China encouraging high-tech reactors

Quebec EV transition plan aims for 2 million electric vehicles by 2030 and bans new gas cars by 2035, stressing charging infrastructure, incentives, emissions cuts, and industry impacts, with debate over feasibility and economic risks.

Key Points

A provincial policy targeting 2M EVs by 2030 and a 2035 gas-car sales ban, backed by charging buildout and incentives.

✅ Requires major charging infrastructure and grid upgrades

✅ Balances incentives with economic impacts and industry readiness

✅ Gas stations persist while EV adoption accelerates cautiously

Quebec's ambitious push to dominate the electric vehicle (EV) market, echoing Canada's EV goals in its plan, by setting a target of two million EVs on the road by 2030 and planning to ban the sale of new gas-powered vehicles by 2035 has sparked significant debate among industry experts. While the government's objectives aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote sustainable transportation, some experts question the feasibility and potential economic impacts of such rapid transitions.

Current Landscape of Gas Stations in Quebec

Contrary to Environment Minister Benoit Charette's assertion that gas stations may become scarce within the next decade, industry experts suggest that the number of gas stations in Quebec is unlikely to decline drastically. Carol Montreuil, Vice President of the Canadian Fuels Association, describes the minister's statement as "wishful thinking," emphasizing that the number of gas stations has remained relatively stable over the past decade. Statistics indicate that in 2023, Quebec residents purchased more gasoline than ever before, and EV shortages and wait times further underscore the continued demand for traditional fuel sources.

Challenges in Accelerating EV Adoption

The government's goal of having two million EVs on Quebec roads by 2030 presents several challenges. Currently, there are approximately 200,000 fully electric cars in the province. Achieving a tenfold increase in less than a decade requires substantial investments in charging infrastructure, consumer incentives, and public education to address concerns such as range anxiety and charging accessibility, especially amid electricity shortage warnings across Quebec and other provinces.

Economic Considerations and Industry Concerns

Industry stakeholders express concerns about the economic implications of rapidly phasing out gas-powered vehicles. Montreuil warns that the industry is already struggling and that attempting to transition too quickly could lead to economic challenges, a view echoed by critics who label the 2035 EV mandate delusional. He suggests that the government may be spending excessive public funds on subsidies for technologies that are still expensive and not yet widely adopted.

Public Sentiment and Adoption Rates

Public sentiment towards EVs is mixed, and experiences in Manitoba suggest the road to targets is not smooth. While some consumers, like Montreal resident Alex Rajabi, have made the switch to electric vehicles and are satisfied with their decision, others remain hesitant due to concerns about vehicle cost, charging infrastructure, and the availability of incentives. Rajabi, who transitioned to an EV nine months ago, notes that while he did not take advantage of the incentive program, he is happy with his decision and suggests that adding charging ports at gas stations could facilitate the transition.

The Need for a Balanced Approach

Experts advocate for a balanced approach that considers the pace of technological advancements, consumer readiness, and economic impacts. While the transition to electric vehicles is essential for environmental sustainability, it is crucial to ensure that the infrastructure, market conditions, and public acceptance are adequately addressed, and to recognize that a share of Canada's electricity still comes from fossil fuels, to make the shift both feasible and beneficial for all stakeholders.

In summary, Quebec's ambitious EV targets reflect a strong commitment to environmental sustainability. However, industry experts caution that achieving these goals requires careful planning, substantial investment, and a realistic assessment of the challenges involved as federal EV sales regulations take shape, in transitioning from traditional vehicles to electric mobility.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

100% Clean Energy Targets drive renewable electricity, decarbonization, and cost savings through state policies, CCAs, RECs, and mandates, with timelines and interim goals that boost jobs, resilience, and public health across cities, counties, and utilities.

Key Points

Policies for cities and states to reach 100% clean power by set dates, using mandates, RECs, and interim goals.

✅ Define eligible clean vs renewable resources

✅ Mandate vs goal framework with enforcement

✅ Timelines with interim targets and escape clauses

“An enormous amount of authority still rests with the states for determining your energy future. So we can build these policies that will become a postcard from the future for the rest of the country,” said David Hochschild, chair of the California Energy Commission, speaking last week at a UCLA summit on state and local progress toward 100 percent clean energy.

According to a new report from the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation, 13 states, districts and territories, as well as more than 200 cities and counties, with standout clean energy purchases by Southeast cities helping drive momentum, have committed to a 100 percent clean electricity target — and dozens of cities have already hit it.

This means that one of every three Americans, or roughly 111 million U.S. residents representing 34 percent of the population, live in a community that has committed to or has already achieved 100 percent clean electricity, including communities like Frisco, Colorado that have set ambitious targets.

“We’re going to look back on this moment as the moment when local action and state commitments began to push the entire nation toward this goal,” said J.R. DeShazo, director of the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation.

Not all 100 percent targets are alike, however. The report notes that these targets vary based on 1) what resources are eligible, 2) how binding the 100 percent target is, and 3) how and when the target will be achieved.

These distinctions will carry a lot of weight as the policy discussion shifts from setting goals to actually meeting targets. They also have implications for communities in terms of health benefits, cost savings and employment opportunities.

100% targets come in different forms

One key attribute is whether a target is based on "renewable" or "clean" energy resources. Some 100 percent targets, like Hawaii’s and Rhode Island’s 2030 plan, are focused exclusively on renewable energy, or sources that cannot be depleted, such as wind, solar and geothermal. But most jurisdictions use the broader term “clean energy,” which can also include resources like large hydroelectric generation and nuclear power.

States also vary in their treatment of renewable energy certificates, used to track and assign ownership to renewable energy generation and use. Unbundled RECs allow for the environmental attributes of the renewable energy resource to be purchased separately from the physical electricity delivery.

The binding nature of these targets is also noteworthy. Seven states, as well as Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, have passed 100 percent clean energy transition laws. Of the jurisdictions that have passed 100 percent legislation, all but one specifies that the target is a “mandate,” according to the report. Nevada is the only state to call the target a “goal.”

Governors in four other states have signed executive orders with 100 percent clean energy goals.

Target timelines also vary. Washington, D.C. has set the most ambitious target date, with a mandate to achieve 100 percent renewable electricity by 2032. Other states and cities have set deadline years between 2040 and 2050. All "100 percent" state laws, and some city and county policies, also include interim targets to keep clean energy deployment on track.

In addition, some locations have included some form of escape clause. For instance, Salt Lake City, which last month passed a resolution establishing a goal of powering the county with 100 percent clean electricity by 2030, included “exit strategies” in its policy in order to encourage stakeholder buy-in, said Mayor Jackie Biskupski, speaking last week at the UCLA summit.

“We don’t think they’ll get used, but they’re there,” she said.

Other locales, meanwhile, have decided to go well beyond 100 percent clean electricity. The State of California and 44 cities have set even more challenging targets to also transition their entire transportation, heating and cooling sectors to 100 percent clean energy sources, and proposals like requiring solar panels on new buildings underscore how policy can accelerate progress across sectors.

Businesses are simultaneously electing to adopt more clean and renewable energy. Six utilities across the United States have set their own 100 percent clean or carbon-free electricity targets. UCLA researchers did not include populations served by these utilities in their analysis of locations with state and city 100 percent clean commitments.

“We cannot wait”

All state and local policies that require a certain share of electricity to come from renewable energy resources have contributed to more efficient project development and financing mechanisms, which have supported continued technology cost declines and contributed to a near doubling of renewable energy generation since 2008.

Many communities are switching to clean energy in order to save money, now that the cost calculation is increasingly in favor of renewables over fossil fuels, as more jurisdictions get on the road to 100% renewables worldwide. Additional benefits include local job creation, cleaner air and electricity system resilience due to greater reliance on local energy resources.

Another major motivator is climate change. The electricity sector is responsible for 28 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, second only to transportation. Decarbonizing the grid also helps to clean up the transportation sector as more vehicles move to electricity as their fuel source.

“The now-constant threat of wildfires, droughts, severe storms and habitat loss driven by climate change signals a crisis we can no longer ignore,” said Carla Peterman, senior vice president of regulatory affairs at investor-owned utility Southern California Edison. “We cannot wait and we should not wait when there are viable solutions to pursue now.”

Prior to joining SCE on October 1, Peterman served as a member of the California Public Utilities Commission, which implements and administers renewable portfolio standard (RPS) compliance rules for California’s retail sellers of electricity. California’s target requires 60 percent of the state’s electricity to come from renewable energy resources by 2030, and all the state's electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045.  

How CCAs are driving renewable energy deployment

One way California communities are working to meet the state’s ambitious targets is through community-choice aggregation, especially after California's near-100% renewable milestone underscored what's possible, via which cities and counties can take control of their energy procurement decisions to suit their preferences. Investor-owned utilities no longer purchase energy for these jurisdictions, but they continue to operate the transmission and distribution grid for all electricity users.                           

A second paper released by the Luskin Center for Innovation in recent days examines how community-choice aggregators are affecting levels of renewable energy deployment in California and contributing to the state’s 100 percent target.

The paper finds that 19 CCAs have launched in California since 2010, growing to include more than 160 towns, cities and counties. Of those communities, 64 have a 100 percent renewable or clean energy policy as their default energy program.

Because of these policies, the UCLA paper finds that “CCAs have had both direct and indirect effects that have led to increases in the clean energy sold in excess of the state’s RPS.”

From 2011 to 2018, CCAs directly procured 24 terawatt-hours of RPS-eligible electricity, 11 TWh of which have been voluntary or in excess of RPS compliance, according to the paper.

The formation of CCAs has also had an indirect effect on investor-owned utilities. As customers have left investor-owned utilities to join CCAs, the utilities have been left holding contracts for more renewable energy than they need to comply with California’s clean energy targets, amid rising solar and wind curtailments that complicate procurement decisions. UCLA researchers estimate that this indirect effect of CCA formation has left IOUs holding 13 terawatt-hours in excess of RPS requirements.

The paper concludes that CCAs have helped to accelerate California’s ability to meet state renewable energy targets over the past decade. However, the future contributions of CCAs to the RPS are more uncertain as communities make new power-purchasing decisions and utilities seek to reduce their excess renewable energy contracts.

“CCAs offer a way for communities to put their desire for clean energy into action. They're growing fast in California, one of only eight states where this kind of mechanism is allowed," said UCLA's Kelly Trumbull, an author of the report. "State and federal policies could be reformed to better enable communities to meet local demand for renewable energy.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

COVID-19 Impact on US Electric Grid: utilities, ERCOT, PJM, and MISO brace for load shifts as remote work rises, industrial demand falls, and nuclear plants enforce pandemic planning to maintain reliability and resilience.

Key Points

Pandemic-driven changes in electricity demand and operations as utilities shift to remote work and reduced industrial use.

✅ Utilities enact remote work and suspend disconnections

✅ Grid operators model load shifts and maintain reliability

✅ Nuclear plants sustain operations with pandemic protocols

Operators of the nation's electric grid and energy companies are bracing for the spread of a virus that is undercutting power demand in countries across Asia and Europe as daily activities grind to a halt.

Owners of U.S. utilities and nuclear plants are canceling events, halting travel, pushing remote work and testing ill workers to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus.

So far, grid operators in the United States say no substantial effect on the electricity demand has emerged, but that could change, even though some reports indicate the U.S. grid is safe for now amid COVID-19. Texas' main grid operator, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), expressed uncertainty when asked whether it will see changes in demand patterns for power due to the virus.

"It's too early to tell," Leslie Sopko, a spokeswoman for ERCOT, said in an email.

The virus has already taken a toll on power demand overseas. The chairman of Japan's federation of electric utilities and president of Chubu Electric Power Co., Satoru Katsuno, told reporters Friday the country's power demand has weakened as industrial activity slows due to the outbreak, according to Reuters.

The news outlet similarly reported China's industrial power demand this year may decline as the virus curtailed factory output and prevented some employees from returning to work. And, according to Bloomberg, power use in Italy slumped 7.4% last week after the government there shut down schools and told workers to remain home, while Ontario electricity demand also declined as people stayed home.

U.S. utility executives said the sector is well prepared and has faced the threat of spreading infections before. More than a decade ago, global virus scares like SARS pushed companies to hammer out extensive disaster planning, and those have stuck.

"A lot of the foundational work on contingency planning is actually rooted in pandemic planning because of those experiences in the mid-2000s," Scott Aaronson, the Edison Electric Institute's vice president of security and preparedness, told E&E News. "There is a good body of work and a lot of planning and exercises that have gone into being able to operate through these challenges."

Keeping the nation's electric grid running is a top priority at the Department of Energy, said Chris Fall, the agency's point person for COVID-19, which the new coronavirus causes. "Our responsibility is to make sure the electrical grid is resilient and working," said Fall, who directs the department's Office of Science.

He told an agency podcast, called "Direct Current," that the department is working with the private sector and other elements of the energy system. "Obviously we are connected with other agencies like Homeland Security or [the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] on things like the electrical grid and making sure we have power, and if those people get sick or impacted, we have backups for all of that," he said.

According to a bulletin EEI released on the issue, 40% of a company's employees could be out sick, be quarantined or stay home to care for sick family members. And pandemics may prevent "traditional mutual assistance programs that help companies restore service after natural disasters and weather events," EEI said, such as restoring power in Florida after major storms.

The utility sector is also juggling the needs of its customers. Many major utilities across the nation have vowed to suspend shut-offs and keep power, heat and water on for all customers — a particular concern for people who may be out of work and cannot afford to pay their bills. Companies are also suspending disconnections for nonpayment, some under direction from officials and regulators in states like Ohio and Connecticut, while in Canada Hydro One's peak rate policy has drawn attention among self-isolating customers.

Like other businesses preparing for pandemics, utilities focus on keeping the workforce healthy and operations running. But EEI's Aaronson noted that a key difference with keeping critical infrastructure humming is the possible requirement for the sheltering in place of essential employees who are unable to do their jobs from home, as some operators contemplate locking down key staff at work sites to ensure continuity.

Grid operators are also well-equipped to handle shifts in power demand, and he acknowledged the sector could see changes as more offices and businesses move to remote working. He compared it to the load demand shifts between weekdays and weekends.

"So on the weekends, you're going to have a lot of people at home," Aaronson said. "During the week, it's people in offices. But generally speaking, the ability to have that resiliency and redundancy, the ability to shift resources and the way the grid balances, that is not going to change."

Electricity demand from high-intensity industries like manufacturing or theme parks like Disneyland could also wane, he added, even as electricity inequality in California influences who is most affected.

"It's not just a load shift to the residential, but it's also the load drop in some cases," Aaronson said. "Some of the commercial and industrial customers are going to be working a little bit less than they are presently."

Nuclear plants
Work is continuing at the Plant Vogtle nuclear construction project after Georgia Power Co. announced that one of the site workers is being tested for the coronavirus. The utility does not have the results of that test, a Georgia Power spokesman said late yesterday afternoon. The person works primarily in an office setting and is not on the construction site where two nuclear reactors are being built.

A second worker was tested Saturday, and those results were negative, spokesman John Kraft told E&E News.

Vogtle boasts a high worker count of 9,000 across the entire construction site, which includes office buildings. This is mostly craft laborers, but there are also administrators, executives and Nuclear Regulatory Commission safety inspectors.

A number of contractors and vendors are also on site given the complexity of the project.

Employees who were near the office worker being tested have been sent home until the company receives results. If the test is positive, then those workers will stay home for 14 days, Georgia Power said.

"The company is taking every action to prepare for impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic," Kraft said in a statement. This includes using advice from medical professionals and the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Georgia Power, owned by Atlanta-based Southern Co., informed regulators at the NRC that a worker was being tested. The federal commission itself has pandemic plans in place to ensure continued oversight, including robust work-from-home capabilities and "social distancing" practices to limit close contact among employees at headquarters.

NRC spokesman Scott Burnell said in an email that telework is not unusual for the agency, and about 75% of its workforce is already equipped to work remotely. The commission tested its telework readiness Friday. Some positions require workers to stay on-site to ensure safe reactor operations, Burnell added.

The nuclear industry has maintained pandemic preparedness plans and procedures since 2006, which have been shared with federal agencies, according to Mary Love, a spokeswoman for the Nuclear Energy Institute. "NEI members are participating in weekly calls to facilitate communications, coordination and best practices," she said.

According to NEI statistics, each plant averages 500 to 1,000 workers. While not every position is essential to operations, some areas like the control room cannot be conducted remotely.

"We know that nuclear power plant operations and the availability of electric service will be tremendously important in minimizing the impact of the situation on the general public," Love added. "We are confident, based on extensive planning, that the industry will continue to operate nuclear plants safely as this event unfolds."

Grid operators
Hundreds of workers responsible for overseeing critical operations of the U.S. electric grid are being encouraged to work from home, their offices are being sanitized, and in-person meetings are being moved online.

PJM Interconnection, the nation's largest grid operator covering some 65 million people across Mid-Atlantic and Midwest states, said Friday a forecast on load changes was not yet available.

PJM has moved all stakeholder meetings online. Employee travel has been suspended, as have external visits to its headquarters in Valley Forge, Pa.

Employees "are equipped to work remotely, if necessary, to maintain business continuity," and PJM "is prepared and able to run and support all market applications from its campus or remotely, as needed," the operator said.

"PJM recognizes that these measures have significant impacts to our staff, members and stakeholders," PJM said on its coronavirus response webpage. "We are dedicated to striking a balance between those impacts and our number one priority — the reliability of the grid."

Still pending at the operator is a decision about its annual meeting in Chicago at the beginning of May. That decision will be made by April 3, PJM said.

The Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), which runs the bulk power grid across 15 states and the Canadian province of Manitoba, is also holding meetings via conference call or online and restricting all business travel.

MISO has encouraged "nonessential" employees to work remotely, leaving only those who actively monitor and manage the operation of the grid working on-site.

The grid operator employs nearly 1,000 people, including 780 at its headquarters in Carmel, Ind.

A board meeting set for the last week of March in New Orleans hasn't yet been canceled, with a final decision on whether to move forward with the meeting expected today.

MISO said it hasn't encountered other changes in normal operations and has not seen significant shifts in electricity demand.

In Texas, ERCOT has about 750 employees, mostly at its campus in the city of Taylor. ERCOT's Sopko said the grid operator is encouraging employees who are not required to be on-site to work from home. The policy is voluntary at this time, but that could change quickly, she said Friday.

ERCOT is also taking extra steps to keep workers safe, including alternating use of facilities, encouraging social distancing and imposing control room measures as part of its pandemic planning, she added.

Energy companies
In the Midwest, utilities including DTE Energy Co., Commonwealth Edison, Consumers Energy and Ameren Corp. said they're following CDC guidance and working with state and local officials to help slow the spread of the virus. That means asking employees who can do their jobs at home to do so, restricting visitors to company offices, canceling large assemblies and nonessential business travel, and holding meetings by phone or online.

Chicago-based ComEd, which serves 4 million customers, is imposing a moratorium on service disconnections and waiving new late payment charges through at least May 1, in addition to working with customers who are facing financial hardships on a case-by-case basis to establish payment arrangements and identify energy assistance options, spokesman Paul Elsberg said.

Many of the Southeast's major energy companies are also curbing travel and encouraging telework, among other steps, in response to the coronavirus.

For Southern Co., this includes its Georgia Power unit; Southern Power; and employees of Southern Company Gas, who are in Illinois, Tennessee and Virginia. Southern has not extended the policies to its Alabama and Mississippi electric companies, spokesman Schuyler Baehman said.

Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy Corp. has suspended all business travel unless workers are traveling by car. The energy giant also is encouraging its employees to rethink their own vacations if upcoming trips take them out of the country.

"Circumstances are changing rapidly around the world," the company said in a statement.

For workers who must come to the office, or work at power plants or on the lines, utilities are doubling down on disinfectant in those areas.

"We're also reminding our employees that we provide a very critical service; we need you well, we need you able," said Le-Ha Anderson, a spokeswoman for Richmond, Va.-based Dominion Energy Inc.

Dominion started asking employees a few weeks ago to take mobile devices home and make sure they have what they need to work remotely. Anyone who has traveled to one of the CDC-identified hot spots is asked to stay home for 14 days with no questions asked, Anderson said.

The federally owned Tennessee Valley Authority has reviewed and updated its plans on how it will operate during a pandemic but has not yet reached the point to have employees telework if they are able to do so.

"We come at this at a very phased approach," TVA spokesman Jim Hopson said. "We can't just shut the doors."

State utility commissions, too, have begun taking steps. In response to a state of emergency declared by Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R), the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio on Thursday directed utilities to act where possible to avoid suspending service to customers.

Will Seuffert, executive secretary of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, said in an email that the regulator has canceled all public hearings and agenda meetings for the next two weeks and has been supporting telework "throughout the agency" in response to the virus.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Hydro-QuE9bec Class-Action Lawsuit alleges overbilling and monopoly abuse, citing RE9gie de l'E9nergie rate increases, Quebec Superior Court filings, and calls for refunds on 2008-2013 electricity bills to residential and business customers.

Key Points

Quebec class action alleging Hydro-QuE9bec overbilled customers in 2008-2013, seeking court-ordered refunds.

✅ Filed in Quebec Superior Court; certification pending.

✅ Alleges up to $1.2B in overcharges from 2008-2013.

✅ Questions RE9gie de l'E9nergie rate approvals and data.

A group representing Hydro-Québec customers has filed a motion for a class-action lawsuit against the public utility, alleging it overcharged customers over a five-year period.

Freddy Molima, one of the representatives of the Coalition Peuple allumé, accuses Hydro-Québec of "abusing its monopoly."

The motion, which was filed in Quebec Superior Court, claims Hydro-Québec customers paid more than they should have for electricity between 2008 and 2013, to the tune of nearly $1.2 billion, even as Hydro-Québec later refunded $535 million to customers in a separate case. 

The coalition has so far recruited nearly 40,000 participants online as part of its plan to sue the public utility.

A lawyer representing the group said Quebec's energy board, the Régie de l'énergie, also recently approved Hydro-Québec rate increases for residential and business customers without knowing all the facts, even as Manitoba Hydro hikes face opposition in regulatory hearings.

"There's certain information provided to the Régie that isn't true," said Bryan Furlong. "Hydro-Québec has not been providing the Régie the proper numbers."

In its motion, the group asks that overcharged clients be retroactively reimbursed.

Hydro-Québec denies allegations

Hydro-Québec, for its part, denies it ever overbilled any of its clients, while other utilities such as Hydro One plan to redesign bills to improve clarity.

"All our efficiencies have been returned to the government through our profits, and to Quebecers we have billed exactly what we agreed to bill," said spokesperson Serge Abergel, adding that the utility won't seek a rate hike next year according to its current plans.

Quebec Energy Minister Pierre Moreau also came to the public utility's defence, saying it has no choice but to comply with the  energy board's regulations, while customer protections are in focus as Hydro One moves to reconnect 1,400 customers in Ontario.

The group says the public utility has overbilled clients by up to $1.2 billion. (Radio-Canada)

It would be "shocking" if customers were charged too much money, he added.

"I know for a fact that Hydro-Québec is respecting the decision of this body," he said.

While the motion has been filed, the group cannot say how much each customer would receive if the class-action lawsuit goes ahead because it all depends on how much electricity was consumed by each client over that five-year period.

The coalition plans to present its motion to a judge next February.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Bitcoin energy consumption is driven by mining electricity demand, with TWh-scale power use, carbon footprint concerns, and Cambridge estimates. Rising prices incentivize more hardware; efficiency gains and renewables adoption shape sustainability outcomes.

Key Points

Bitcoin energy consumption is mining's electricity use, driven by price, device efficiency, and energy mix.

✅ Cambridge tool estimates ~121 TWh annual usage

✅ Rising BTC price incentivizes more mining hardware

✅ Efficiency, renewables, and costs shape footprint

"Mining" for the cryptocurrency is power-hungry, with power curtailments reported during heat waves, involving heavy computer calculations to verify transactions.

Cambridge researchers say it consumes around 121.36 terawatt-hours (TWh) a year - and is unlikely to fall unless the value of the currency slumps, even as Americans use less electricity overall.

Critics say electric-car firm Tesla's decision to invest heavily in Bitcoin undermines its environmental image.

The currency's value hit a record $48,000 (£34,820) this week. following Tesla's announcement that it had bought about $1.5bn bitcoin and planned to accept it as payment in future.

But the rising price offers even more incentive to Bitcoin miners to run more and more machines.

And as the price increases, so does the energy consumption, according to Michel Rauchs, researcher at The Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, who co-created the online tool that generates these estimates.

“It is really by design that Bitcoin consumes that much electricity,” Mr Rauchs told BBC’s Tech Tent podcast. “This is not something that will change in the future unless the Bitcoin price is going to significantly go down."

The online tool has ranked Bitcoin’s electricity consumption above Argentina (121 TWh), the Netherlands (108.8 TWh) and the United Arab Emirates (113.20 TWh) - and it is gradually creeping up on Norway (122.20 TWh).

The energy it uses could power all kettles used in the UK, where low-carbon generation stalled in 2019, for 27 years, it said.

However, it also suggests the amount of electricity consumed every year by always-on but inactive home devices in the US alone could power the entire Bitcoin network for a year, and in Canada, B.C. power imports have helped meet demand.

Mining Bitcoin
In order to "mine" Bitcoin, computers - often specialised ones - are connected to the cryptocurrency network.

They have the job of verifying transactions made by people who send or receive Bitcoin.

This process involves solving puzzles, which, while not integral to verifying movements of the currency, provide a hurdle to ensure no-one fraudulently edits the global record of all transactions.

As a reward, miners occasionally receive small amounts of Bitcoin in what is often likened to a lottery.

To increase profits, people often connect large numbers of miners to the network - even entire warehouses full of them, as seen with a Medicine Hat bitcoin operation backed by an electricity deal.

That uses lots of electricity because the computers are more or less constantly working to complete the puzzles, prompting some utilities to consider pauses on new crypto loads in certain regions.

The University of Cambridge tool models the economic lifetime of the world's Bitcoin miners and assumes that all the Bitcoin mining machines worldwide are working with various efficiencies.

Using an average electricity price per kilowatt hour ($0.05) and the energy demands of the Bitcoin network, it is then possible to estimate how much electricity is being consumed at any one time, though in places like China's power sector data can be opaque.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis highlights nuclear power vs coal and natural gas, renewables and hydropower limits, carbon emissions, energy security, and baseload reliability during Russia-related supply shocks and winter demand.

Key Points

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis weighs reactor extensions vs coal revival to bolster security, curb emissions.

✅ Coal plants restarted; nuclear shutdown stays on schedule.

✅ Energy security prioritized amid Russian gas supply cuts.

✅ Emissions likely rise despite renewables expansion.

Peel away the politics and the passion, the doomsaying and the denialism, and climate change largely boils down to this: energy. To avoid the chances of catastrophic climate change while ensuring the world can continue to grow — especially for poor people who live in chronically energy-starved areas — we’ll need to produce ever more energy from sources that emit little or no greenhouse gases.

It’s that simple — and, of course, that complicated.

Zero-carbon sources of renewable energy like wind and solar have seen tremendous increases in capacity and equally impressive decreases in price in recent years, while the decades-old technology of hydropower is still what the International Energy Agency calls the “forgotten giant of low-carbon electricity.”

And then there’s nuclear power. Viewed strictly through the lens of climate change, nuclear power can claim to be a green dream, even as Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy most.

Unlike coal or natural gas, nuclear plants do not produce direct carbon dioxide emissions when they generate electricity, and over the past 50 years they’ve reduced CO2 emissions by nearly 60 gigatonnes. Unlike solar or wind, nuclear plants aren’t intermittent, and they require significantly less land area per megawatt produced. Unlike hydropower — which has reached its natural limits in many developed countries, including the US — nuclear plants don’t require environmentally intensive dams.

As accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown, when nuclear power goes wrong, it can go really wrong. But newer plant designs reduce the risk of such catastrophes, which themselves tend to garner far more attention than the steady stream of deaths from climate change and air pollution linked to the normal operation of conventional power plants.

So you might imagine that those who see climate change as an unparalleled existential threat would cheer the development of new nuclear plants and support the extension of nuclear power already in service.

In practice, however, that’s often not the case, as recent events in Germany underline.

When is a Green not green?
The Russian war in Ukraine has made a mess of global energy markets, but perhaps no country has proven more vulnerable than Germany, reigniting debate over a possible resurgence of nuclear energy in Germany among policymakers.

At the start of the year, Russian exports supplied more than half of Germany’s natural gas, along with significant portions of its oil and coal imports. Since the war began, Russia has severely curtailed the flow of gas to Germany, putting the country in a state of acute energy crisis, with fears growing as next winter looms.

With little natural gas supplies of the country’s own, and its heavily supported renewable sector unable to fully make up the shortfall, German leaders faced a dilemma. To maintain enough gas reserves to get the country through the winter, they could try to put off the closure of Germany’s last three remaining nuclear reactors temporarily, which were scheduled to shutter by the end of 2022 as part of Germany’s post-Fukushima turn against nuclear power, and even restart already closed reactors.

Or they could try to reactivate mothballed coal-fired power plants, and make up some of the electricity deficit with Germany’s still-ample coal reserves.

Based on carbon emissions alone, you’d presumably go for the nuclear option. Coal is by far the dirtiest of fossil fuels, responsible for a fifth of all global greenhouse gas emissions — more than any other single source — as well as a soup of conventional air pollutants. Nuclear power produces none of these.

German legislators saw it differently. Last week, the country’s parliament, with the backing of members of the Green Party in the coalition government, passed emergency legislation to reopen coal-powered plants, as well as further measures to boost the production of renewable energy. There would be no effort to restart closed nuclear power plants, or even consider a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout for the last active reactors.

“The gas storage tanks must be full by winter,” Robert Habeck, Germany’s economy minister and a member of the Green Party, said in June, echoing arguments that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue for the coming winter.

Partially as a result of that prioritization, Germany — which has already seen carbon emissions rise over the past two years, missing its ambitious emissions targets — will emit even more carbon in 2022.

To be fair, restarting closed nuclear power plants is a far more complex undertaking than lighting up old coal plants. Plant operators had only bought enough uranium to make it to the end of 2022, so nuclear fuel supplies are set to run out regardless.

But that’s also the point. Germany, which views itself as a global leader on climate, is grasping at the most carbon-intensive fuel source in part because it made the decision in 2011 to fully turn its back on nuclear for good at the time, enshrining what had been a planned phase-out into law.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News