Surely I would not really know this, and sometimes the miners themselves might want to put out disinformation in order to keep out competition.
I see all kinds of numbers on how much it costs to mine a bitcoin, and sure I recognize that some sources are likely more credible than others. The more that you are involved in mining the more you might care about this, but also sometimes folks spout out theories of expected BTC price movement based on mining costs, too, and surely I take some of that with a grain of salt too and appreciate that peeps going to have differing perspectives about what causes what, and probably many of us appreciate that it is not exactly a one way street.. and even some miners might purposefully mine at a loss for a considerable amount of time to attempt to flush out competition too.
It's a fairly simple supply/demand equation, albeit slightly complicated by BTC volatility and the correlated risks. If it's very profitable to mine, the difficulty will rise until it's not, so the window of opportunity - especially for a smaller miner who doesn't benefit from high volume electric rates etc - is quite small. If this has any effect on price (which I doubt considering mining volumes and trading volumes) then it's likely a drag in bear season (miners need to sell more coins to pay the bills) and less selling pressure in bull season (miners can afford to hodl), so basically mildly negative.
Anyway, my point is that if someone wanted to use renewables, even at a loss for all I care, they could already do it, so all these tweets and meetings and shit do nothing for the environment, nothing for Bitcoin, maybe some new trolling material for Elon and a few pointless jobs for some college dropouts to create a Powerpoint on "transparency".