E.g, consider “Energy consumption comes primarily from mining blocks on the blockchain, not from transactions”. Bitcoin mining incentivises miners to create transaction blocks. The main purpose is to cement the transactions not mint coins. This is plain to see if you consider that the mining process is still necessary once all coins are minted. Therefore transaction energy cost is substantial.
If someone had an unlimited cheap source of green energy, it would actually make Bitcoin less secure as it goes against proof of work - proof of work literally requires an “expensive” operation, exchanging work (energy) for security. This actually makes Bitcoin incompatible with green energy.
I’ll let someone else more eloquently refute all the points in the article.