13 First Nations and Goldcorp form new power company

Germany's Economic Downturn reflects an energy crisis, deindustrialization risks, export weakness, and manufacturing stress, amid Russia gas loss, IMF and EU recession forecasts, and debates over electricity price caps and green transition.

Key Points

An economic contraction from energy price shocks, export weakness, and bottlenecks in manufacturing and digitization.

✅ Energy shock after loss of cheap Russian gas

✅ Exports slump amid China slowdown and weak demand

✅ Policy gridlock on power price cap and permits

Germany went from envy of the world to the worst-performing major developed economy. What happened?

For most of this century, Germany racked up one economic success after another, dominating global markets for high-end products like luxury cars and industrial machinery, selling so much to the rest of the world that half the economy ran on exports.

Jobs were plentiful, the government’s financial coffers grew as other European countries drowned in debt, and books were written about what other countries could learn from Germany.

No longer. Now, Germany is the world’s worst-performing major developed economy, with both the International Monetary Fund and European Union expecting it to shrink this year.

It follows Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the loss of Moscow’s cheap Russian gas that underpinned industry — an unprecedented shock to Germany’s energy-intensive industries, long the manufacturing powerhouse of Europe.

The sudden underperformance by Europe’s largest economy has set off a wave of criticism, handwringing and debate about the way forward.

Germany risks “deindustrialization” as high energy costs and government inaction on other chronic problems threaten to send new factories and high-paying jobs elsewhere, said Christian Kullmann, CEO of major German chemical company Evonik Industries AG.

From his 21st-floor office in the west German town of Essen, Kullmann points out the symbols of earlier success across the historic Ruhr Valley industrial region: smokestacks from metal plants, giant heaps of waste from now-shuttered coal mines, a massive BP oil refinery and Evonik’s sprawling chemical production facility.

These days, the former mining region, where coal dust once blackened hanging laundry, is a symbol of the energy transition, as the power sector’s balancing act continues with wind turbines and green space.

The loss of cheap Russian natural gas needed to power factories “painfully damaged the business model of the German economy,” Kullmann told The Associated Press. “We’re in a situation where we’re being strongly affected — damaged — by external factors.”

After Russia cut off most of its gas to the European Union, spurring an energy crisis in the 27-nation bloc that had sourced 40% of the fuel from Moscow, the German government asked Evonik to turn to coal by keeping its 1960s coal-fired power plant running a few months longer.

The company is shifting away from the plant — whose 40-story smokestack fuels production of plastics and other goods — to two gas-fired generators that can later run on hydrogen amid plans to become carbon neutral by 2030 and following the nuclear phase-out of recent years.

One hotly debated solution: a government-funded cap on industrial electricity prices to get the economy through the renewable energy transition, amid an energy crisis that even saw a temporary nuclear extension to stabilize supply.

The proposal from Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck of the Greens Party has faced resistance from Chancellor Olaf Scholz, a Social Democrat, and pro-business coalition partner the Free Democrats. Environmentalists say it would only prolong reliance on fossil fuels, while others advocate a nuclear option to meet climate goals.

Kullmann is for it: “It was mistaken political decisions that primarily developed and influenced these high energy costs. And it can’t now be that German industry, German workers should be stuck with the bill.”

The price of gas is roughly double what it was in 2021, with a senior official arguing nuclear would do little to solve that gas issue, hurting companies that need it to keep glass or metal red-hot and molten 24 hours a day to make glass, paper and metal coatings used in buildings and cars.

A second blow came as key trade partner China experiences a slowdown after several decades of strong economic growth.

These outside shocks have exposed cracks in Germany’s foundation that were ignored during years of success, including lagging use of digital technology in government and business and a lengthy process to get badly needed renewable energy projects approved.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Global Energy Investment Decline risks future oil and electricity supply, says the IEA, as spending on upstream, coal plants, and grids falls while renewables, storage, and flexible generation lag in the energy transition.

Key Points

Multi-year cuts to oil, power, and grid spending that increase risks of future supply shortages and market tightness.

✅ IEA warns underinvestment risks oil supply squeeze

✅ China and India slow coal plant additions; renewables rise

✅ Batteries aid flexibility but cannot replace seasonal storage

An almost 20 per cent fall in global energy investment over the past three years could lead to oil and electricity shortages, as surging electricity demand persists, and there are concerns about whether current business models will encourage sufficient levels of spending in the future, according a new report.

The International Energy Agency’s second annual IEA benchmark analysis of energy investment found that while the world spent $US1.7 trillion ($2.2 trillion) on fossil-fuel exploration, new power plants and upgrades to electricity grids last year, with electricity investment surpassing oil and gas even as global energy investment was down 12 per cent from a year earlier and 17 per cent lower than 2014.

While the IEA said continued oversupply of oil and electricity globally would prevent any imminent shock, falling investment “points to a risk of market tightness and undercapacity at some point down the line’’.

The low crude oil price drove a 44 per cent drop in oil and gas investment between 2014 and 2016. It fell 26 per cent last year. It was due to falls in upstream activity and a slowdown in the sanctioning of conventional oilfields to the lowest level in more than 70 years.

“Given the depletion of existing fields, the pace of investment in conventional fields will need to rise to avoid a supply squeeze, even on optimistic assumptions about technology and the impact of climate policies on oil demand,’’ the IEA warned in its report released yesterday evening. “The energy transition has barely begun in several key sectors, such as transport and industry, which will continue to rely heavily on oil, gas and coal for the foreseeable future.’’

The fall in global energy spending also reflected declining investment in power generation, particularly from coal plants.

While 21 per cent of global ­energy investment was made by China in 2016, the world’s fastest growing economy had a 25 per cent decline in the commissioning of new coal-fired power plants, due largely to air pollution issues and investment in renewables.

Investment in new coal-fired plants also fell in India.

“India and China have slammed the brakes on coal-fired generation. That is the big change we have seen globally,’’ said ­Bruce Mountain a director at CME Australia.

“What it confirms is the ­pressures and the changes we are seeing in Australia, the restructuring of our energy supply, is just part of a global trend. We are facing the pressures more sharply in Australia because our power prices are very high. But that same shift in energy source in Australia are being mirrored internationally.’’ The IEA — a Paris-based adviser to the OECD on energy policy — also highlighted Australia’s reduced power reserves in its report and called for regulatory change to encourage greater use of renewables.

“Australia has one of the highest proportions of households with PV systems on their roof of any country in the world, and its ­electricity use in its National ­Electricity Market is spread out over a huge and weakly connected network,’’ the report said.

“It appears that a series of accompanying investments and regulatory changes are needed, including a plan to avoid supply threats, to use Australia’s abundant wind and solar potential: changing system operation methods and reliability procedures as well as investment into network capacity, flexible generation and storage.’’ The report found that in Australia there had been an increase in grid-scale installations mostly associated with large-scale solar PV plants.

Last month the Turnbull ­government revealed it was prepared to back the construction of new coal-fired power stations to prevent further shortfalls in electricity supplies, while the PM ruled out taxpayer-funded plants and declared it was open to using “clean coal” technology to replace existing generators.

He also pledged “immediate” ­action to boost the supply of gas by forcing exporters to divert ­production into the domestic ­market.

Since then technology billionaire Elon Musk has promised to solve South Australia’s energy ­issues by building the world’s largest lithium-ion battery in the state.

But the IEA report said batteries were unlikely to become a “one size fits all” single solution to ­electricity security and flexibility provision.

“While batteries are well-suited to frequency control and shifting hourly load, they cannot provide seasonal storage or substitute the full range of technical services that conventional plants provide to stabilise the system,’’ the report said.

“In the absence of a major technological breakthrough, it is most likely that batteries will complement rather than substitute ­conventional means of providing system flexibility. While conventional plants continue to provide essential system services, their business model is increasingly being called into question in ­unbundled systems.’’

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Extreme Heat and Rising Electricity Bills amplify energy costs as climate change drives air conditioning demand, stressing the power grid and energy affordability, with low income households facing outsized burdens during prolonged heat waves.

Key Points

Heat waves from climate change raise AC demand, driving up electricity costs and straining energy affordability.

✅ More AC use spikes electricity demand during heat waves

✅ Low income households face higher energy burden

✅ Grid reliability risks rise with peak cooling loads

Extreme heat waves are not only straining public health systems but also having a significant impact on household finances, particularly through rising electricity bills. According to a recent AP-NORC poll, a growing number of Americans are feeling the financial pinch as soaring temperatures drive up the cost of cooling their homes. This development underscores the broader implications of climate change and its effects on everyday life.

The AP-NORC poll highlights that a majority of Americans are experiencing increased electricity costs as a direct result of extreme heat. As temperatures climb, so does the demand for air conditioning and other cooling systems. This increased energy consumption is contributing to higher utility bills, which can put additional strain on household budgets.

Extreme heat waves have become more frequent and intense due to climate change, which has led to a greater reliance on air conditioning to maintain comfortable indoor environments. Air conditioners and fans work harder during heat waves, and wasteful air conditioning can add around $200 to summer bills, consuming more electricity and consequently driving up energy bills. For many households, particularly those with lower incomes, these increased costs can be a significant burden.

The poll reveals that the impact of rising electricity bills is widespread, affecting a diverse range of Americans. Households across different income levels and geographic regions are feeling the heat, though the extent of the financial strain can vary. Lower-income households are particularly vulnerable, as they often have less flexibility in their budgets to absorb higher utility costs. For these families, the choice between cooling their homes and other essential expenses can be a difficult one.

In addition to financial strain, the poll highlights concerns about energy affordability and access. As electricity bills rise, some Americans may face challenges in paying their bills, leading to potential utility shut-offs or the need to make difficult choices between cooling and other necessities. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that many utility companies do not offer sufficient assistance or relief programs to help low-income households manage their energy costs.

The increasing frequency of extreme heat events and the resulting spike in electricity consumption also have broader implications for the energy infrastructure. Higher demand for electricity can strain power grids, as seen when California narrowly avoided blackouts during extreme heat, potentially leading to outages or reduced reliability. Utilities and energy providers may need to invest in infrastructure upgrades and maintenance to ensure that the grid can handle the increased load during heat waves.

Climate change is a key driver of the rising temperatures that contribute to higher electricity bills. As global temperatures continue to rise, extreme heat events are expected to become more common and severe, and experts warn the US electric grid was not designed to withstand these impacts. This trend underscores the need for comprehensive strategies to address both the causes and consequences of climate change. Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency, and invest in renewable energy sources are critical components of a broader climate action plan.

Energy efficiency measures can play a significant role in mitigating the impact of extreme heat on electricity bills. Upgrading to more efficient cooling systems, improving home insulation, and adopting smart thermostats can help reduce energy consumption and lower utility costs. Additionally, utility companies and government programs can offer incentives and rebates, including ways to tap new funding that help encourage energy-saving practices and support households in managing their energy use.

The poll also suggests that there is a growing awareness among Americans about the connection between climate change and rising energy costs. Many people are becoming more informed about the ways in which extreme weather events and rising temperatures impact their daily lives. This increased awareness can drive demand for policy changes and support for initiatives aimed at addressing climate change and improving energy efficiency, with many willing to contribute income to climate efforts, about the connection between climate change and rising energy costs.

In response to the rising costs and the impact of extreme heat, there are calls for policy interventions and support programs to help manage energy affordability. Proposals include expanding assistance programs for low-income households, investing in infrastructure improvements, and promoting energy efficiency initiatives alongside steps to make electricity systems more resilient to climate risks. By addressing these issues, policymakers can help alleviate the financial burden on households and support a more resilient and sustainable energy system.

Debates over policy impacts on electricity prices continue; in Alberta, federal policies are blamed by some for higher rates, illustrating how regulation can affect affordability.

In conclusion, the AP-NORC poll highlights the growing financial impact of extreme heat on American households, with rising electricity bills being a significant concern for many. The increased demand for cooling during heat waves is straining household budgets and raising broader questions about energy affordability and infrastructure resilience. Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach, including efforts to combat climate change, improve energy efficiency, and provide support for those most affected by rising energy costs. As extreme heat events become more common, finding solutions to manage their impact will be crucial for both individual households and the broader energy system.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Schott Green Electricity CPPA secures renewable energy via a solar park in Schleswig-Holstein, supporting decarbonization in German glass manufacturing; the corporate PPA with ane.energy delivers about 14.5 GWh annually toward climate-neutral production by 2030.

Key Points

Corporate PPA for 14.5 GWh solar in Germany, cutting Schott plant emissions and advancing climate-neutral operations.

✅ 14.5 GWh solar from Schleswig-Holstein via ane.energy

✅ Powers Mainz HQ and plants in GrFCnenplan, Mitterteich, Landshut

✅ Two-year CPPA covers ~5% of Schott's German electricity needs

Schott, a leading specialty glass manufacturer, is advancing its sustainability initiatives in step with Germany's energy transition by integrating green electricity into its operations. Through a Corporate Power Purchase Agreement (CPPA) with green energy specialist ane.energy, Schott aims to significantly reduce its carbon footprint and move closer to its goal of climate-neutral production by 2030.

Transition to Renewable Energy

As of February 2025, amid a German renewables milestone for the power sector, Schott has committed to sourcing approximately 14.5 gigawatt-hours of clean energy annually from a solar park in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. This renewable energy will power Schott's headquarters in Mainz and its plants in Grünenplan, Mitterteich, and Landshut. The CPPA covers about 5% of the company's annual electricity needs in Germany and is initially set for a two-year term, reflecting lessons from extended nuclear power during recent supply challenges.

Strategic Implementation

To achieve climate-neutral production by 2030, Schott is focusing on transitioning from gas to electricity sourced from renewable sources like photovoltaics, alongside complementary pathways such as hydrogen-ready power plants being developed nationally. Operating a single melting tank requires energy equivalent to the annual consumption of up to 10,000 single-family homes. Therefore, Schott has strategically selected suitable plants for this renewable energy supply to meet its substantial energy requirements.

Industry Leadership

Schott's collaboration with ane.energy demonstrates the company's commitment to sustainability and its proactive approach to integrating renewable energy into industrial operations. This partnership not only supports Schott's decarbonization goals but also sets a precedent for other manufacturers in the glass industry to adopt green energy solutions, mirroring advances like green hydrogen steel in heavy industry.

Schott's initiative to power its German glass plants with green electricity underscores the company's dedication to environmental responsibility and its strategic efforts to achieve climate-neutral production by 2030, aligning with the national coal and nuclear phaseout underway. This move reflects a broader trend in the manufacturing sector toward sustainable practices and the adoption of renewable energy sources, even as debates continue over a possible nuclear phaseout U-turn in Germany.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Montana New Energy Economy integrates grid modernization, renewable energy, storage, and demand response to cut costs, create jobs, enable electric transportation, and reduce emissions through utility-scale efficiency, real-time markets, and distributed resources.

Key Points

Plan to modernize Montana's grid with renewables, storage and efficiency to lower costs, cut emissions and add jobs.

✅ Grid modernization enables real-time markets and demand response

✅ Utility-scale renewables paired with storage deliver firm power

✅ Efficiency and DERs cut peaks, costs, and pollution

Over the next decade, Montana ratepayers will likely invest over a billion dollars into what is now being called the new energy economy.

Not since Edison electrified a New York City neighborhood in 1882 have we had such an opportunity to rethink the way we commercially produce and consume electric energy.

Looking ahead, the modernization of Edison’s grid will lower the consumer costs, creating many thousands of permanent, well-paying jobs. It will prepare the grid for significant new loads like America going electric in transportation, and in doing so it will reduce a major source of air pollution known to directly threaten the core health of Montana and the planet.

Energy innovation makes our choices almost unrecognizable from the 1980s, when Montana last built a large, central-station power plant. Our future power plants will be smaller and more modular, efficient and less polluting — with some technologies approaching zero operating emissions.

The 21st Century grid will optimize how the supply and demand of electricity is managed across larger interconnected service areas. Utilities will interact more directly with their consumers, with utility trends guiding a new focus on providing a portfolio of energy services versus simply spinning an electric meter. Investments in utility-scale energy efficiency — LED streetlights, internet-connected thermostats, and tightening of commercial building envelopes among many — will allow consumers to directly save on their monthly bills, to improve their quality of life, and to help utilities reduce expensive and excessive peaks in demand.

The New Energy Economy will be built not of one single technology, but of many — distributed over a modernized grid across the West that approaches a real-time energy market, as provinces pursue market overhauls to adapt — connecting consumers, increasing competition, reducing cost and improving reliability.

Boldly leading the charge is a new and proven class of commercial generation powered by wind and solar energy, the latter of which employs advanced solid-state electronics, free fuel and no emissions or moving parts. Montana is blessed with wind and solar energy resources, so this is a Made-in-Montana energy choice. Note that these plants are typically paired with utility-scale energy storage investments — also an essential building block of the 21st century grid — to deliver firm, on-demand electric service.

Once considered new age and trendy, these production technologies are today competent and shovel-ready. Their adoption will build domestic energy independence. And, they are aggressively cost-competitive. For example, this year the company ISO New England — operator of a six-state grid covering all of New England — released an all-source bid for new production capacity. Unexpectedly, 100% of the winning bids were large solar electric power and storage projects, as coal and nuclear disruptions continue to shape markets. For the first time, no applications for fossil-fueled generation cleared auction.

By avoiding the burning of traditional fuels, the new energy technologies promise to offset and eventually eliminate the current 1,500 million metric tons of damaging greenhouse gases — one-quarter of the nation’s total — that are annually injected into the atmosphere by our nation’s current electric generation plants. The first step to solving the toughest and most expensive environmental issues of our day — be they costly wildfires or the regional drought that threatens Montana agriculture and outdoor recreation — is a thoughtful state energy policy, built around the new energy economy, that avoids pitfalls like the Wyoming clean energy bill now proposed.

Important potential investments not currently ready for prime time are also on the horizon, including small and highly efficient nuclear innovation in power plants — called small modular reactors (SMR) — designed to produce around-the-clock electric power with zero toxic emissions.

The nation’s first demonstration SMR plant is scheduled to be built sometime late this decade. Fingers are crossed for a good outcome. But until then, experts agree that big questions on the future commercial viability of nuclear remain unanswered: What will be SMR’s cost of electricity? Will it compete? Where will we source the refined fuel (most uranium is imported), and what will be the plan for its safe, permanent disposal?

So, what is Montana’s path forward? The short answer is: Hopefully, all of the above.

Key to Montana’s future investment success will be a respectful state planning process that learns from Texas grid improvements to bolster reliability.

Montanans deserve a smart and civil and bipartisan conversation to shape our new energy economy. There will be no need, nor place, for parties that barnstorm the state about "radical agendas" and partisan name calling – that just poisons the conversation, eliminates creative exchange and pulls us off task.

The task is to identify and vet good choices. It’s about permanently lowering energy costs to consumers. It’s about being business smart and business friendly. It’s about honoring the transition needs of our legacy energy communities. And, it’s about stewarding our world-class environment in earnest. That’s the job ahead.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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