Bitcoin mining electricity use increased 38%, according to data associated with the University of Cambridge, while hydropower overtook natural gas as a larger component of the Bitcoin network’s reported energy mix.

The update adds two separate findings to the continuing debate over Bitcoin mining’s environmental footprint: overall electricity demand rose, and the composition of the power sources used by miners shifted further toward hydropower.

Cambridge data points to higher mining power demand

The 38% figure comes from Cambridge research tracking Bitcoin network electricity consumption. The University of Cambridge has maintained a long-running body of research on digital asset mining, including the Cambridge Digital Mining Industry Report and the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index.

The reported increase is presented as a measured change in mining power demand, rather than as a statement about Bitcoin’s market price. Cambridge’s electricity consumption index focuses on how much electricity the Bitcoin network draws, which is a separate issue from how the asset trades on any given day.

Bitcoin mining’s electricity demand has been a central part of the industry’s sustainability discussion for years. Prior comparisons of Bitcoin mining electricity use with national-scale consumption, including Sweden, have illustrated why even incremental changes in power demand attract scrutiny from researchers, policymakers, and the public.

Electricity use is also one of the most visible metrics for Bitcoin because mining is the proof-of-work process that validates blocks and secures the network. That makes changes in network power demand relevant beyond crypto markets, especially in regions where miners compete with other large electricity users for grid capacity.

Hydropower moves ahead of natural gas

The second major finding is a change in the ranking of energy sources used by the network. Hydropower moved ahead of natural gas in the reported mining energy mix, making the shift a central part of the latest data rather than a secondary detail.

That change is relevant to the environmental debate because hydropower is a renewable energy source, while natural gas is a fossil fuel. Cambridge’s sustainability work, including its Cambridge Bitcoin Network Sustainability Index, tracks how the network’s electricity sources evolve over time.

The distinction matters because electricity consumption and emissions are related but not identical. A higher share of renewable power can change the emissions profile of mining, while total demand still affects grids, infrastructure planning, and local energy policy.

Mining’s energy profile shows two trends at once

Taken together, the findings complicate a simple reading of Bitcoin mining’s footprint. The network’s power use rose even as the energy mix shifted toward a larger share of hydropower, meaning higher electricity consumption and a reduced relative role for gas can occur at the same time.

That distinction matters because the mining energy debate is often framed as moving in one direction. The Cambridge data instead points to two simultaneous developments: increased consumption and a change in sourcing. Neither finding cancels out the other.

The changing electricity profile is also unfolding alongside policy attention on where mining and data centers draw their power, including measures such as tighter data center rules in Wyoming as Bitcoin-related electricity demand grows.

The Cambridge figures therefore support a more precise reading of the sector’s energy story: Bitcoin mining is not only about rising power use, and not only about cleaner sourcing, but about both developments occurring together.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency and digital asset markets carry significant risk. Always do your own research before making decisions.