IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jchals/v14y2023i4p47-d1287154.html

Bitcoin and Its Energy, Environmental, and Social Impacts: An Assessment of Key Research Needs in the Mining Sector

Author

Listed:
  • Murray A. Rudd

    (Satoshi Action Education, Portland, OR 97214, USA)

  • Lee Bratcher

    (Texas Blockchain Council, Richardson, TX 75081, USA)

  • Simon Collins

    (Stackr Limited, Otautahi 9610, New Zealand)

  • David Branscum

    (Rebel Mining Company, Jackson, WY 83001, USA)

  • Matthew Carson

    (Hash House Tech, Wilmington, DE 19808, USA)

  • Shaun Connell

    (Lancium Technologies Corp, The Woodlands, TX 77380, USA)

  • Elliot David

    (Sustainable Bitcoin Protocol, Rehoboth Beach, DE 19971, USA)

  • Magdalena Gronowska

    (PRTI Inc., Franklinton, NC 27525, USA)

  • Sebastien Hess

    (Block Green AG, 6343 Rotkreuz, Switzerland)

  • Austin Mitchell

    (Synota Inc., Columbus, OH 43219, USA)

  • Matt Prusak

    (US Bitcoin Corp, Austin, TX 78741, USA)

  • Kyle Schneps

    (Foundry Digital LLC., Pittsford, NY 14534, USA)

  • Maxim Serezhin

    (Standard Power, Coshocton, OH 43812, USA)

  • Scott A. Wolfe

    (Bitcoin Coalition of Canada, Toronto, ON M6H 3P2, Canada)

  • Dennis Porter

    (Satoshi Action Education, Portland, OR 97214, USA)

Abstract

In this study, we used a combination of AI-assisted analysis of social media discourse and collaboration with industry experts to delve into the key research needs associated with the Bitcoin mining industry. We identified primary threats, opportunities, and research questions related to the Bitcoin mining industry and its wider impacts, focusing on its energy use and environmental footprint. Our findings spotlight the industry’s move towards increasingly greater energy efficiency and an emerging commitment to renewable energy, highlighting its potential to contribute to the coming energy transition. We underscore the transformative potential of emerging applications in the Bitcoin mining sector, especially regarding demand response, grid flexibility, and methane mitigation. We suggest that targeted research on Bitcoin can serve policymakers, private sector decision-makers, research funding agencies, environmental scientists, and the Bitcoin industry itself. We propose that filling key information gaps could help clarify the risks and benefits of Bitcoin mining by encouraging collaboration among researchers, policymakers, and industry stakeholders and conducting research that provides baseline peer-reviewed evidence surrounding Bitcoin’s production and impacts. A collaborative approach could help mitigate the risks and realize the benefits of Bitcoin mining, including potentially positive and substantive contributions in alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals.

Suggested Citation

  • Murray A. Rudd & Lee Bratcher & Simon Collins & David Branscum & Matthew Carson & Shaun Connell & Elliot David & Magdalena Gronowska & Sebastien Hess & Austin Mitchell & Matt Prusak & Kyle Schneps & M, 2023. "Bitcoin and Its Energy, Environmental, and Social Impacts: An Assessment of Key Research Needs in the Mining Sector," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-29, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jchals:v:14:y:2023:i:4:p:47-:d:1287154
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/14/4/47/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/14/4/47/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lawton, Ricky N. & Rudd, Murray A., 2016. "Scientific evidence, expert entrepreneurship, and ecosystem narratives in the UK Natural Environment White Paper," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 24-32.
    2. Juan Ignacio Ibañez & Alexander Freier, 2023. "Bitcoin’s Carbon Footprint Revisited: Proof of Work Mining for Renewable Energy Expansion," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-21, August.
    3. Fthenakis, Vasilis & Kim, Hyung Chul, 2009. "Land use and electricity generation: A life-cycle analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(6-7), pages 1465-1474, August.
    4. Stefan Kuhlmann & Arie Rip, 2018. "Next-Generation Innovation Policy and Grand Challenges," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 448-454.
    5. Camilo Mora & Randi L. Rollins & Katie Taladay & Michael B. Kantar & Mason K. Chock & Mio Shimada & Erik C. Franklin, 2018. "Bitcoin emissions alone could push global warming above 2°C," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 8(11), pages 931-933, November.
    6. Murray A. Rudd, 2023. "Bitcoin Is Full of Surprises," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-14, May.
    7. Paul L Joskow, 2019. "Challenges for wholesale electricity markets with intermittent renewable generation at scale: the US experience," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 35(2), pages 291-331.
    8. del Río, Pablo & Burguillo, Mercedes, 2008. "Assessing the impact of renewable energy deployment on local sustainability: Towards a theoretical framework," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 1325-1344, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Frans Lavdari, 2026. "Bitcoin: after 15 years, is it worth?," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 1-56, July.
    2. Shahriari, Hesam & Stivers, Adam & Tsang, Ming, 2025. "Bias in cryptocurrency investing: The effect of financial and moral considerations," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rupert L. Matthews, 2024. "Untangling the Processes of Bitcoin: An Organizational Learning Perspective," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-18, February.
    2. Georgeio Semaan & Guizhou Wang & Quoc Si Vo & Gopalakrishnan Kumar, 2024. "The Potential Relationship between Biomass, Biorefineries, and Bitcoin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-13, September.
    3. Moreira, João M.L. & Cesaretti, Marcos A. & Carajilescov, Pedro & Maiorino, José R., 2015. "Sustainability deterioration of electricity generation in Brazil," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 334-346.
    4. Keppler, Jan Horst & Quemin, Simon & Saguan, Marcelo, 2022. "Why the sustainable provision of low-carbon electricity needs hybrid markets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    5. Simshauser, Paul, 2024. "On static vs. dynamic line ratings in renewable energy zones," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    6. Ioannidis, Romanos & Koutsoyiannis, Demetris, 2020. "A review of land use, visibility and public perception of renewable energy in the context of landscape impact," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    7. Janssen, Matthijs J. & Abbasiharofteh, Milad, 2022. "Boundary spanning R&D collaboration: Key enabling technologies and missions as alleviators of proximity effects?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    8. Lin William Cong & Zhiguo He & Jiasun Li & Wei Jiang, 2021. "Decentralized Mining in Centralized Pools [Concentrating on the fall of the labor share]," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 34(3), pages 1191-1235.
    9. Emblemsvåg, Jan, 2022. "Wind energy is not sustainable when balanced by fossil energy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    10. McManamay, Ryan A. & DeRolph, Christopher R. & Surendran-Nair, Sujithkumar & Allen-Dumas, Melissa, 2019. "Spatially explicit land-energy-water future scenarios for cities: Guiding infrastructure transitions for urban sustainability," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 880-900.
    11. Sperring, Emily & Gaskin, Susan & Jordaan, Sarah M., 2025. "Quantifying land-energy interactions of hydropower in the Western United States," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).
    12. Švarc, Jadranka & Dabić, Marina, 2021. "Transformative innovation policy or how to escape peripheral policy paradox in European research peripheral countries," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    13. Hans Pohl, 2021. "Internationalisation, innovation, and academic–corporate co-publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1329-1358, February.
    14. Radtke, Jörg & Scherhaufer, Patrick, 2022. "A social science perspective on conflicts in the energy transition: An introduction to the special issue," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    15. Hufnagl, Miriam, 2025. "Unboxing innovation policy strategies: An empirical exploration on objectives, coordination, and capacity," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 91, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    16. David P. Brown & David E. M. Sappington, 2023. "Market Structure, Risk Preferences, and Forward Contracting Incentives," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(4), pages 1146-1202, December.
    17. Copena, Damián & Simón, Xavier, 2018. "Wind farms and payments to landowners: Opportunities for rural development for the case of Galicia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 38-47.
    18. Ciliberti, Carlo & Jordaan, Sarah M. & Smith, Stephen V. & Spatari, Sabrina, 2016. "A life cycle perspective on land use and project economics of electricity from wind and anaerobic digestion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 52-63.
    19. Burillo, Daniel & Chester, Mikhail V. & Pincetl, Stephanie & Fournier, Eric, 2019. "Electricity infrastructure vulnerabilities due to long-term growth and extreme heat from climate change in Los Angeles County," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 943-953.
    20. Fang, Yiping & Wei, Yanqiang, 2013. "Climate change adaptation on the Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau: The importance of solar energy utilization for rural household," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 508-518.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jchals:v:14:y:2023:i:4:p:47-:d:1287154. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.