Sure! Here’s a rewritten version of the content while keeping the HTML tags intact:
Recently, Elon Musk brought back the “51% renewables” standard, asserting that the energy fueling Bitcoin “cannot be fabricated.”
This refers to his prior commitment that Tesla would start accepting Bitcoin payments once at least half of the mining energy comes from clean or low-carbon sources.
Nevertheless, despite recent data indicating that the network may have met this benchmark, Tesla has yet to reinstate BTC payments. Why is that?
Has Bitcoin met the benchmark yet?
The 2025 Digital Mining Industry Report from the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance shows that sustainable energy now powers about 52.4% of Bitcoin mining activities surveyed.
Among this, 42.6% comes from renewable sources (like hydro, wind, solar, etc.), while 9.8% relies on nuclear or other low-carbon sources. Meanwhile, contributions from fossil fuels have shifted, with natural gas now accounting for 38.2% (up from around 25% in 2022), and coal decreasing to 8.9% (down from approximately 36.6%).
If Musk’s statement is taken at face value, Bitcoin may already surpass the 51% “sustainable energy” threshold, at least according to Cambridge’s survey of businesses that represent roughly 48% of global mining capacity.
However, that’s only part of the narrative. The phrasing is crucial: Musk has referred to renewables (50%) in past comments, but in later tweets, he specifies “51% renewable” or “energy that can’t be faked.” The Cambridge figure combines renewables and nuclear; the pure renewables share is lower at 42.6%.
Thus, BTC may still fall short depending on how Musk defines sustainability.
Additionally, the Cambridge data relies on surveys, covering only a portion of miners. Factors like off-grid operations, curtailed renewables, regional differences, and timing mismatches (when renewables produce less or more relative to mining needs) complicate the landscape.
Alternative models, such as those based on grid carbon intensity or energy tracing, often yield more cautious estimates of the renewable share. This discrepancy means that even a nominal “pass” is up for discussion.
So why hasn’t Tesla made the change?
Even if Bitcoin qualifies under Musk’s sustainability criteria, Tesla has not reinstated BTC payments. Several practical and symbolic barriers still exist.
The first is due diligence. Musk previously indicated that Tesla would only restart payments when he observed “reasonable (~50%) clean energy usage … and a trend toward increasing that number.” This language suggests he seeks sustained improvement, not a singular data point.
A single report indicating 52% sustainable energy might not meet his criteria for a verified and consistent upward trend in Bitcoin’s energy mix.
Clarity in definitions is another concern. Tesla would need to clarify whether “sustainable” includes nuclear and low-carbon sources or strictly renewable options like hydro, wind, and solar. While the Cambridge findings amalgamate these categories, Musk’s earlier comments specifically mentioned renewables.
Without a universally accepted definition, any move to resume BTC payments risks allegations of greenwashing.
There’s also the issue of merchant and market risk. Accepting Bitcoin exposes Tesla to price fluctuations, complicated accounting practices, and possible regulatory challenges.
Even if the company instantly converts BTC transactions to fiat, variations between when an order is placed and when it is settled introduce financial uncertainty that may not be worthwhile for a car manufacturer operating on tight margins.
Brand perception adds another dimension. Tesla’s reputation is built on environmental integrity, and even a minor shift in Bitcoin’s energy profile could provoke backlash from investors and customers concerned with ESG issues. The company may choose to err on the side of caution rather than risk renewed criticism if mining activities revert to fossil-heavy regions.
Finally, operational integration is a factor that cannot be overlooked. To reinstate Bitcoin payments, Tesla would need to reconstruct wallet infrastructure, transaction processes, and conversion systems. This necessitates engineering resources and internal approvals, which are far from simple for a global manufacturer managing multiple product launches and software projects.
All these factors imply that simply clearing the 51% renewable threshold is insufficient in itself. For Musk, the test appears to be as much about confidence, consistency, and perception as it is about raw data. Until these elements align, Tesla’s checkout process is likely to remain without crypto options.
What this implies for adoption
Narratively, Musk’s renewed involvement holds significant sway. If Bitcoin can credibly embrace a cleaner energy framework and major commercial partners like Tesla begin transacting again, it would strengthen the narrative of sustainability within crypto.
However, Tesla’s ongoing off-chain status, despite claims, indicates that Musk views this promise as conditional rather than automatic. The evaluation hinges on optics, risk management, and narrative just as much as it does on straightforward metrics.
For the moment, Bitcoin’s claimed “51%+ sustainable” status serves as a strong counterargument to critics, but until transactions recommence, it remains more of a symbolic victory than a tangible one.
