MW/month, #BTC becomes carbon negative by Dec 2024

Ethereum can go zero-emission, but no longer carbon negative

Bitcoin powered 24% on vented methane would reduce global emissions by 2%
If this is a different message to what you've heard in the media that's because of, in my view, some sloppy journalism which has recycled myths that can now be debunked by good data

Next step: listen to environmentalist/entrepreneur Adam Wright whatbitcoindid.com/podcast/turnin…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Daniel Batten

Daniel Batten Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DSBatten

Sep 17
For those who have told me you are unsubscribing from @Greenpeace - (21 so far) please do not.

Here's why.

I have researched the twitter accounts of @Greenpeace, Greenpeace UK, Greenpeace EU and Greenpeace AU

None of them have ever commented on #Bitcoin.
I have come to the conclusion that @greenpeaceusa (who are getting absolutely ratio'd at the moment) were not behaving with the blessing of head office in taking a $5M bribe from Ripple's CEO to publish disinformation about Bitcoin.
As an analyst I did some calculations. I reckon @Greenpeace worldwide lost >$15M in subs (+those who've written them out of their will) over the @greenpeaceusa disinformation campaign

They'll have lost more than this in brand rep

Other branches of Greenpeace don't deserve this
Read 4 tweets
Sep 5
This chart says “Bitcoin is even better for the environment than we thought”
In fact, mining #Bitcoin off vented methane takes 13x more emissions out of the environment than coal puts into it.

That’s why Bitcoin mining can reduce 0.15°C of #climatechange

Source: batcoinz.com/quantifying-th…
When you use gas that would have stayed in a pipeline, it’s carbon positive.

When you use methane gas that would have escaped into the air to power electricity generation, its carbon negative.

That’s because methane is 80 times more warming than CO2.
Read 10 tweets
Aug 21
New research just up


1. Using 24% stranded methane, Bitcoin can be carbon-negative 7.7x over by 2030

2. By increasing hashpower growth 40.2% + using mostly waste-methane, Bitcoin mining would eliminate 0.15°C of climate change by 2045

🧵 Image
This article is the sequel to the first one where we found Bitcoin had the potential to mitigate 0.15°C of climate change. batcoinz.com/quantifying-th…

Combusting methane that would have gone into the atmosphere is one of the simplest ways to reduce carbon emissions Image
There's many misconceptions about the best way to use the electricity generated by combusting methane

The most common: "we'd be better using that electricity for something else"

But methane is emitted in remote places where that's seldom possible (no grid infrastructure)
Read 5 tweets
Aug 16
What technology leads the pack at mitigating our most serious greenhouse gas (methane)?

Incredibly, its #Bitcoin mining

If that seems counterintuitive, it's because of the ESG gaslighting campaign against Bitcoin

Here's the story you won't read in the NY Times
First, who says methane is our most urgent climate issue?

Well that'd be the United Nations Environment Program

"methane is the strongest lever we have to reduce climate change in the next 25 years"

It's 84x more warming than CO2 over a 20 year period
Second, why is Bitcoin mining the best tech to mitigate it?

Surely we can sequester, flare it, oxidise it or burn it to power other sources of electricity right?

Short answer: wrong
Longer ans: Bitcoin mining is the least imperfect way to mitigate methane. Here's why...
Read 12 tweets
Aug 15
Understanding why Bitcoin gets attacked:

Same show. Different actors

This is not a new show. It's been playing out for 1000s of years

Whenever a new disruptive idea comes along, it will get attacked from two directions...

This always happens. It's a rite of passage
For example

When I was running Geneious, a tech-company with a disruptive way to visualise genomic information, the incumbent said:

- "If you use Geneious, all your existing files will be lost"
- "It can't scale beyond..."
- "It can't integrate with other genome databases"
It was all utterly false, and easy to prove as false.

But that wasn't the point. They achieved their mission, which was they slowed down user adoption of our technology by spreading FUD (Fear, uncertainty and doubt)
Read 10 tweets
Aug 10
Bitcoin mining now uses 10.9% more renewable energy.


1. The China mining “ban” was only a fossil-fuel power ban

2. The "Kazakhstan migration" was a blip. Most have now re-relocated.

3. Bitcoin mining in Canada has exploded; in Iran it's been decimated
Here's how much mining still happens in China: over 20%. And the evidence points to it now being all hydro and solar based.
Here's what's happened in Iran with it's 98% fossil-fuel based grid. It's gone from 4.7% to 0.1% of global hashrate.

This alone has greened the bitcoin network by 4.5%
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!