OMERS walks away from AECL talks

Ukraine-ENTSO-E Grid Synchronization links Ukraine and Moldova to the European grid via secure interconnection, matching frequency for stability, resilience, and energy security, enabling cross-border support, islanding recovery, and coordinated load balancing during wartime disruptions.

Key Points

Rapid alignment of Ukraine and Moldova into the European grid to enable secure interconnection and system stability.

✅ Matches 50 Hz frequency across interconnected systems

✅ Enables cross-border support and electricity trading

✅ Improves resilience, stability, and energy security

On February 24 Ukraine’s electric grid operator disconnected the country’s power system from the larger Russian-operated network to which it had always been linked. The long-planned disconnection was meant to be a 72-hour trial proving that Ukraine could operate on its own and to protect electricity supply before winter as contingencies were tested. The test was a requirement for eventually linking with the European grid, which Ukraine had been working toward since 2017. But four hours after the exercise started, Russia invaded.

Ukraine’s connection to Europe—which was not supposed to occur until 2023—became urgent, and engineers aimed to safely achieve it in just a matter of weeks. On March 16 they reached the key milestone of synchronizing the two systems. It was “a year’s work in two weeks,” according to a statement by Kadri Simson, the European Union commissioner for energy. That is unusual in this field. “For [power grid operators] to move this quickly and with such agility is unprecedented,” says Paul Deane, an energy policy researcher at the University College Cork in Ireland. “No power system has ever synchronized this quickly before.”

Ukraine initiated the process of joining Europe’s grid in 2005 and began working toward that goal in earnest in 2017, as did Moldova. It was part of an ongoing effort to align with Europe, as seen in the Baltic states’ disconnection from the Russian grid, and decrease reliance on Russia, which had repeatedly threatened Ukraine’s sovereignty. “Ukraine simply wanted to decouple from Russian dominance in every sense of the word, and the grid is part of that,” says Suriya Jayanti, an Eastern European policy expert and former U.S. diplomat who served as energy chief at the U.S. embassy in Kyiv from 2018 to 2020.

After the late February trial period, Ukrenergo, the Ukrainian grid operator, had intended to temporarily rejoin the system that powers Russia and Belarus. But the Russian invasion made that untenable. “That left Ukraine in isolation mode, which would be incredibly dangerous from a power supply perspective,” Jayanti says. “It means that there’s nowhere for Ukraine to import electricity from. It’s an orphan.” That was a particularly precarious situation given Russian attacks on key energy infrastructure such as the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and ongoing strikes on Ukraine’s power grid that posed continuing risks. (According to Jayanti, Ukraine’s grid was ultimately able to run alone for as long as it did because power demand dropped by about a third as Ukrainians fled the country.)

Three days after the invasion, Ukrenergo sent a letter to the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E) requesting authorization to connect to the European grid early. Moldelectrica, the Moldovan operator, made the same request the following day. While European operators wanted to support Ukraine, they had to protect their own grids, amid renewed focus on protecting the U.S. power grid from Russian hacking, so the emergency connection process had to be done carefully. “Utilities and system operators are notoriously risk-averse because the job is to keep the lights on, to keep everyone safe,” says Laura Mehigan, an energy researcher at University College Cork.

An electric grid is a network of power-generating sources and transmission infrastructure that produces electricity and carries it from places such as power plants, wind farms and solar arrays to houses, hospitals and public transit systems. “You can’t just experiment with a power system and hope that it works,” Deane says. Getting power where it is it needed when it is needed is an intricate process, and there is little room for error, as incidents involving Russian hackers targeting U.S. utilities have highlighted for operators worldwide.

Crucial to this mission is grid interconnection. Linked systems can share electricity across vast areas, often using HVDC technology, so that a surplus of energy generated in one location can meet demand in another. “More interconnection means we can move power around more quickly, more efficiently, more cost effectively and take advantage of low-carbon or zero-carbon power sources,” says James Glynn, a senior research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. But connecting these massive networks with many moving parts is no small order.

One of the primary challenges of interconnecting grids is synchronizing them, which is what Ukrenergo, Moldelectrica and ENTSO-E accomplished last week. Synchronization is essential for sharing electricity. The task involves aligning the frequencies of every energy-generation facility in the connecting systems. Frequency is like the heartbeat of the electric grid. Across Europe, energy-generating turbines spin 50 times per second in near-perfect unison, and when disputes disrupt that balance, slow clocks across Europe can result, reminding operators of the stakes. For Ukraine and Moldova to join in, their systems had to be adjusted to match that rhythm. “We can’t stop the power system for an hour and then try to synchronize,” Deane says. “This has to be done while the system is operating.” It is like jumping onto a moving train or a spinning ride at the playground: the train or ride is not stopping, so you had better time the jump perfectly.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

CPEC Power Producers drive China-Pakistan energy cooperation under the Belt and Road Initiative, delivering clean, reliable electricity, investment transparency, and grid stability while countering allegations, cutting circular debt, and easing load-shedding nationwide.

Key Points

CPEC Power Producers are BRI-backed energy projects supplying clean, reliable power and stabilizing Pakistan's grid.

✅ Supply one-third of load during COVID-19 peak, ensuring reliability

✅ Reduce circular debt and mitigate nationwide load-shedding

✅ Operate under BRI with transparent, long-term investment

Chinese government has rejected the allegations against the CPEC Power Producers (CPPs) amid broader coal reduction goals in the power sector.

Chinese government has made it clear that a mammoth cooperation with Pakistan in the energy sector is continuing, aligned with its broader electricity outlook through 2060 and beyond.

A letter written by Chinese ambassador to minister of Energy Omar Ayub Khan has said that major headway has been seen in recent days in the perspective of CPEC projects, alongside China's nuclear energy development at home. But he wants to invite the attention of government of Pakistan to the recent allegations leveled against the CPEC Power Producers (CPPs).

The Chinese ambassador further said Energy is a major area of cooperation under the CPEC and the CPPs have provided large amount of clean, reliable and affordable electricity to the Pakistani consumers and have guaranteed one-third of the power load during the COVID-19 pandemic, even as China grappled with periodic power cuts domestically. However many misinformed analysis and media distortion about the CPPs have been made public to create confusion about the CPEC, amid global solar sector uncertainty influencing narratives. Therefore, the Port Qasim Electric Power Company, Huaneng Shandong Ruyi Energy Limited and the China Power Hub Generation Company Limited as leading CPPs have drafted their own reports in this regard to present the real facts about the investors and operators. The conclusion is the CPPs have contributed to overcoming of loadshedding and the reduction of the power circular debt.

Reports of the two companies have also been attached with the letter wherein it has been laid out that CPEC as a pilot project under the Belt and Road Initiative, which also includes regional nuclear energy cooperation efforts, is an important platform for China and Pakistan to build a stronger economic and development partnership.

Chinese companies have expressed strong reservations over report of different committees besides voicing protest over it. They have made it clear they are ready to present the real situation before the competent authorities and committee, and in parallel with electricity infrastructure initiatives abroad, because all the work is being carried out by Chinese companies in power sector in fair and transparent manner.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Geothermal Emergency Permitting accelerates BLM approvals on public lands via categorical exclusions for exploratory drilling and geophysical surveys, boosting domestic energy security, cutting timelines by up to a year, and streamlining low-impact reviews.

Key Points

A policy fast-tracking geothermal exploration on public lands, using BLM categorical exclusions to cut review delays.

✅ Categorical exclusions speed exploratory drilling approvals

✅ Cuts permitting timelines by up to one year

✅ Focused on public lands to enhance energy security

In a significant policy shift, the U.S. Department of the Interior has introduced emergency permitting procedures aimed at expediting the development of geothermal energy projects. This initiative, announced on May 30, 2025, is part of a broader strategy to enhance domestic energy production, seen in proposals to replace Obama's power plant overhaul and reduce reliance on foreign energy sources.

Background and Rationale

The decision to fast-track geothermal energy projects comes in the wake of President Donald Trump's declaration of a national energy emergency, which faces a legal challenge from Washington's attorney general, on January 20, 2025. This declaration cited high energy costs and an unreliable energy grid as threats to national security and economic prosperity. While the emergency order includes traditional energy resources such as oil, gas, coal, and uranium and nuclear energy resources, it notably excludes renewable sources like solar, wind, and hydrogen from its scope.

Geothermal energy, which harnesses heat from beneath the Earth's surface to generate electricity, is considered a reliable and low-emission energy source. However, its development has been hindered by lengthy permitting processes and environmental reviews, with recent NEPA rule changes influencing timelines. The new emergency permitting procedures aim to address these challenges by streamlining the approval process for geothermal projects.

Key Features of the Emergency Permitting Procedures

Under the new guidelines, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has adopted categorical exclusions to expedite the review and approval of geothermal energy exploration on public lands. These exclusions allow for faster permitting of low-impact activities, such as drilling exploratory wells and conducting geophysical surveys, without the need for extensive environmental assessments.

Additionally, the BLM has proposed a new categorical exclusion that would apply to operations related to the search for indirect evidence of geothermal resources. This proposal is currently open for public comment and, if finalized, would further accelerate the discovery of new geothermal resources on public lands.

Expected Impact on Geothermal Energy Development

The implementation of these emergency permitting procedures is expected to significantly reduce the time and cost associated with developing geothermal energy projects. According to the Department of the Interior, the new measures could cut permitting timelines by up to a year for certain types of geothermal exploration activities.

This acceleration in project development is particularly important given the untapped geothermal potential in regions like Nevada, which is home to some of the largest undeveloped geothermal resources in the country.

Industry and Environmental Reactions

The geothermal industry has largely welcomed the new permitting procedures, viewing them as a necessary step to unlock the full potential of geothermal energy. Industry advocates argue that reducing permitting delays will facilitate the deployment of geothermal projects, contributing to a more reliable and sustainable energy grid amid debates over electricity pricing changes that affect market signals.

However, the exclusion of solar and wind energy projects from the emergency permitting procedures has drawn criticism from some environmental groups. Critics argue that a comprehensive approach to energy development should include all renewable sources, not just geothermal, to effectively address climate change, as reflected in new EPA pollution limits for coal and gas power plants, and promote energy sustainability.

The U.S. government's move to implement emergency permitting procedures for geothermal energy development marks a significant step toward enhancing domestic energy production and reducing reliance on foreign energy sources. By streamlining the approval process for geothermal projects, the administration aims to accelerate the deployment of this reliable and low-emission energy source. While the exclusion of other renewable energy sources from the emergency procedures has sparked debate, especially after states like California halted an energy rebate program during a federal freeze, the focus on geothermal energy underscores its potential role in the nation's energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electric Buses reduce urban emissions and noise, but require charging infrastructure, grid upgrades, and depot redesigns; they offer lower operating costs and simpler maintenance, with range limits influencing routes, schedules, and on-route fast charging.

Key Points

Battery-electric buses cut emissions and noise while lowering operating and maintenance costs for transit agencies.

✅ Lower emissions, noise; improved rider experience

✅ Requires charging, grid upgrades, depot redesigns

✅ Range limits affect routes; on-route fast charging helps

In lots of ways, the electric bus feels like a technology whose time has come. Transportation is responsible for about a quarter of global emissions, and those emissions are growing faster than in any other sector. While buses are just a small slice of the worldwide vehicle fleet, they have an outsize effect on the environment. That’s partly because they’re so dirty—one Bogotá bus fleet made up just 5 percent of the city’s total vehicles, but a quarter of its CO2, 40 percent of nitrogen oxide, and more than half of all its particulate matter vehicle emissions. And because buses operate exactly where the people are concentrated, we feel the effects that much more acutely.

Enter the electric bus. Depending on the “cleanliness” of the electric grid into which they’re plugged, e-buses are much better for the environment. They’re also just straight up nicer to be around: less vibration, less noise, zero exhaust. Plus, in the long term, e-buses have lower operating costs, and related efforts like US school bus electrification are gathering pace too.

So it makes sense that global e-bus sales increased by 32 percent last year, according to a report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, as the age of electric cars accelerates across markets worldwide. “You look across the electrification of cars, trucks—it’s buses that are leading this revolution,” says David Warren, the director of sustainable transportation at bus manufacturer New Flyer.

Today, about 17 percent of the world’s buses are electric—425,000 in total. But 99 percent of them are in China, where a national mandate promotes all sorts of electric vehicles. In North America, a few cities have bought a few electric buses, or at least run limited pilots, to test the concept out, and early deployments like Edmonton's first e-bus offer useful lessons as systems ramp up. California has even mandated that by 2029 all buses purchased by its mass transit agencies be zero-emission.

But given all the benefits of e-buses, why aren’t there more? And why aren’t they everywhere?

“We want to be responsive, we want to be innovative, we want to pilot new technologies and we’re committed to doing so as an agency,” says Becky Collins, the manager of corporate initiative at the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, which is currently on its second e-bus pilot program. “But if the diesel bus was a first-generation car phone, we’re verging on smartphone territory right now. It’s not as simple as just flipping a switch.”

One reason is trepidation about the actual electric vehicle. Some of the major bus manufacturers are still getting over their skis, production-wise. During early tests in places like Belo Horizonte, Brazil, e-buses had trouble getting over steep hills with full passenger loads. Albuquerque, New Mexico, canceled a 15-bus deal with the Chinese manufacturer BYD after finding equipment problems during testing. (The city also sued). Today’s buses get around 225 miles per charge, depending on topography and weather conditions, which means they have to re-up about once a day on a shorter route in a dense city. That’s an issue in a lot of places.

If you want to buy an electric bus, you need to buy into an entire electric bus system. The vehicle is just the start.

The number one thing people seem to forget about electric buses is that they need to get charged, and emerging projects such as a bus depot charging hub illustrate how infrastructure can scale. “We talk to many different organizations that get so fixated on the vehicles,” says Camron Gorguinpour, the global senior manager for the electric vehicles at the World Resources Institute, a research organization, which last month released twin reports on electric bus adoption. “The actual charging stations get lost in the mix.”

But charging stations are expensive—about $50,000 for your standard depot-based one. On-route charging stations, an appealing option for longer bus routes, can be two or three times that. And that’s not even counting construction costs. Or the cost of new land: In densely packed urban centers, movements inside bus depots can be tightly orchestrated to accommodate parking and fueling. New electric bus infrastructure means rethinking limited space, and operators can look to Toronto's TTC e-bus fleet for practical lessons on depot design. And it’s a particular pain when agencies are transitioning between diesel and electric buses. “The big issue is just maintaining two sets of fueling infrastructure,” says Hanjiro Ambrose, a doctoral student at UC Davis who studies transportation technology and policy.

“We talk to many different organizations that get so fixated on the vehicles. The actual charging stations get lost in the mix as the American EV boom gathers pace across sectors.”

Then agencies also have to get the actual electricity to their charging stations. This involves lengthy conversations with utilities about grid upgrades, rethinking how systems are wired, occasionally building new substations, and, sometimes, cutting deals on electric output, since electric truck fleets will also strain power systems in parallel. Because an entirely electrified bus fleet? It’s a lot to charge. Warren, the New Flyer executive, estimates it could take 150 megawatt-hours of electricity to keep a 300-bus depot charged up throughout the day. Your typical American household, by contrast, consumes 7 percent of that—per year. “That’s a lot of work by the utility company,” says Warren.

For cities outside of China—many of them still testing out electric buses and figuring out how they fit into their larger fleets—learning about what it takes to run one is part of the process. This, of course, takes money. It also takes time. Optimists say e-buses are more of a question of when than if. Bloomberg New Energy Finance projects that just under 60 percent of all fleet buses will be electric by 2040, compared to under 40 percent of commercial vans and 30 percent of passenger vehicles.

Which means, of course, that the work has just started. “With new technology, it always feels great when it shows up,” says Ambrose. “You really hope that first mile is beautiful, because the shine will come off. That’s always true.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Colorado Wildfire Power Shutoffs reduce ignition risk through PSPS, grid safety protocols, data-driven forecasts, and emergency coordination, protecting communities, natural resources, and infrastructure during extreme fire weather fueled by drought and climate change.

Key Points

Planned PSPS outages cut power in high-risk areas to prevent ignitions, protect residents, and boost wildfire resilience.

✅ PSPS triggered by forecasts, fuel moisture, and fire danger indices.

✅ Utilities coordinate alerts, timelines, and critical facility support.

✅ Paired with forest management, education, and rapid response.

Colorado, known for its stunning landscapes and outdoor recreation, has implemented proactive measures to reduce the risk of wildfires by strategically shutting off power in high-risk areas, similar to PG&E wildfire shutoffs implemented in California during extreme conditions. This approach, while disruptive, aims to safeguard communities, protect natural resources, and mitigate the devastating impacts of wildfires that have become increasingly prevalent in the region.

The decision to initiate power outages as a preventative measure against wildfires underscores Colorado's commitment to proactive fire management and public safety, aligning with utility disaster planning practices that strengthen grid readiness. With climate change contributing to hotter and drier conditions, the state faces heightened wildfire risks, necessitating innovative strategies to minimize ignition sources and limit fire spread.

Utility companies, in collaboration with state and local authorities, identify areas at high risk of wildfire based on factors such as weather forecasts, fuel moisture levels, and historical fire data. When conditions reach critical thresholds, planned power outages, also known as Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS), are implemented to reduce the likelihood of electrical equipment sparking wildfires during periods of extreme fire danger, particularly during windstorm-driven outages that elevate ignition risks.

While power outages are a necessary precautionary measure, they can pose challenges for residents, businesses, and essential services that rely on uninterrupted electricity, as seen when a North Seattle outage affected thousands last year. To mitigate disruptions, utility companies communicate outage schedules in advance, provide updates during outages, and coordinate with emergency services to ensure the safety and well-being of affected communities.

The implementation of PSPS is part of a broader strategy to enhance wildfire resilience in Colorado. In addition to reducing ignition risks from power lines, the state invests in forest management practices, wildfire prevention education, and emergency response capabilities, including continuity planning seen in the U.S. grid COVID-19 response, to prepare for and respond to wildfires effectively.

Furthermore, Colorado's approach to wildfire prevention highlights the importance of community preparedness and collaboration, and utilities across the region adopt measures like FortisAlberta precautions to sustain critical services during emergencies. Residents are encouraged to create defensible space around their properties, develop emergency evacuation plans, and stay informed about wildfire risks and response protocols. Community engagement plays a crucial role in building resilience and fostering a collective effort to protect lives, property, and natural habitats from wildfires.

The effectiveness of Colorado's proactive measures in mitigating wildfire risks relies on a balanced approach that considers both short-term safety measures and long-term fire prevention strategies. By integrating technology, data-driven decision-making, and community partnerships, the state aims to reduce the frequency and severity of wildfires while enhancing overall resilience to wildfire impacts.

Looking ahead, Colorado continues to refine its wildfire management practices in response to evolving environmental conditions and community needs, drawing on examples of localized readiness such as PG&E winter storm preparation to inform response planning. This includes ongoing investments in fire detection and monitoring systems, research into fire behavior and prevention strategies, and collaboration with neighboring states and federal agencies to coordinate wildfire response efforts.

In conclusion, Colorado's decision to implement power outages as a preventative measure against wildfires demonstrates proactive leadership in wildfire risk reduction and public safety. By prioritizing early intervention and community engagement, the state strives to safeguard vulnerable areas, minimize the impact of wildfires, and foster resilience in the face of increasing wildfire threats. As Colorado continues to innovate and adapt its wildfire management strategies, its efforts serve as a model for other regions grappling with the challenges posed by climate change and wildfire risks.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations 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