Areva to work on California nuclear plant

BC Utilities Commission Site C Dam Questions press BC Hydro on geotechnical risks, stability issues, cost overruns, oversight gaps, seeking transparency for ratepayers and clarity on contracts, mitigation, and the powerhouse and spillway foundations.

Key Points

Inquiry seeking explanations from BC Hydro on geotechnical risks, costs, timelines and oversight for Site C.

✅ Timeline of studies, monitoring, and mitigation actions

✅ Rationale for contracts, costs, and right bank construction

✅ Implications for ratepayers, oversight, and project stability

The watchdog B.C. Utilities Commission has sent BC Hydro 70 questions about the troubled Site C dam, asking when geotechnical risks were first identified and when the project’s assurance board was first made aware of potential issues related to the dam’s stability. 

“I think they’ve come to the conclusion — but they don’t say it — that there’s been a cover-up by BC Hydro and by the government of British Columbia,” former BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen told The Narwhal. 

On Oct. 21, The Narwhal reported that two top B.C. civil servants, including the senior bureaucrat who prepares Site C dam documents for cabinet, knew in May 2019 that the project faced serious geotechnical problems due to its “weak foundation” and the stability of the dam was “a significant risk.” 

Get The Narwhal in your inbox!
People always tell us they love our newsletter. Find out yourself with a weekly dose of our ad‑free, independent journalism

“They [the civil servants] would have reported to their ministers and to the government in general,” said Eliesen, who is among 18 prominent Canadians calling for a halt to Site C work until an independent team of experts can determine if the geotechnical problems can be resolved and at what cost.  

“It’s disingenuous for Premier [John] Horgan to try to suggest, ‘Well, I just found out about it recently.’ If that’s the case, he should fire the public servants who are representing the province.” 

The public only found out about significant issues with the Site C dam at the end of July, when BC Hydro released overdue reports saying the project faces unknown cost overruns, schedule delays and, even as it achieved a transmission line milestone earlier, such profound geotechnical troubles that its overall health is classified as ‘red,’ meaning it is in serious trouble. 

“The geotechnical challenges have been there all these years.”

The Site C dam is the largest publicly funded infrastructure project in B.C.’s history. If completed, it will flood 128 kilometres of the Peace River and its tributaries, forcing families from their homes and destroying Indigenous gravesites, hundreds of protected archeological sites, some of Canada’s best farmland and habitat for more than 100 species vulnerable to extinction.

Eliesen said geotechnical risks were a key reason BC Hydro’s board of directors rejected the project in the early 1990s, when he was at the helm of BC Hydro.

“The geotechnical challenges have been there all these years,” said Eliesen, who is also the former Chair and CEO of Ontario Hydro, where Ontario First Nations have urged intervention on a critical electricity line, the former Chair of Manitoba Hydro and the former Chair and CEO of the Manitoba Energy Authority.

Elsewhere, a Manitoba Hydro line to Minnesota has faced potential delays, highlighting broader grid planning challenges.

The B.C. Utilities Commission is an independent watchdog that makes sure ratepayers — including BC Hydro customers — receive safe and reliable energy services, as utilities adapt to climate change risks, “at fair rates.”

The commission’s questions to BC Hydro include 14 about the “foundational enhancements” BC Hydro now says are necessary to shore up the Site C dam, powerhouse and spillways. 

The commission is asking BC Hydro to provide a timeline and overview of all geotechnical engineering studies and monitoring activities for the powerhouse, spillway and dam core areas, and to explain what specific risk management and mitigation practices were put into effect once risks were identified.

The commission also wants to know why construction activities continued on the right bank of the Peace River, where the powerhouse would be located, “after geotechnical risks materialized.” 

It’s asking if geotechnical risks played a role in BC Hydro’s decision in March “to suspend or not resume work” on any components of the generating station and spillways.

The commission also wants BC Hydro to provide an itemized breakdown of a $690 million increase in the main civil works contract — held by Spain’s Acciona S.A. and the South Korean multinational conglomerate Samsung C&T Corp. — and to explain the rationale for awarding a no-bid contract to an unnamed First Nation and if other parties were made aware of that contract. 

Peace River Jewels of the Peace Site C The Narwhal
Islands in the Peace River, known as the ‘jewels of the Peace’ will be destroyed for fill for the Site C dam or will be submerged underwater by the dam’s reservoir, a loss that opponents are sharing with northerners in community discussions. Photo: Byron Dueck

B.C. Utilities Commission chair and CEO David Morton said it’s not the first time the commission has requested additional information after receiving BC Hydro’s quarterly progress reports on the Site C dam. 

“Our staff reads them to make sure they understand them and if there’s anything in then that’s not clear we go then we do go through this, we call it the IR — information request — process,” Morton said in an interview.

“There are things reported in here that we felt required a little more clarity, and we needed a little more understanding of them, so that’s why we asked the questions.”

The questions were sent to BC Hydro on Oct. 23, the day before the provincial election, but Morton said the commission is extraordinarily busy this year and that’s just a coincidence. 

“Our resources are fairly strained. It would have been nice if it could have been done faster, it would be nice if everything could be done faster.” 

“These questions are not politically motivated,” Morton said. “They’re not political questions. There’s no reason not to issue them when they’re ready.”

The commission has asked BC Hydro to respond by Nov. 19.

Read more: Top B.C. government officials knew Site C dam was in serious trouble over a year ago: FOI docs

Morton said the independent commission’s jurisdiction is limited because the B.C. government removed it from oversight of the project. 

The commission, which would normally determine if a large dam like the Site C project is in the public’s financial interest, first examined BC Hydro’s proposal to build the dam in the early 1980s.

After almost two years of hearings, including testimony under oath, the commission concluded B.C. did not need the electricity. It found the Site C dam would have negative social and environmental impacts and said geothermal power should be investigated to meet future energy needs. 

The project was revived in 2010 by the BC Liberal government, which touted energy from the Site C dam as a potential source of electricity for California and a way to supply B.C.’s future LNG industry with cheap power.

Not willing to countenance another rejection from the utilities commission, the government changed the law, stripping the commission of oversight for the project. The NDP government, which came to power in 2017, chose not to restore that oversight.

“The approval of the project was exempt from our oversight,” Morton said. “We can’t come along and say ‘there’s something we don’t like about what you’re doing, we’re going to stop construction.’ We’re not in that position and that’s not the focus of these questions.” 

But the commission still retains oversight for the cost of construction once the project is complete, Morton said. 

“The cost of construction has to be recovered in [hydro] rates. That means BC Hydro will need our approval to recover their construction cost in rates, and those are not insignificant amounts, more than $10.7 billion, in all likelihood.” 

In order to recover the cost from ratepayers, the commission needs to be satisfied BC Hydro didn’t spend more money than necessary on the project, Morton said. 

“As you can imagine, that’s not a straight forward review to do after the fact, after a 10-year construction project or whatever it ends up being … so we’re using these quarterly reports as an opportunity to try to stay on top of it and to flag any areas where we think there may be areas we need to look into in the future.”

The price tag for the Site C dam was $10.7 billion before BC Hydro’s announcement at the end of July — a leap from $6.6 billion when the project was first announced in 2010 and $8.8 billion when construction began in 2015. 

Eliesen said the utilities commission should have been asking tough questions about the Site C dam far earlier. 

“They’ve been remiss in their due diligence activities … They should have been quicker in raising questions with BC Hydro, rather than allowing BC Hydro to be exceptionally late in submitting their reports.” 

BC Hydro is late in filing another Site C quarterly report, covering the period from April 1 to June 30. 

The quarterly reports provide the B.C. public with rare glimpses of a project that international hydro expert Harvey Elwin described as being more secretive than any hydro project he has encountered in five decades working on large dams around the world, including in China.

Read more: Site C dam secrecy ‘extraordinary’, international hydro construction expert tells court proceeding

Morton said the commission could have ordered regular reporting for the Site C project if it had its previous oversight capability.

“Then we would have had the ability to follow up and ultimately order any delinquent reports to be filed. In this circumstance, they are being filed voluntarily. They can file it as late as they choose. We don’t have any jurisdiction.” 

In addition to the six dozen questions, the commission has also filed confidential questions with BC Hydro. Morton said confidential information could include things such as competitive bid information. “BC Hydro itself may be under a confidentiality agreement not to disclose it.” 

With oversight, the commission would also have been able to drill down into specific project elements,  Morton said. 

“We would have wanted to ensure that the construction followed what was approved. BC Hydro wouldn’t have the ability to make significant changes to the design and nature of the project as they went along.”

BC Hydro has been criticized for changing the design of the Site C dam to an L-shape, which Eliesen said “has never been done anywhere in the world for an earthen dam.” 

Morton said an empowered commission could have opted to hold a public hearing about the design change and engage its own technical consultants, as it did in 2017 when the new NDP government asked it to conduct a fast-tracked review of the project’s economics. 

Construction Site C Dam
A recent report by a U.S. energy economist found cancelling the Site C dam project would save BC Hydro customers an initial $116 million a year, with increasing savings growing over time. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

The commission’s final report found the dam could cost more than $12 billion, that BC Hydro had a historical pattern of overestimating energy demand and that the same amount of energy could be produced by a suite of renewables, including wind and proposed pumped storage such as the Meaford project, for $8.8 billion or less. 

The NDP government, under pressure from construction trade unions, opted to continue the project, refusing to disclose key financial information related to its decision. 

When the geotechnical problems were revealed in July, the government announced the appointment of former deputy finance minister Peter Milburn as a special Site C project advisor who will work with BC Hydro and the Site C project assurance board to examine the project and provide the government with independent advice.

Eliesen said BC Hydro and the B.C. government should never have allowed the recent diversion of the Peace River to take place given the tremendous geotechnical challenges the project faces and its unknown cost and schedule for completion. 

“It’s a disgrace and scandalous,” he said. “You can halt the river diversion, but you’ve got another four or five years left in construction of the dam. What are you going to do about all the cement you’ve poured if you’ve got stability problems?”

He said it’s counter-productive to continue with advice “from the same people who have been wrong, wrong, wrong,” without calling in independent global experts to examine the geotechnical problems. 

“If you stop construction, whether it takes three or six months, that’s the time that’s required in order to give yourself a comfort level. But continuing to do what you’ve been doing is not the right course. You should have to sit back.”

Eliesen said it reminded him of the Pete Seeger song Waist Deep in the Big Muddy, which tells the story of a captain ordering his troops to keep slogging through a river because they will soon be on dry ground. After the captain drowns, the troops turn around.

“It’s a reflection of the fact that if you don’t look at what’s new, you just keep on doing what you’ve been doing in the past and that, unfortunately, is what’s happening here in this province with this project.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

Just Transition for Coal and Nuclear Workers explains policy frameworks, compensation packages, retraining, and community support during decarbonization, plant closures, and energy shifts across Europe and the U.S., including Diablo Canyon and Uniper strategies.

Key Points

A policy approach to protect and retrain legacy power workers as coal and nuclear plants retire during decarbonization.

✅ Germany and Spain fund closures with compensation and retraining.

✅ U.S. lacks federal support; Diablo Canyon is a notable exception.

✅ Firms like Uniper convert coal sites to gas and clean energy roles.

The coronavirus pandemic has not changed the grim reality facing workers at coal and nuclear power plants in the U.S. and Europe. How those workers will fare in the years ahead will vary greatly based on where they live and the prevailing political winds.

In Europe, the retirement of aging plants is increasingly seen as a matter of national concern. Germany this year agreed to a €40 billion ($45 billion) compensation package for workers affected by the country's planned phaseout of coal generation by 2038, amid its broader exit from nuclear power as part of its energy transition. Last month the Spanish authorities agreed on a just transition plan affecting 2,300 workers across 12 thermal power plants that are due to close this year.

In contrast, there is no federal support plan for such workers in the U.S., said Tim Judson, executive director at the Maryland-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service, which lobbies for an end to nuclear and fossil-fuel power.

For all of President Donald Trump’s professed love of blue-collar workers in sectors such as coal, “where there are economic transitions going on, we’re terrible at supporting workers and communities,” Judson said of the U.S. Even at the state level, support for such workers is "almost nonexistent,” he said, “although there are a lot of efforts going on right now to start putting in place just transition programs, especially for the energy sector.”

One example that stands out in the U.S. is the support package secured for workers at utility PG&E's Diablo Canyon Power Plant, California's last operating nuclear power plant that is scheduled for permanent closure in 2025. “There was a settlement between the utility, environmental groups and labor unions to phase out that plant that included a very robust just transition package for the workers and the local community,” Judson said.

Are there enough clean energy jobs to replace those being lost?
Governments are more likely to step in with "just transition" plans where they have been responsible for plant closures in the first place. This is the case for California, Germany and Spain, all moving aggressively to decarbonize their energy sectors and pursue net-zero emissions policy goals.

Some companies are beginning to take a more proactive approach to helping their workers with the transition. German energy giant Uniper, for example, is working with authorities to save jobs by seeking to turn coal plants into lower-emissions gas-fired units.

Germany’s coal phaseout will force Uniper to shut down 1.5 gigawatts of hard-coal capacity by 2022, but the company has said it is looking at "forward-looking" options for its plants that "will be geared toward tomorrow's energy world and offer long-term employment prospects."

Christine Bossak, Uniper’s manager of external communications, told GTM this approach would be adopted in all the countries where Uniper operates coal plants.

Job losses are usually inevitable when a plant is closed, Bossak acknowledged. “But the extent of the reduction depends on the alternative possibilities that can be created at the site or other locations. We will take care of every single employee, should he or she be affected by a closure. We work with the works council and our local partners to find sustainable solutions.”

Diana Junquera Curiel, energy industry director for the global union federation IndustriALL, said such corporate commitments looked good on paper — but the level of practical support depends on the prevailing political sentiment in a country, as seen in Germany's nuclear debate over climate strategy.

Even in Spain, where the closure of coal plants was being discussed 15 years ago, a final agreement had to be rushed through at the last minute upon the arrival of a socialist government, Junquera Curiel said. An earlier right-wing administration had sat on the plan for eight years, she added.

The hope is that heel-dragging over just transition programs will diminish as the scale of legacy plant closures grows.

Nuclear industry facing a similar challenge as coal
One reason why government support is so important is there's no guarantee a burgeoning clean energy economy will be able to absorb all the workers losing legacy generation jobs. Although the construction of renewable energy projects requires large crews, it often takes no more than a handful of people to operate and maintain a wind or solar plant once it's up and running, Junquera Curiel observed.

Meanwhile, the job losses are unlikely to slow. In Europe, Austria and Sweden both closed their last coal-fired units recently, even as Europe loses nuclear capacity in key markets.

In the U.S., the Energy Information Administration's base-case prediction is that coal's share of power generation will fall from 24 percent in 2019 to 13 percent in 2050, while nuclear's will fall from 20 percent to 12 percent over that time horizon. The EIA has long underestimated the growth trajectory of renewables in the mix; only in 2020 did it concede that renewables will eventually overtake natural gas as the country's largest source of power.

The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis has predicted that even a coronavirus-inspired halt to renewables is unlikely to stop a calamitous drop in coal’s contribution to U.S. generation.

The nuclear sector faces a similar challenge as coal, albeit over a longer timeline. Last year saw the nuclear industry starting to lose capacity worldwide in what could be the beginning of a terminal decline, highlighted by Germany's shutdown of its last three reactors in 2023. Last week, the Indian Point Energy Center closed permanently after nearly half a century of cranking out power for New York City.*

“Amid ongoing debates over whether to keep struggling reactors online in certain markets, the industry position would be that governments should support continued operation of existing reactors and new build as part of an overall policy to transition to a sustainable clean energy system,” said Jonathan Cobb, senior communication manager at the World Nuclear Association.

If this doesn’t happen, plant workers will be hoping they can at least get a Diablo Canyon treatment. Based on the progress of just transition plans so far, that may depend on how they vote just as much as who they work for.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

WEC Energy Blooming Grove Investment underscores Midwest renewable energy growth, with Invenergy, GE turbines, and 250 MW wind power capacity, tax credits, PPAs, and utility-scale generation supplying corporate offtakers via long-term contracts.

Key Points

It is WEC Energy's $345M purchase of an 80% stake in Invenergy's 250 MW Blooming Grove wind farm in Illinois.

✅ 94 GE turbines; 250 MW utility-scale wind capacity

✅ Output contracted to two multinational offtakers

✅ Eligible for 100% bonus depreciation and wind tax credits

WEC Energy Group, the parent company of We Energies, is buying an 80% stake in a wind farm, as seen with projects like Enel's 450 MW wind farm coming online, in McLean County, Illinois, for $345 million.

The wind farm, known as the Blooming Grove Wind Farm, is being developed by Invenergy, which recently completed the largest North American wind build with GE partners, a company based in Chicago that develops wind, solar and other power projects. WEC Energy has invested in several wind farms developed by Invenergy.

With the agreement announced Monday, WEC Energy will have invested more than $1.2 billion in wind farms in the Midwest, echoing heartland investment growth across the region. The power from the wind farms is sold to other utilities or companies, as federal initiatives like DOE wind awards continue to support innovation, and the projects are separate from the investments made by WEC Energy's regulated utilities, such as We Energies, in wind power.

The project, which will consist of 94 wind turbines from General Electric, is expected to be completed this year, similar to recent project operations in the sector, and will have a capacity of 250 megawatts, WEC said in a news release.

Affiliates of two undisclosed multinational companies akin to EDF's offshore investment activity have contracted to take all of the wind farm's output.

The investment is expected to be eligible for 100% bonus depreciation and, as wind economics help illustrate key trends, the tax credits available for wind projects, WEC Energy said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

UK Peak Power Prices surged as low wind speeds forced National Grid to rely on gas-fired plants and coal generation, amid soaring wholesale gas prices and weak wind generation during the energy crisis.

Key Points

UK Peak Power Prices are electricity costs at peak hours, driven by wind output, gas reliance, and market dynamics.

✅ Spikes when wind generation drops and demand rises.

✅ Driven by gas-fired plants, coal backup, and wholesale gas prices.

✅ Moderate as wind output recovers and interconnectors supply.

Low wind speeds pushed peak hour power prices to the second highest level for at least three years on Monday, a move consistent with UK electricity prices hitting a 10-year high earlier this year, as Britain’s grid was forced to increase its reliance on gas-fired power plants and draw on coal generation.

Calm weather this year has exacerbated the energy price crisis in the UK, as gas-fired power stations have had to pick up the slack from wind farms. Energy demand has surged as countries open up from pandemic restrictions, which together with lower supplies from Russia to western Europe, has sent wholesale gas prices soaring.

Power prices in the UK for the peak evening period between 5pm and 6pm on Monday surpassed £2,000 per megawatt hour, only the second time they have exceeded that level in recent years.

This was still below the levels reached at the height of the gas price crisis in mid-September, when they hit £2,500/MWh, according to the energy consultancy Cornwall Insight, whose records date back to 2018.

Low wind speeds were the main driver behind Monday’s price spike, although expectations of a pick-up in wind generation on Tuesday, after recent record wind generation days, should push them back down to similar levels seen in recent weeks, analysts said.

Despite the expansion of renewables, such as wind and solar, over the past decade, with instances of wind leading the power mix in recent months, gas remains the single biggest source of electricity generation in Britain, typically accounting for nearly 40 per cent of output.

At lunchtime on Monday, gas-fired power plants were producing nearly 55 per cent of electricity, while coal accounted for 3 per cent, reflecting more power from wind than coal in 2016 milestones. Britain’s wind farms were contributing 1.67 gigawatts or just over 4 per cent, according to data from the Drax Electrics Insights website. Over the past 12 months, wind farms have produced 21 per cent of the UK’s electricity on average.

National Grid, which manages the UK’s electricity grid, has been forced on a number of occasions in recent months to ask coal plants to fire up to help offset the loss of wind generation, after issuing a National Grid short supply warning to the market. The government announced in June that it planned to bring forward the closure of the remaining coal stations to the end of September 2024.

Ministers also committed this year to making Britain’s electricity grid “net zero carbon” by 2035, and milestones such as when wind was the main source underline the transition, although some analysts have pointed out that would not signal the end of gas generation.

Since the start of the energy crisis in August, 20 energy suppliers have gone bust as they have struggled to secure the electricity and gas needed to supply customers at record wholesale prices, with further failures expected in coming weeks.

Phil Hewitt, director of the consultancy EnAppSys, said Monday’s high prices would further exacerbate pressures on those energy suppliers that do not have adequate hedging strategies. “This winter is a good time to be a generator,” he added.

Energy companies including Orsted of Denmark and SSE of the UK have reported some of the lowest wind speeds for at least two decades this year, even though record output during Storm Malik highlighted the system's volatility.

According to weather modelling group Vortex, the strength of the wind blowing across northern Europe has fallen by as much as 15 per cent on average in places this year, which some scientists suggest could be due to climate change.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Renewables' Impact on US Wholesale Electricity Prices is clear: DOE analysis shows wind and solar, capacity gains, and natural gas lowering rates, shifting daily patterns, and triggering occasional negative pricing in PJM and ERCOT.

Key Points

DOE data show wind and solar lower wholesale prices, reshape price curves, and cause negative pricing in markets.

✅ Natural gas price declines remain the largest driver of cheaper power

✅ Wind and solar shift seasonal and time-of-day price patterns

✅ Negative wholesale prices appear near high wind and solar output

One of the arguments that's consistently been raised against doing anything about climate change is that it will be expensive. On the more extreme end of the spectrum, there have been dire warnings about plunging standards of living due to skyrocketing electricity prices. The plunging cost of renewables like solar cheaper than gas has largely silenced these warnings, but a new report from the Department of Energy suggests that, even earlier, renewables were actually lowering the price of electricity in the United States.

Plunging prices
The report focuses on wholesale electricity prices in the US. Note that these are distinct from the prices consumers actually pay, which includes taxes, fees, payments to support the grid that delivers the electricity, and so on. It's entirely possible for wholesale electricity prices to drop even as consumers end up paying more, and market reforms determine how those changes are passed through. That said, large changes in the wholesale price should ultimately be passed on to consumers to one degree or another.

The Department of Energy analysis focuses on the decade between 2008 and 2017, and it includes an overall analysis of the US market, as well as large individual grids like PJM and ERCOT and, finally, local prices. The decade saw a couple of important trends: low natural gas prices that fostered a rapid expansion of gas-fired generators and the rapid expansion of renewable generation that occurred concurrently with a tremendous drop in price of wind and solar power.

Much of the electricity generated by renewables in this time period would be more expensive than that generated by wind and solar installed today. Not only have prices for the hardware dropped, but the hardware has improved in ways that provide higher capacity factors, meaning that they generate a greater percentage of the maximum capacity. (These changes include things like larger blades on wind turbines and tracking systems for solar panels.) At the same time, operating wind and solar is essentially free once they're installed, so they can always offer a lower price than competing fossil fuel plants.

With those caveats laid out, what does the analysis show? Almost all of the factors influencing the wholesale electricity price considered in this analysis are essentially neutral. Only three factors have pushed the prices higher: the retirement of some plants, the rising price of coal, and prices put on carbon, which only affect some of the regional grids.

In contrast, the drop in the price of natural gas has had a very large effect on the wholesale power price. Depending on the regional grid, it's driven a drop of anywhere from $7 to $53 per megawatt-hour. It's far and away the largest influence on prices over the past decade.

Regional variation and negative prices
But renewables have had an influence as well. That influence has ranged from roughly neutral to a cost reduction of $2.2 per MWh in California, largely driven by solar. While the impact of renewables was relatively minor, it is the second-largest influence after natural gas prices, and the data shows that wind and solar are reducing prices rather than increasing them.

The reports note that renewables are influencing wholesale prices in other ways, however. The growth of wind and solar caused the pattern of seasonal price changes to shift in areas of high wind and solar, as seen with solar reshaping prices in Northern Europe as daylight hours and wind patterns shift with the seasons. Similarly, renewables have a time-of-day effect for similar reasons, helping explain why the grid isn't 100% renewable today, which also influences the daily timing price changes, something that's not an issue with fossil fuel power.

A map showing the areas where wholesale electricity prices have gone negative, with darker colors indicating increased frequency.
Enlarge / A map showing the areas where wholesale electricity prices have gone negative, with darker colors indicating increased frequency.

US DOE
One striking feature of areas where renewable power is prevalent is that there are occasional cases in which an oversupply of renewable energy produces negative electricity prices in the wholesale market. (In the least-surprising statement in the report, it concludes that "negative prices in high-wind and high-solar regions occurred most frequently in hours with high wind and solar output.") In most areas, these negative prices are rare enough that they don't have a significant influence on the wholesale price.

That's not true everywhere, however. Areas on the Great Plains see fairly frequent negative prices, and they're growing in prevalence in areas like California, the Southwest, and the northern areas of New York and New England, while negative prices in France have been observed in similar conditions. In these areas, negative wholesale prices near solar plants have dropped the overall price by 3%. Near wind plants, that figure is 6%.

None of this is meant to indicate that there are no scenarios where expanded renewable energy could eventually cause wholesale prices to rise. At sufficient levels, the need for storage, backup plants, and grid management could potentially offset their low costs, a dynamic sometimes referred to as clean energy's dirty secret by analysts. But it's clear we have not yet reached that point. And if the prices of renewables continue to drop, then that point could potentially recede fast enough not to matter.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Bitcoin Energy Consumption drives debate on blockchain mining, proof-of-work, carbon footprint, and emissions, with CCAF estimates in terawatt hours highlighting electricity demand, fossil fuel reliance, and sustainability concerns for data centers and cryptocurrency networks.

Key Points

Electricity used by Bitcoin proof-of-work mining, often fossil-fueled, estimated by CCAF in terawatt hours.

✅ CCAF: 40-445 TWh, central estimate ~130 TWh

✅ ~66% of mining electricity sourced from fossil fuels

✅ Proof-of-work increases hash rate, energy, and emissions

The University of Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) studies the burgeoning business of cryptocurrencies.

It calculates that Bitcoin's total energy consumption is somewhere between 40 and 445 annualised terawatt hours (TWh), with a central estimate of about 130 terawatt hours.

The UK's electricity consumption is a little over 300 TWh a year, while Argentina uses around the same amount of power as the CCAF's best guess for Bitcoin, as countries like New Zealand's electricity future are debated to balance demand.

And the electricity the Bitcoin miners use overwhelmingly comes from polluting sources, with the U.S. grid not 100% renewable underscoring broader energy mix challenges worldwide.

The CCAF team surveys the people who manage the Bitcoin network around the world on their energy use and found that about two-thirds of it is from fossil fuels, and some regions are weighing curbs like Russia's proposed mining ban amid electricity deficits.

Huge computing power - and therefore energy use - is built into the way the blockchain technology that underpins the cryptocurrency has been designed.

It relies on a vast decentralised network of computers.

These are the so-called Bitcoin "miners" who enable new Bitcoins to be created, but also independently verify and record every transaction made in the currency.

In fact, the Bitcoins are the reward miners get for maintaining this record accurately.

It works like a lottery that runs every 10 minutes, explains Gina Pieters, an economics professor at the University of Chicago and a research fellow with the CCAF team.

Data processing centres around the world, including hotspots such as Iceland's mining strain, race to compile and submit this record of transactions in a way that is acceptable to the system.

They also have to guess a random number.

The first to submit the record and the correct number wins the prize - this becomes the next block in the blockchain.

Estimates for bitcoin's electricity consumption
At the moment, they are rewarded with six-and-a-quarter Bitcoins, valued at about $50,000 each.

As soon as one lottery is over, a new number is generated, and the whole process starts again.

The higher the price, says Prof Pieters, the more miners want to get into the game, and utilities like BC Hydro suspending new crypto connections highlight grid pressures.

"They want to get that revenue," she tells me, "and that's what's going to encourage them to introduce more and more powerful machines in order to guess this random number, and therefore you will see an increase in energy consumption," she says.

And there is another factor that drives Bitcoin's increasing energy consumption.

The software ensures it always takes 10 minutes for the puzzle to be solved, so if the number of miners is increasing, the puzzle gets harder and the more computing power needs to be thrown at it.

Bitcoin is therefore actually designed to encourage increased computing effort.

The idea is that the more computers that compete to maintain the blockchain, the safer it becomes, because anyone who might want to try and undermine the currency must control and operate at least as much computing power as the rest of the miners put together.

What this means is that, as Bitcoin gets more valuable, the computing effort expended on creating and maintaining it - and therefore the energy consumed - inevitably increases.

We can track how much effort miners are making to create the currency.

They are currently reckoned to be making 160 quintillion calculations every second - that's 160,000,000,000,000,000,000, in case you were wondering.

And this vast computational effort is the cryptocurrency's Achilles heel, says Alex de Vries, the founder of the Digiconomist website and an expert on Bitcoin.

All the millions of trillions of calculations it takes to keep the system running aren't really doing any useful work.

"They're computations that serve no other purpose," says de Vries, "they're just immediately discarded again. Right now we're using a whole lot of energy to produce those calculations, but also the majority of that is sourced from fossil energy, and clean energy's 'dirty secret' complicates substitution."

The vast effort it requires also makes Bitcoin inherently difficult to scale, he argues.

"If Bitcoin were to be adopted as a global reserve currency," he speculates, "the Bitcoin price will probably be in the millions, and those miners will have more money than the entire [US] Federal budget to spend on electricity."

"We'd have to double our global energy production," he says with a laugh, even as some argue cheap abundant electricity is getting closer to reality today. "For Bitcoin."

He says it also limits the number of transactions the system can process to about five per second.

This doesn't make for a useful currency, he argues.

Rising price of bitcoin graphic
And that view is echoed by many eminent figures in finance and economics.

The two essential features of a successful currency are that it is an effective form of exchange and a stable store of value, says Ken Rogoff, a professor of economics at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

He says Bitcoin is neither.

"The fact is, it's not really used much in the legal economy now. Yes, one rich person sells it to another, but that's not a final use. And without that it really doesn't have a long-term future."

What he is saying is that Bitcoin exists almost exclusively as a vehicle for speculation.

So, I want to know: is the bubble about to burst?

"That's my guess," says Prof Rogoff and pauses.

"But I really couldn't tell you when."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News