Calgary leads world in GHG emissions

Germany's Coal Reliance reflects an energy crisis, soaring natural gas prices, and a nuclear phase-out, as Destatis data show higher coal-fired electricity despite growing wind and solar generation, impacting grid stability and emissions.

Key Points

Germany's coal reliance is more coal power due to gas spikes and a nuclear phase-out, despite wind and solar growth.

✅ Coal share near one-third of electricity, per Destatis

✅ Gas-fired output falls as prices soar after Russia's invasion

✅ Wind and solar rise; grid stability and recession risks persist

Germany is relying on highly-polluting coal for almost a third of its electricity, as the impact of government policies, reflecting an energy balancing act for the power sector, and the war in Ukraine leads producers in Europe’s largest economy to use less gas and nuclear energy.

In the first six months of the year, Germany generated 82.6 kWh of electricity from coal, up 17 per cent from the same period last year, according to data from Destatis, the national statistics office, published on Wednesday. The leap means almost one-third of German electricity generation now comes from coal-fired plants, up from 27 per cent last year. Production from natural gas, which has tripled in price to €235 per megawatt hour since Russia’s invasion in late February, fell 18 per cent to only 11.7 per cent of total generation.

Destatis said that the shift from gas to coal was sharper in the second quarter. Coal-fired electricity increased by an annual rate of 23 per cent in the three months to June, while electricity generation from natural gas fell 19 per cent.

The figures highlight the challenge facing European governments in meeting clean energy goals after the Kremlin announced this week that the Nordstream 1 pipeline that takes Russian gas to Germany would remain closed until Europe removed sanctions on the country’s oil.

Germany has been trying to reduce its reliance on coal, which releases almost twice as many emissions as gas and more than 60 times those of nuclear energy, according to estimates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, though grid expansion challenges have slowed renewable build-out in recent years.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz said the opposition CDU bore “complete responsibility” for the exit from coal and nuclear power that formed part of his predecessor Angela Merkel’s Energiewende policies, amid a continuing nuclear option debate in climate policy, which in turn raised reliance on Russian gas. At the beginning of this year, more than 50 per cent of Germany’s gas imports came from Russia, a figure that fell slightly over the opening half of 2022.

But CDU leader Friedrich Merz accused the government of “madness” over its decision to idle the country’s three remaining nuclear power stations from the end of this year, though officials have argued that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue in the short term.

Electricity generation from nuclear energy has already halved after three of the six nuclear power plants that were still in operation at the end of 2021 were closed during the first half of this year. Berlin said on Monday it would keep on standby two of its remaining three nuclear power stations, a move to extend nuclear power during the energy crisis, which were all due to close at the end of the year.

The German government has warned of the risk of electricity shortages this winter. “We cannot be sure that, in the event of grid bottlenecks in neighbouring countries, there will be enough power plants available to help stabilise our electricity grid in the short term,” said German economy minister Robert Habeck on Monday.

However Scholz said that, after raising gas storage levels to 86 per cent of capacity, Germany would “probably get through this winter, despite all the tension”.

One bright spot from the data was the increase in use of renewable energy, highlighting a recent renewables milestone in Germany. The proportion of electricity generated from wind power generation rose by 18 per cent to 25 per cent of all electricity generation, while solar energy production increased 20 per cent.

Ángel Talavera, head of Europe economics at the consultancy Oxford Economics, said that the success in moving away from gas towards other energy sources “means that the risks of hard energy rationing over the winter are less severe now, even with little to no Russian gas flows”.

However, economists still expect a recession in the eurozone’s largest economy, amid a deteriorating German economy outlook over the near term, as a large part of the impact comes via higher prices and because industries and households still rely on gas for heating.

Separate official data also published on Wednesday showed that German industrial production slid 0.3 per cent between June and July. Production at Germany’s most energy intensive industries fell almost 7 per cent in the five months after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“The demand destruction caused by the surge in prices will still send the German economy into recession over the winter,” said Talavera.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Calgary Winter Storm and Extreme Cold delivers heavy snowfall, ECCC warnings, blowing snow, icy roads, and dangerous wind chill across southern Alberta, as a low-pressure system and northerly inflow fuel hazardous travel and frostbite risks.

Key Points

A severe Alberta storm with heavy snow, strong winds, ECCC warnings, dangerous wind chill, and high frostbite risk.

✅ ECCC extends snowfall and winter storm warnings regionwide.

✅ Wind chill -28 to -47; frostbite possible within 5-30 minutes.

✅ AMA rescues surge; non-essential travel strongly discouraged.

Calgary and much of southern Alberta faced a significant winter storm that brought heavy snowfall, strong winds, and dangerously low temperatures. Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) issued extended and expanded snowfall and winter storm warnings as persistent precipitation streamed along the southern borders. The combination of a low-pressure system off the West Coast, where a B.C. 'bomb cyclone' had left tens of thousands without power, and a northerly inflow at the surface led to significant snow accumulations in a short period.

The storm resulted in poor driving conditions across much of southern Alberta, with snow-packed and icy roads, as well as limited visibility due to blowing snow. ECCC advised postponing non-essential travel until conditions improved. As of 10 a.m. on January 17, the 511 Alberta map showed poor driving conditions throughout the region, while B.C. electricity demand hit an all-time high amid the cold.

In Calgary, the city recorded four centimeters of snow on January 16, with an additional four centimeters expected on January 17. Temperatures remained far below seasonal averages until the end of the week, and Calgary electricity use tends to surge during such cold snaps according to Enmax, with improvements starting on Sunday.

The extreme cold posed significant risks, with wind chills of -28 to -39 capable of causing frostbite in 10 to 30 minutes, as a Quebec power demand record illustrated during the deep freeze. When wind chills dropped to -40 to -47, frostbite could occur in as little as five to 10 minutes. Residents were advised to watch for signs of frostbite, including color changes on fingers and toes, pain, numbness, tingling sensations, or swelling. Those most at risk included young children, older adults, people with chronic illnesses, individuals working or exercising outdoors, and those without proper shelter.

In response to the severe weather, the Alberta Motor Association (AMA) experienced a surge in calls for roadside assistance. Between January 12 and 14, there were approximately 32,000 calls, with about 22,000 of those requiring rescues between January 12 and 14. The high volume of requests led the AMA to temporarily cease providing wait time updates on their website due to the inability to provide accurate information, while debates over Alberta electricity prices also intensified during the cold.

The storm also had broader implications across Canada. Heavy snow was expected to fall across wide swaths of southern British Columbia and parts of southern Alberta, as BC Hydro's winter payment plan offered billing relief to customers during the stretch. Northern Alberta was under extreme cold warnings, with temperatures expected to dip to -40°C through the rest of the week. Similar extreme cold was forecast for southern Ontario, with wind chill values reaching -30°C.

As the storm progressed, conditions began to improve. The wind warning for central Alberta ended by January 17, though a blowing snow advisory remained in effect for the southeast corner of the province. Northwest winds gusting up to 90 km/h combined with falling snow continued to cause poor visibility in some areas, while California power outages and landslides were reported amid concurrent severe storms along the coast. Conditions were expected to improve by mid-morning.

In the aftermath of the storm, residents were reminded of the importance of preparedness and caution during severe winter weather. Staying informed through official weather advisories, adjusting travel plans, and taking necessary precautions can help mitigate the risks associated with such extreme conditions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Bruce Power Life-Extension Programme advances Ontario nuclear capacity through CANDU Major Component Replacement, reliable operation milestones, supply chain retooling for COVID-19 recovery, PPE production, ventilator projects, and medical isotope supply security.

Key Points

A program to refurbish CANDU reactors, extend asset life, and mobilize Ontario nuclear supply chain and isotopes.

✅ Extends CANDU units via Major Component Replacement

✅ Supports COVID-19 recovery with PPE and ventilator projects

✅ Boosts Ontario energy reliability and medical isotopes

Canada’s Bruce Power said on 1 May that unit 1 at the Bruce nuclear power plant had set a record of 624 consecutive days of reliable operation – the longest since it was returned to service in 2012.

It exceeded Bruce 8’s run of 623 consecutive days between May 2016 and February 2018. Bruce 1, a Candu reactor, was put into service in 1977. It was shut down and mothballed by the former Ontario Hydro in 1997, and was refurbished and returned to service in 2012 by Bruce Power.

Bruce units 3 and 4 were restarted in 2003 and 2004. They are part of Bruce Power’s Life-Extension Programme, and future planning such as Bruce C project exploration continues across the fleet, with units 3 and 4 to undergo Major Component Replacement (MCR) Projects from 2023-28, adding about 30 years of life to the reactors.

The refurbishment of Bruce 6 has begun and will be followed by MCR Unit 3 which is scheduled to begin in 2023. Nuclear power accounts for more than 60% of Ontario’s supply, with Bruce Power providing more than 30%   of the province’s electricity.

Set up of Covid recovery council
On 30 April, Bruce Power announced the establishment of the Bruce Power Retooling and Economic Recovery Council to leverage the province’s nuclear supply chain to support Ontario’s fight against Covid-19 and to help aid economic recovery.

Bruce Power’s life extension programme is Canada’s second largest infrastructure project and largest private sector infrastructure programme. It is creating 22,000 direct and indirect jobs, delivering economic benefits that are expected to contribute $4 billion to Ontario’s GDP and $8-$11 billion to Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP), Bruce Power said.

“With 90% of the investment in manufactured goods and services coming from 480 companies in Ontario and other provinces, including recent manufacturing contracts with key suppliers, we can harness these capabilities in the fight against Covid-19, and help drive our economic recovery,” the company said.

“An innovative and dynamic nuclear supply chain is more important than ever in meeting this new challenge while successfully implementing our mission of providing clean, reliable, flexible, low-cost nuclear energy and a global supply of medical isotopes,” said Bruce Power president and CEO Mike Rencheck. “We are mobilising a great team with our extended supply chain, which spans the province, to assist in the fight against Covid-19 and to help drive our economic recovery in the future.”

Greg Rickford, the Minister of Energy, Mines, Northern Development, and Minister of Indigenous Affairs, said the launch of the council is consistent with Ontario’s focus to fight Covid-19 as a top priority and a look ahead to economic recovery, and initiatives like Pickering life extensions supporting long-term system reliability.

The creation of the Council was announced during a live event on Bruce Power's Facebook page, in which Rencheck was joined by Associate Minister of Energy Bill Walker and Rocco Rossi, the president and CEO of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.

Walker reiterated the Government of Ontario’s commitment to nuclear power over the long term and to the life extension programme, including the Pickering B refurbishment as part of this strategy.

The Council, which will be formed for the duration of the pandemic and will include of all of Bruce Power’s Ontario-based suppliers, will focus on the continued retooling of the supply chain to meet front-line Covid-19 needs to contribute to the province’s economy recovery in the short, medium and long term.

New uses for nuclear medical applications will be explored, including isotopes for the sterilisation of medical equipment and long-term supply security.

The supply chain will be leveraged to support the health care sector through the rapid production of medical Personal Protection Equipment for front line-workers and large-scale PPE donations to communities as well as participation in pilot projects to make ventilators within the Bruce Power supply chain or help identify technology to better utilise existing ventilators;

“Buy Local” tools and approaches will be emphasised to ensure small businesses are utilised fully in communities where nuclear suppliers are located.

The production of hand sanitiser and other cleaning products will be facilitated for distribution to communities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

U.S. coal-fired generation 2021 rose as higher natural gas prices, stable coal costs, and a recovering power sector shifted the generation mix; capacity factors rebounded despite low coal stocks and ongoing plant retirements.

Key Points

Coal output rose 22% on high gas prices and higher capacity factors; a 5% decline is expected in 2022.

✅ Natural gas delivered cost averaged $4.93/MMBtu, more than double 2020

✅ Coal capacity factor rose to ~51% from 40% in 2020

✅ 2022 coal generation forecast to fall about 5%

We expect 22% more U.S. coal-fired generation in 2021 than in 2020, according to our latest Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO). The U.S. electric power sector has been generating more electricity from coal-fired power plants this year as a result of significantly higher natural gas prices and relatively stable coal prices, even as non-fossil sources reached 40% of total generation. This year, 2021, will yield the first year-over-year increase in coal generation in the United States since 2014, highlighted by a January power generation jump earlier in the year.

Coal and natural gas have been the two largest sources of electricity generation in the United States. In many areas of the country, these two fuels compete to supply electricity based on their relative costs and sensitivity to policies and gas prices as well. U.S. natural gas prices have been more volatile than coal prices, so the cost of natural gas often determines the relative share of generation provided by natural gas and coal.

Because natural gas-fired power plants convert fuel to electricity more efficiently than coal-fired plants, record natural gas generation has at times underscored that advantage, and natural gas-fired generation can have an economic advantage even if natural gas prices are slightly higher than coal prices. Between 2015 and 2020, the cost of natural gas delivered to electric generators remained relatively low and stable. This year, however, natural gas prices have been much higher than in recent years. The year-to-date delivered cost of natural gas to U.S. power plants has averaged $4.93 per million British thermal units (Btu), more than double last year’s price.

The overall decline in electricity demand in 2020 and record-low natural gas prices led coal plants to significantly reduce the percentage of time that they generated power. In 2020, the utilization rate (known as the capacity factor) of U.S. coal-fired generators averaged 40%. Before 2010, coal capacity factors routinely averaged 70% or more. This year’s higher natural gas prices have increased the average coal capacity factor to about 51%, which is almost the 2018 average, a year when wind and solar reached 10% nationally.

Although rising natural gas prices have resulted in more U.S. coal-fired generation than last year, this increase in coal generation will most likely not continue as solar and wind expand in the generation mix. The electric power sector has retired about 30% of its generating capacity at coal plants since 2010, and no new coal-fired capacity has come online in the United States since 2013. In addition, coal stocks at U.S. power plants are relatively low, and production at operating coal mines has not been increasing as rapidly as the recent increase in coal demand. For 2022, we forecast that U.S. coal-fired generation will decline about 5% in response to continuing retirements of generating capacity at coal power plants and slightly lower natural gas prices.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Alberta Electricity Price Surge reflects soaring wholesale rates, natural gas spikes, carbon tax pressures, and grid decarbonization challenges amid cold-weather demand, constrained supply, and Europe-style energy crisis impacts across the province.

Key Points

An exceptional jump in Alberta's power costs driven by gas price spikes, high demand, policy costs, and tight supply.

✅ Wholesale prices averaged $123/MWh in December

✅ Gas costs surged; supply constraints and outages

✅ Carbon tax and decarbonization policies raised costs

Albertans just endured the highest electricity prices in 21 years. Wholesale prices averaged $123 per megawatt-hour in December, more than triple the level from the previous year and highest for December since 2000.

The situation in Alberta mirrors the energy crisis striking Europe where electricity prices are also surging, largely due to a shocking five-fold increase in natural gas prices in 2021 compared to the prior year.

The situation should give pause to Albertans when they consider aggressive plans to “decarbonize” the electric grid, including proposals for a fully renewable grid by 2030 from some policymakers.

The explanation for skyrocketing energy prices is simple: increased demand (because of Calgary's frigid February demand and a slowly-reviving post-pandemic economy) coupled with constrained supply.

In the nitty gritty details, there are always particular transitory causes, such as disputes with Russian gas companies (in the case of Europe) or plant outages (in the case of Alberta).

But beyond these fleeting factors, there are more permanent systemic constraints on natural gas (and even more so, coal-fired) power plants.

I refer of course to the climate change policies of the Trudeau government at the federal level and some of the more aggressive provincial governments, which have notable implications for electricity grids across Canada.

The most obvious example is the carbon tax, the repeal of which Premier Jason Kenney made a staple of his government.

Putting aside the constitutional issues (on which the Supreme Court ruled in March of last year that the federal government could impose a carbon tax on Alberta), the obvious economic impact will be to make carbon-sourced electricity more expensive.

This isn’t a bug or undesired side-effect, it’s the explicit purpose of a carbon tax.

Right now, the federal carbon tax is $40 per tonne, is scheduled to increase to $50 in April, and will ultimately max out at a whopping $170 per tonne in 2030.

Again, the conscious rationale of the tax, aligned with goals for cleaning up Canada's electricity, is to make coal, oil and natural gas more expensive to induce consumers and businesses to use alternative energy sources.

As Albertans experience sticker shock this winter, they should ask themselves — do we want the government intentionally making electricity and heating oil more expensive?

Of course, the proponent of a carbon tax (and other measures designed to shift Canadians away from carbon-based fuels) would respond that it’s a necessary measure in the fight against climate change, and that Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero according to the IEA.

Yet the reality is that Canada is a bit player on the world stage when it comes to carbon dioxide, responsible for only 1.5% of global emissions (as of 2018).

As reported at this “climate tracker” website, if we look at the actual policies put in place by governments around the world, they’re collectively on track for the Earth to warm 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, far above the official target codified in the Paris Agreement.

Canadians can’t do much to alter the global temperature, but federal and provincial governments can make energy more expensive if policymakers so choose, and large-scale electrification could be costly—the Canadian Gas Association warns of $1.4 trillion— if pursued rapidly.

As renewable technologies become more reliable and affordable, business and consumers will naturally adopt them; it didn’t take a “manure tax” to force people to use cars rather than horses.

As official policy continues to make electricity more expensive, Albertans should ask if this approach is really worth it, or whether options like bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap could better balance costs.

Robert P. Murphy is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News