I think it's interesting because it allows you to quantify the impact of Bitcoin mining on energy consumption. What would we do with our resources if this was not a viable way to produce wealth? With the continuing decline of natural resources in the world, it's worth seeing what we as humans do with these resources from an academic perspective.

Also, I imagine a lot of people do indeed think that Bitcoin is imaginary or nonproductive. Arstechnica makes money off of readers viewing their articles, so content that validates an opinion or strikes controversy generally does well.