FPL adds more wind generation to portfolio

BC Hydro COVID-19 Bill Relief provides payment deferrals, no-penalty payment plans, Crisis Fund grants up to $600, and utility bill assistance as customers face pandemic layoffs, social distancing, and increased home power usage.

Key Points

A BC Hydro program offering bill deferrals, no-penalty plans, and up to $600 Crisis Fund grants during COVID-19.

✅ Defer payments or set no-penalty payment plans

✅ Apply for up to $600 Customer Crisis Fund grants

✅ Measures to ensure reliable power and remote customer service

BC Hydro is implementing a program, including bill relief measures, to help people pay their bills if they’re affected by the novel coronavirus.

The Crown corporation says British Columbians are facing a variety of financial pressures related to the COVID-19 pandemic, as some workplaces close or reduce staffing levels and commercial power consumption plummets across the province.

BC Hydro said it also expects increased power usage as more people stay home amid health officials’ requests that people take social distancing measures, even as electricity demand is down 10% provincewide.

Under the new program, customers will be able to defer bill payments or arrange a payment plan with no penalty, though a recent report on deferred operating costs outlines long-term implications for the utility.

BC Hydro says some customers could also be eligible for grants of up to $600 under its Customer Crisis Fund, if facing power disconnection due to job loss, illness or loss of a family member, while in other jurisdictions power bills were cut for households during the pandemic.

The company says it has taken precautions to keep power running by isolating key facilities, including its control centre, and by increasing its cleaning schedule, a priority even as some utilities face burgeoning debt amid COVID-19.

It has also closed its walk-in customer service desks to reduce risk from face-to-face contact and suspended all non-essential business travel, public meetings and site tours, and warned businesses about BC Hydro impersonation scams during this period.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Advanced Nuclear Technology drives decarbonization through innovation, SMRs, and a stable grid, bolstering U.S. leadership, energy security, and clean power exports under supportive regulation and policy to meet climate goals cost-effectively.

Key Points

Advanced nuclear technology uses SMRs to deliver low-carbon, reliable power and strengthen energy security.

✅ Accelerates decarbonization with firm, low-carbon baseload power

✅ Enhances grid reliability via SMRs and advanced fuel cycles

✅ Supports U.S. leadership through exports, R&D, and modern regulation

The most cost-effective way--indeed the only reasonable way-- to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and foster our national economic and security interests is through innovation, especially next-gen nuclear power innovation. That's from Rep. Greg Walden, R-Oregon, ranking Republican member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, speaking to a Subcommittee on Energy hearing titled, "Building a 100 Percent Clean Economy: Advanced Nuclear Technology's Role in a Decarbonized Future."

Here are the balance of his remarks.

Encouraging the deployment of atomic energy technology, strengthening our nuclear industrial base, implementing policies that helps reassert U.S. nuclear leadership globally... all provide a promising path to meet both our environmental and energy security priorities. In fact, it's the only way to meet these priorities.

So today can help us focus on what is possible and what is necessary to build on recent policies we've enacted to ensure we have the right regulatory landscape, the right policies to strengthen our domestic civil industry, and the advanced nuclear reactors on the horizon.

U.S. global leadership here is sorely needed. Exporting clean power and clean power technologies will do more to drive down global Co2 emissions on the path to net-zero emissions worldwide than arbitrary caps that countries fail to meet.

In May last year, the International Energy Agency released an informative report on the role of nuclear power in clean energy systems; it did not find current trends encouraging.

The report noted that nuclear and hydropower "form the backbone of low-carbon electricity generation," responsible for three-quarters of global low-carbon generation and the reduction of over 60 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions over the past 50 years.

Yet IEA found in advanced economies, nuclear power is in decline, with closing plants and little new investment, "just when the world requires more low-carbon electricity."

There are various reasons for this, some relating to cost overruns and delays, others to policies that fail to value the "low-carbon and energy security attributes" of nuclear. In any case, the report found this failure to encourage nuclear will undermine global efforts to develop cleaner electricity systems.

Germany demonstrates the problem. As it chose to shut down its nuclear industry, it has doubled down on expanding renewables like solar and wind. Ironically, to make this work, it also doubled down on coal. This nuclear phase out has cost Germany $12 billion a year, 70% of which is from increased mortality risk from stronger air pollutants (this according to the National Bureau of Economic Research). If other less technologically advanced nations even could match the rate of renewables growth reached by Germany, they would only hit about a fifth of what is necessary to reach climate goals--and with more expensive energy. So, would they then be forced to bring online even more coal-fired sources than Germany?

On the other hand, as outlined by the authors of the pro-nuclear book "A Bright Future," France and Sweden have both demonstrated in the 1970s and 1980s, how to do it. They showed that the build out of nuclear can be done at five times the rate of Germany's experience with renewables, with increased electricity production and relatively lower prices.

I think the answer is obvious about the importance of nuclear. The question will be "can the United States take the lead going forward?"

We can help to do this in Congress if we fully acknowledge what U.S. leadership on nuclear will mean--both for cleaner power and industrial systems beyond electricity, here and abroad--and for the ever-important national security attributes of a strong U.S. industry.

Witnesses have noted in recent hearings that recognizing how U.S. energy and climate policy effects energy and energy technology relationships world-wide is critical to addressing emissions where they are growing the fastest and for strengthening our national security relationships.

Resurrecting technological leadership in nuclear technology around the world will meet our broader national and energy security reasons--much as unleashing U.S. LNG from our shale revolution restored our ability to counter Russia in energy markets, while also driving cleaner technology. Our nuclear energy exports boost our national security priorities.

We on Energy and Commerce have been working, in a bipartisan manner over the past few Congresses to enhance U.S. nuclear policies. There is most certainly more to do. And I think today's hearing will help us explore what can be done, both administratively and legislatively, to pave the way for advanced nuclear energy.

Let me welcome the panel today. Which, I'm pleased to see, represents several important perspectives, including industry, regulatory, safety, and international expertise, to two innovative companies--Terrapower and my home state of Oregon's NuScale. All of these witnesses can speak to what we need to do to build, operate and lead with these new technologies.

We should work to get our nation's nuclear policy in order, learning from global frameworks like the green industrial revolution abroad. Today represents a good step in that effort.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

Key Points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Texas Electricity Market Bailout proposes securitization bonds and ERCOT-backed fees after Winter Storm Uri, spreading costs via ratepayer charges on power bills to stabilize generators, co-ops, and retailers and avert bankruptcies and investor flight.

Key Points

State plan to securitize storm debts via ERCOT fees, adding bill charges to stabilize Texas power firms.

✅ Securitization bonds finance unpaid ancillary services and energy costs

✅ ERCOT fee spreads Winter Storm Uri debts across ratepayers statewide

✅ Aims to prevent bankruptcies, preserve grid reliability, reassure investors

An approximately $2.5 billion plan to bail out Texas’ distressed electricity market from the financial crisis caused by Winter Storm Uri in February has been approved by the Texas House.

The legislation would impose a fee — likely for the next decade or longer — on electricity companies, which would then get passed on to residential and business customers in their power bills, even as some utilities waived certain fees earlier in the crisis.

House lawmakers sent House Bill 4492 to the Senate on Thursday after a 129-15 vote. A similar bill is advancing in the Senate.

Some of the state’s electricity providers and generators are financially underwater in the aftermath of the February power outages, which left millions without power and killed more than 100 people. Electricity companies had to buy whatever power was available at the maximum rate allowed by Texas regulations — $9,000 per megawatt hour — during the week of the storm (the average price for power in 2020 was $22 per megawatt hour). Natural gas fuel prices also spiked more than 700% during the storm.

Several companies are nearing default on their bills to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which manages the Texas power grid that covers most of the state and facilitates financial transactions in it.

Rural electric cooperatives were especially hard hit; Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, which supplies electricity to 1.5 million customers, filed for bankruptcy citing a $1.8 billion debt to ERCOT.

State Rep. Chris Paddie, R-Marshall, the bill’s author, said a second bailout bill will be necessary during the current legislative session for severely distressed electric cooperatives.

“This is a financial crisis, and it’s a big one,” James Schaefer, a senior managing director at Guggenheim Partners, an investment bank, told lawmakers at a House State Affairs Committee hearing in early April. He warned that more bankruptcies would cause higher costs to customers and hurt the state’s image in the eyes of investors.

“You’ve got to free the system,” Schaefer said. “It’s horrible that a bunch of folks have to pay, but it’s a system-wide failure. If you let a bunch of folks crash, it’s not a good look for your state.”

If approved by the Senate and Gov. Greg Abbott, a newly-created Texas Electric Securitization Corp. would use the money raised from the fees for bonds to help pay the companies’ debts, including costs for ancillary services, a financial product that helps ensure power is continuously generated and improve electricity reliability across the grid.

Paddie told his colleagues Wednesday that he could not yet estimate how long the new fee would be imposed, but during committee hearings lawmakers estimated it’s likely to be at least a decade. Several other bills to spread out the costs of the winter storm and consider market reforms are also moving through the Legislature.

ERCOT’s independent market monitor recommended in March that energy sold during that period be repriced at a lower rate, which would have allowed ERCOT to claw back about $4.2 billion in payments to power generators, but the Public Utility Commission declined to do so, even as a court ruling on plant obligations in emergencies drew scrutiny among market participants.

Instead, lawmakers are pushing for bailouts that several energy experts have said is needed, both to ensure distressed companies don’t pass enormous costs on to their customers and to prevent electricity investors and companies from leaving the state if it’s viewed as too risky to continue doing business.

Becky Klein, an energy consultant in Austin and former chair of the Public Utility Commission who played a key role in de-regulating Texas’ electricity market two decades ago, said during a retail electricity panel hosted by Integrate that legislation is necessary to provide “some kind of backstop during a crazy market crisis like this to show the financial market that we’re willing to provide some relief.”

Still, some lawmakers are concerned with how they will win public support, including potential voter-approved funding measures, for bills to bail out the state’s electricity market.

“I have to go back to Laredo and say, ‘I know you didn’t have electricity for several days, but now I’m going to make you pay a little more for the next 20 years,’” state Rep. Richard Peña Raymond, D-Laredo, said during an early April discussion on the plan in the House State Affairs Committee. He said he voted for the bill because it’s in the best interest of the state.

Paddie, during the same committee hearing, acknowledged that “none of us want to increase fees or taxes.” However, he said, “We have to deal with the reality set before us.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BC Hydro drought operations address climate change impacts with hydropower scheduling, reservoir management, water conservation, inflow forecasting, and fish habitat protection across the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island while maintaining electricity generation from storage facilities.

Key Points

BC Hydro drought operations conserve water, protect fish, and sustain hydropower during extended heat and low inflows.

✅ Proactive reservoir releases protect downstream salmon spawning.

✅ Reduced flows at Puntledge, Coquitlam, and Ruskin/Stave facilities.

✅ System relies on northern storage to maintain electricity supply.

BC Hydro is adjusting its operating plans around power generation as extended heat and little forecast rain continue to impact the province, a report says.

“Unpredictable weather patterns related to climate change are expected to continue in the years ahead and BC Hydro is constantly adapting to these evolving conditions, especially after events such as record demand in 2021 that tested the grid,” said the report, titled “Casting drought: How climate change is contributing to uncertain weather and how BC Hydro’s generation system is adapting.”

The study said there is no concern with BC Hydro being able to continue to deliver power through the drought because there is enough water at its larger facilities, even as issues like crypto mining electricity use draw scrutiny from observers.

Still, it said, with no meaningful precipitation in the forecast, its smaller facilities in the Lower Mainland and on Vancouver Island will continue to see record low or near record low inflows for this time of the year.

“In the Lower Mainland, inflows since the beginning of September are ranked in the bottom three compared to historical records,” the report said.

The report said the hydroelectric system is directly impacted by variations in weather and the record-setting, unseasonably dry and warm weather this fall highlights the impacts of climate change, while demand patterns can be counterintuitive, as electricity use even increased during Earth Hour 2018 in some areas, hinting at challenges to come.

It noted symptoms of climate change include increased frequency of extreme events like drought and intense storms, and rapid glacial melt.

“With the extremely hot and dry conditions, BC Hydro has been taking proactive steps at many of our South Coast facilities for months to conserve water to protect the downstream fish habit,” spokesperson Mora Scott said. “We began holding back water in July and August at some facilities anticipating the dry conditions to help ensure we would have water storage for the later summer and early fall salmon spawning.”

Scott said BC Hydro’s reservoirs play an important role in managing these difficult conditions by using storage and planning releases to provide protection to downstream river flows. The reservoirs are, in effect, a battery waiting to be used for power.

While the dry conditions have had an impact on BC Hydro’s watersheds, several unregulated natural river systems — not related to BC Hydro — have fared worse, with rivers drying up and thousands of fish killed, the report said.

BC Hydro is currently seeing the most significant impacts on operations at Puntledge and Campbell River on Vancouver Island as well as Coquitlam and Ruskin/Stave in the Lower Mainland.

To help manage water levels on Vancouver Island, BC Hydro reduced Puntledge River flows by one-third last week and on the Lower Mainland reduced flows at Coquitlam by one-third and Ruskin/Stave by one quarter.

However, the utility company said, there are no concerns about continued power delivery.

“British Columbians benefit from BC Hydro’s integrated, provincial electricity system, which helps send power across the province, including to Vancouver Island, and programs like the winter payment plan support customers during colder months,” staff said.

Most of the electricity generated and used in B.C. is produced by larger facilities in the north and southeast of the province — and while water levels in those areas are below normal levels, there is enough water to meet the province’s power needs, even as additions like Site C's electricity remain a subject of debate among observers.

The Glacier Media investigation found a quarter of BC Hydro's power comes from the Mica, Revelstoke and Hugh Keenleyside dams on the Columbia River. Some 29% comes from dams in the Peace region, including the under-construction Site C project that has faced cost overruns. At certain points of the year, those reservoirs are reliant on glacier water.

Still, BC Hydro remains optimistic.

Forecasts are currently showing little rain in the near-term; however, historically, precipitation and inflows show up by the end of October. If that does not happen, BC Hydro said it would continue to closely track weather and inflow forecasts to adapt its operations to protect fish, while regional cooperation such as bridging with Alberta remains part of broader policy discussions.

Among things BC Hydro said it is doing to adapt are:

Continuously working to improve its weather and inflow forecasting;
Expanding its hydroclimate monitoring technology, including custom-made solutions that have been designed in-house, as well as upgrading snow survey stations to automated, real-time snow and climate stations, and;
Investing in capital projects — like spillway gate replacements — that will increase resiliency of the system to climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

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

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News