Sealminer A4 Ultra Hydro
Bitcoin & Bitcoin Cash ASIC Miner
886TH
HASHRATE
9.45W/TH
EFFICIENCY
8373W
POWER
£862.14
EST. MONTHLY
NO PAYBACK
EST. ROI
Image: Asgari, McDonald and Pearce (2023), Energies 16, 1331, Figure 3 (CC BY 4.0) · Original source. Research-source container photographs; the greenhouse results discussed are modelled.
Renewables and heat reuse
Asgari, McDonald and Pearce experimentally assessed miner heating potential and modelled greenhouse systems at three mining scales across six North American locations.
- Project at a glance
- Six locations · three modelled scales
- Source date and context
- 27 January 2023
- Published financial detail
- The sources reviewed do not include full project accounts.
- Our comparison
- A UK example per 1,000 miner kWh
About 5 minutes to read
What the greenhouse research actually tested
Asgari, McDonald and Pearce tested the heating potential of mining equipment, then modelled greenhouse systems at three scales in six North American locations. Their 2023 paper examines how climate and operating assumptions change the result. The distinction is straightforward: the equipment test is experimental evidence, while the greenhouse financial outcomes are modelled scenarios.
“depending on the utility rates and Bitcoin value in a wide range of scenarios.”
Matching miner heat to the growing environment
Experimental miner measurements→greenhouse energy model→economic scenarios
The model is useful because its assumptions can be checked and changed. Ventilation, growing area and lighting affect demand; electricity prices and mining income affect the financial outcome. Anyone applying it today should first reproduce a published example, then replace historical equipment and prices with dated inputs for the proposed site. The alternative heating system should provide the same growing conditions.
What the numbers could look like in the UK
The calculation below uses assumed UK prices to show how the costs fit together. It is our example, not this project’s reported earnings. Replace the inputs with current machine estimates and the costs at your own site.
Illustrative UK calculation
Income and running costs
1,000 kWh used by miners, plus 50 kWh for pumps and fans. All amounts in pounds.
Operating contributionBefore equipment and installation costs
−£9.60−0.96p per miner kWh
This example buys electricity at 12p/kWh and values useful heat at 6p/kWh. These are assumed prices. The heat value should be replaced with the actual cost of the heating you would otherwise use, or the price a customer agrees to pay.
| Mining income | 8p per miner kWh; an assumed rate, not a live earnings estimate |
|---|---|
| Electricity | 12p/kWh × 1,050 kWh = £126.00 |
| Pool fee | 2% of gross mining income |
| Useful heat | 80% of miner electricity = 800 kWh; valued at 6p per delivered kWh |
| Other running costs | £10 per 1,000 miner kWh; an allowance to replace with your own costs |
| Costs still to add | Equipment, installation, finance, tax, depreciation, major replacements and any costs above the allowance |
The contribution is what remains from mining income and useful heat after the stated running costs. It is not net profit: the equipment and other excluded costs still have to be recovered. Pumps and fans use electricity but earn no mining income in this calculation.
| Gross income per miner kWh | Without heat value | With useful heat |
|---|---|---|
| 5p | −£87.00 | −£39.00 |
| 8p Chart example | −£57.60 | −£9.60 |
| 11p | −£28.20 | £19.80 |
- Mining income needed to cover running costs
- 8.98pper miner kWh
- Highest electricity cost or export value supported
- 11.09pper total electricity kWh
These are two ways to read the same example. Adding equipment costs or a larger maintenance allowance raises the income needed and reduces the electricity price the project can afford.
Compare heating options and work out annual costs
Use the heating system you would actually choose as the comparison. For example, a heat pump using electricity at 20p/kWh with a seasonal COP of 3 has an electricity cost of about 6.67p per kWh of heat. A resistance heater at that tariff uses 20p per kWh of heat. These are calculation examples, rather than measurements from this project.
For an annual estimate, use the miner electricity expected during hours when running makes sense. Scale the contribution by annual miner kWh divided by 1,000, then deduct fixed annual costs. Recalculate if electricity prices, mining income or usable heat change.
Simple payback is the total installed cost divided by positive annual cash contribution. There is no payback under a scenario with zero or negative contribution. The sources reviewed here do not provide the full project accounts needed to calculate an actual payback for this installation.
Update the inputs before using the model
Heat demand, ventilation, energy prices and Bitcoin assumptions can change feasibility materially.
Obtain the paper’s model and parameter tables, reproduce one published scenario and document every updated input. Compare against the same greenhouse served by another heating system.
Questions worth asking
- Which conclusions survive lower mining revenue?
- Are crop revenue and greenhouse costs treated consistently across alternatives?
Try your own electricity and heat figures
Compare available miners and dated earnings estimates. Include heat only where you can use it or have a customer for it.
Sources and photographs
Sources checked on 29 September 2026. Project facts and quotations come from the publications below; the UK calculations and practical assessment are The Mining Shop’s analysis. This article is based on published material, rather than a site visit.
Photographs: Asgari, McDonald and Pearce (2023), Energies 16, 1331, Figure 3 (CC BY 4.0) (source).
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.