Layer 1 · head to head
Converted bitcoin mine vs Grid interconnection
Energised land you can buy this year against a queue position for the 2030s.
| Converted bitcoin mine | Grid interconnection | |
|---|---|---|
| Lead time | 12-24 months to convert, against 4-5 years for a greenfield grid connection | 4-5 years typical, approaching 5 on average |
| Capital cost | Site and power already exist; the spend is cooling, networking and density retrofit | Utility-funded upgrades billed back; site cost varies wildly by region |
| Carbon | Inherits the site's existing supply, which is frequently gas or stranded hydro | Whatever the local grid mix is |
| Maturity | proven | proven |
Converted bitcoin mine
The catch: You are buying a building designed for machines nobody minded losing. Mining tolerates outages, poor cooling and low reliability because a lost hash is worth nothing; a lost training run is worth a great deal. The retrofit is real work, and the sites worth converting were largely converted first — quality falls as you move down the list. Deployment still runs 60-70% faster than greenfield, which is the whole argument.
Decides: If your model is training in 2027 rather than 2031, this is one of very few honest answers. It is a power-date decision wearing a real-estate transaction.
Grid interconnection
The catch: The US queue exceeds 2,600 GW and roughly 80% of projects withdraw before energising. A queue position is not a power supply, and treating it as one is the single most common planning error in this industry right now.
Decides: If your interconnection date is 2031, your 2026 chip decision is really a 2031 chip decision. Plan the silicon around the power date, never the reverse.