Image: Ag-Grid Energy · Original source.
Renewables & heat reuse / project case study
Lent Hill Ag-Grid Digital uses electricity from manure and food-waste digestion to supply a flexible mining container. The operator reports a 300 kW grid-export limit alongside a 1 MW mining unit. Ag-Grid project report.
- Published project reference
- 1 MW mining unit · 300 kW export limit
- Evidence date / context
- Operational from October 2024
- Financial evidence
- Project accounts not established by the cited evidence
- Comparison in this article
- Explicit UK scenario per 1,000 miner kWh
Estimated reading time: 5 minutes
What this project demonstrates
The binding constraint in this example is the route to market for electricity. A generator can have fuel available while its connection prevents it selling all the output. A controllable computing load offers another customer behind that limit. The capacity of the digester, engine and miner must nevertheless be considered separately.
Follow the electricity and the heat
A farm model should use electricity remaining after parasitic digester loads and existing businesses. An engine’s useful heat may already be committed to digestion; adding hypothetical miner heat to the same account would overstate the benefit.
Mining income, heat value and running costs
The figures below are The Mining Shop’s own worked comparison for a prospective UK site. They are not the operator’s earnings, a current tariff or a forecast. All inputs are shown so you can see which conditions create or remove the benefit.
Worked scenario · not the operator’s accounts
What 1,000 kWh could contribute
1,000 kWh to miners + 50 kWh of auxiliary electricity. GBP comparison for a prospective UK site; no currency conversion of project results.
Before capital and omitted costs
The 5p/kWh rate represents the export payment forgone for electricity diverted to mining and its auxiliary equipment. It is an opportunity cost, not an additional grid-import bill. The example assumes existing generation; include new generation costs if building it specifically for mining.
| Gross mining income | 8p per miner kWh; a scenario, not a current machine yield |
|---|---|
| Electricity | 5p/kWh × 1,050 kWh = £52.50 |
| Pool fee | 2% of gross mining income |
| Useful heat | 0% of miner electricity = 0 kWh; zero credit in this energy-only example |
| Other operating costs | £10 per 1,000 miner kWh; placeholder allowance |
| Not included | Equipment, installation, finance, tax, depreciation, major replacements and any costs beyond the stated allowance |
The operating contribution is mining income after pool fees + useful heat value − electricity cost or export forgone − other running costs. Electricity consumed in pumps or extra fans earns no mining income in this example. Recovered heat is a second use of the same energy, not extra electricity.
| Gross income per miner kWh | Operating contribution |
|---|---|
| 5p | −£13.50 |
| 8p Chart scenario | £15.90 |
| 11p | £45.30 |
- Break-even gross mining income
- 6.38p
- Maximum electricity cost / export value
- 6.51p
per miner kWh
per total electricity kWh
These are alternative operating thresholds using the chart’s inputs. Capital and omitted costs would lower the supported electricity price and raise the required mining income.
Heating alternatives, annual costs and payback
If electricity genuinely has no export payment or other productive use, setting the opportunity cost to zero would improve this example by £52.50. That does not eliminate generator maintenance, revenue-sharing obligations or capital costs. No heat income has been assumed where a usable heat destination is unproven.
To turn this into an annual assessment, use the miner electricity actually expected in the profitable operating windows. Multiply the contribution by annual miner kWh ÷ 1,000 only if the assumptions remain valid in those windows, then deduct annual fixed costs. Simple payback is total installed capital divided by positive annual cash contribution; it is unavailable when that contribution is zero or negative. No project payback is claimed here because the necessary capital and operating accounts are not published in the cited evidence.
What to take into a UK project
Separate engine output, site demand and permitted export when sizing a flexible load.
Meter engine output, digester consumption, site demand, export and mining on matching intervals. Confirm which asset is actually mined and which party owns it.
Questions to resolve for your site
- What changes if the export limit is relaxed?
- Does the agreement pay the farm a fixed energy price or a share of mining income?
Build the decision around your own interval electricity data, the real alternative use of that power, and a heat customer with a measured demand. Choose hardware using its dated revenue estimate, efficiency and service requirements. A higher gross earning figure is only the start; useful operating margin and the installed cost determine whether the project deserves investment.
Compare all supported mining algorithms, electricity use and dated earning estimates. Start with zero heat credit, then add only the heat you can use or sell.
Sources and original imagery
Project statements are attributed to the operator, filing, research paper or reporting listed below. Engineering interpretation and the GBP calculations are our analysis. Review date: 29 September 2026; this is a source review, not a site visit or independent audit.
Image provenance: Ag-Grid Energy (source). Image context is recorded with each photograph.
Join the ASIC Mining Discussion
Members can read and join the discussion
Log in to read comments from other miners. Create a free account if you would like to ask a question or share your experience.
Membership helps us protect the discussion from spam and keep answers useful.