That because media coverage is generally anti-bitcoin mining. What many don't understand is that bitcoin mining at industrial scale incentivizes energy producti

That because media coverage is generally anti-bitcoin mining. What many don't understand is that bitcoin mining at industrial scale incentivizes energy production, because the miners seek out cheap, otherwise underutilized energy (otherwise they aren't profitable). During last July's heatwave, Texas's industrial bitcoin mining base "allow[ed] for over 1% of total grid capacity to be pushed back onto the grid for retail and commercial use.” [1] No other industrial-scale use of electricity can be turned off and back on when the grid needs excess capacity without harming that industrial production---you can't shut off a steel mill without enormous damage to production, or turn off a hospital without loss of life; but energy grid operators can sign contacts with bitcoin miners to have the right to dial them down to meet peak grid demand. And yet, the NY Post article I sighted here spins the story anti-miners, missing the point: had the miner not been consuming power, the grid would have had 1% less to meet the peak heatwave demand. “There are over 1,000 megawatts worth of Bitcoin mining load that responded to ERCOTs conservation request by turning off their machines to conserve energy for the grid.” Imagine if there were ten times as many miners there---they would have been able to provide 10% additional power to the grid during peak demand. [1] https://nypost.com/2022/07/13/texas-bitcoin-miners-halt-operations-to-save-energy-amid-heat-wave/ https://nypost.com/2022/07/13/texas-bitcoin-miners-halt-oper...).