It's not about the point you are making or that people are disagreeing. It's you misrepresenting the point of the article that's the problem.

Sure, we get the arguments why people prefer Bitcoin mining to other possible uses for energy. We just don't see it as remotely plausible that this leads to a net increase in renewable energy available for things which are not Bitcoin mining (especially since Bitcoin demand for energy which costs less than expected block rewards is inexhaustible by design and gravitates towards the cheapest power source).

Difficult enough to find real world examples of places whose existing power demand became more economic to convert to renewable sources as a direct result of cryptomining, never mind to assume the scale of these ventures plausibly exceeds the amount of fossil fuels burned to mine Bitcoin or provide power for other activities which needed to find additional power as a result of Bitcoin mining.

From my limited experience as an observer of the cryptocurrency world, my impression is that mining hardware usually has a certain time period after which it starts paying itself off (6-18 months range). You can probably turn it into money relatively quickly assuming that there's enough real money coming into the system, but the cost of the hardware and the fact that all this custom silicon and electrical components present in the ASIC-based mining hardware results in additional cost, especially the environmental kind of cost that has to be taken into account. Those ASIC-s aren't much good for anything else once they've been made obsolete by generational improvements.

Nice, but more renewables because of higher demand does exactly nothing. What we need is less fossil fuel burning, so less demand.