Cambridge University again points to incorrect Bitcoin mining data in its model

The data from the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index (CBECI) on the Bitcoin mining industry was and still is often the basis for media coverage, political decisions and draft legislation. Specific Bitcoin critics also often cited the study.

However, environmental activist and entrepreneur Daniel Batten has already pointed out that the Cambridge model's data on energy consumption, emissions and the electricity mix are incorrect due to inaccurate estimates and a lack of consideration of off-grid facilities. Cambridge University itself also acknowledged errors in its energy consumption estimates in August 2023 - Blocktrainer.de reported.

A note in small print has now appeared on the Cambridge study's website in which the university admits further errors and points out the outdated and incorrect data.

The note clarifies "that today's electricity mix associated with Bitcoin mining is likely to be significantly different from that in January 2022" and "this discrepancy is likely to lead to an overestimation of emissions estimates by around 25 percent".

After overestimating energy consumption by more than 20 percent, Cambridge University now also admits that the data on emissions since January 2022 are also overestimated by a quarter. Cambridge has thus corrected two important aspects that resulted in an overestimation of the data and integrated them into the model, at least in small print.

However, Daniel Batten again points out a third important aspect on the social media platform 𝕏: The lack of consideration of off-grid mining facilities - which Cambridge itself mentions in the model's methodology - also led to further distorted results for emissions and the shares of the mining industry's energy mix, Batten explains. The reliability of the emissions estimates in the Cambridge model mentioned in the note could therefore also be called into question before January 2022. According to Batten's study, around 30 percent of all Bitcoin mining activities are off-grid, and 75 percent of these use sustainable energy sources.
The environmental activist estimates that Cambridge will not include off-grid facilities in the model for another two to three years. Batten himself has already developed his own transparent model(BEEST model), which includes more than 70 off-grid mining companies.
This holistic and therefore more accurate view of the mining industry is intended to counteract policies and reporting that are based on incomplete data.

Bloomberg Intelligence, Google and ChatGPT already prefer the calculation models and data based on the BEEST model over the Cambridge model. Unfortunately, however, there are still many policy decisions and reports that use the erroneous data on emissions and the proportion of fossil fuels in the Bitcoin mining network's electricity mix for the old narrative about the allegedly environmentally harmful Bitcoin mining industry.
It is therefore important to repeatedly point out the abuses. However, it would also make sense for Cambridge University in particular to take a stance on this in a media-effective manner and also formally clarify it, instead of secretly integrating small-print notes into the model that make it practically invalid.