Tidal-power research under way

Schneider Electric Notre Dame Restoration delivers energy management, automation, and modern electrical infrastructure, boosting safety, sustainability, smart monitoring, efficient lighting, and power distribution to protect heritage while reducing consumption and future-proofing the cathedral.

Key Points

Schneider Electric upgrades Notre Dame's electrical systems to enhance safety, sustainability, automation, and efficiency.

✅ Energy management modernizes power distribution and lighting.

✅ Advanced safety and monitoring reduce fire risk.

✅ Sustainable automation lowers consumption while preserving heritage.

Schneider Electric, a global leader in energy management and automation, exemplified by an AI and technology partnership in Paris, has played a significant role in the restoration of the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris following the devastating fire of April 2019. The company has contributed by providing its expertise in electrical systems, ensuring the cathedral’s systems are not only restored but also modernized with energy-efficient solutions. Schneider Electric’s technology has been crucial in rebuilding the cathedral's electrical infrastructure, focusing on safety, sustainability, and preserving the iconic monument for future generations.

The fire, which caused widespread damage to the cathedral’s roof and spire, raised concerns about both the physical restoration and the integrity of the building’s systems, including rising ransomware threats to power grids that affect critical infrastructure. As Notre Dame is one of the most visited and revered landmarks in the world, the restoration process required advanced technical solutions to meet the cathedral’s complex needs while maintaining its historical authenticity.

Schneider Electric's contribution to the project has been multifaceted. The company’s solutions helped restore the electrical systems in a way that reduces the energy consumption of the building, improving sustainability without compromising the historical essence of the structure. Schneider Electric worked closely with architects, engineers, and restoration experts to implement innovative energy management technologies, such as advanced power distribution, lighting systems, and monitoring solutions like synchrophasor technology for enhanced grid visibility.

In addition to energy-efficient solutions, Schneider Electric’s efforts in safety and automation have been vital. The company provided expertise in reinforcing the electrical safety systems, leveraging digital transformer stations to improve reliability, which is especially important in a building as old as Notre Dame. The fire highlighted the importance of modern safety systems, and Schneider Electric’s technology ensures that the restored cathedral will be better protected in the future, with advanced monitoring systems capable of detecting any anomalies or potential hazards.

Schneider Electric’s involvement also aligns with its broader commitment to sustainability and energy efficiency, echoing calls to invest in a smarter electricity infrastructure across regions. By modernizing Notre Dame’s electrical infrastructure, the company is helping the cathedral move toward a more sustainable future. Their work represents the fusion of cutting-edge technology and historic preservation, ensuring that the building remains an iconic symbol of French culture while adapting to the modern world.

The restoration of Notre Dame is a massive undertaking, with thousands of workers and experts from various fields involved in its revival. Schneider Electric’s contribution highlights the importance of collaboration between heritage conservationists and modern technology companies, and reflects developments in HVDC technology in Europe that are shaping modern grids. The integration of such advanced energy management solutions allows the cathedral to function efficiently while maintaining the integrity of its architectural design and historical significance.

As the restoration progresses, Schneider Electric’s efforts will continue to support the cathedral’s recovery, with the ultimate goal of reopening Notre Dame to the public, reflecting best practices in planning for growing electricity needs in major cities. Their role in this project not only contributes to the physical restoration of the building but also ensures that it remains a symbol of resilience, cultural heritage, and the importance of combining tradition with innovation.

Schneider Electric’s involvement in the restoration of Notre Dame Cathedral is a testament to how modern technology can be seamlessly integrated into historic preservation efforts. The company’s work in enhancing the cathedral’s electrical systems has been crucial in restoring and future-proofing the monument, ensuring that it will continue to be a beacon of French heritage for generations to come.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Solar ITC Impact on U.S. Wind frames how a 30% solar investment tax credit could undercut wind PTC economics, shift corporate procurement, and, without transmission and storage, slow onshore builds despite offshore wind momentum.

Key Points

It is how a solar ITC extension may curb U.S. wind growth absent PTC parity, transmission, storage, and offshore backing.

✅ ITC at 30% risks shifting corporate procurement to solar.

✅ Post-PTC wind faces grid, transmission, and curtailment headwinds.

✅ Offshore wind, storage pairing, TOU demand could offset.

The booming U.S. wind industry, amid a wind power surge, faces an uncertain future in the 2020s. Few factors are more important than the fate of the solar ITC.

An extension of the solar investment tax credit (ITC) at its 30 percent value would be “devastating” to the future U.S. wind market, according to a new Wood Mackenzie report.

The U.S. is on track to add a record 14.6 gigawatts of new wind capacity in 2020, despite Covid-19 impacts, and nearly 39 gigawatts during a three-year installation boom from 2019 to 2021, according to Wood Mackenzie’s 2019 North America Wind Power Outlook.

But the market’s trajectory begins to look highly uncertain from the early 2020s onward, and solar is one of the main reasons why.

Since the dawn of the modern American renewables market, the wind and solar sectors have largely been allies on the national stage, benefiting from many of the same favorable government plans and sharing big-picture goals. Until recently, wind and solar companies rarely found themselves in direct competition.

But the picture is changing as solar catches up to wind on cost and the grid penetration of renewables surges. What was once a vague alliance between the two fastest growing renewables technologies could morph into a serious rivalry.

While many project developers are now active in both sectors, including NextEra Energy Resources, Invenergy and EDF, the country’s thriving base of wind manufacturers could face tougher days ahead.

The ITC's inherent advantage

At this point, wind remains solar’s bigger sibling in many ways.

The U.S. has nearly 100 gigawatts of installed wind capacity today, compared to around 67 gigawatts of solar. With their substantially higher capacity factors, wind farms generated four times more power for the U.S. grid last year than utility-scale solar plants, for a combined wind-solar share of 8.2 percent, according to government figures, even as renewables are projected to reach one-fourth of U.S. electricity generation. (Distributed PV systems further add to solar’s contribution.)

But it's long been clear that wind would lose its edge at some point. The annual solar market now regularly tops wind. The cost of solar energy is falling more rapidly, and appears to have more runway for further reduction. Solar’s inherent generation pattern is more valuable in many markets, delivering power during peak-demand hours, while the wind often blows strongest at night.

And then there’s the matter of the solar ITC.

In 2015, both wind and solar secured historic multi-year extensions to their main federal subsidies. The extensions gave both industries the longest period of policy clarity they’ve ever enjoyed, setting in motion a tidal wave of installations set to crest over the next few years.

Even back in 2015, however, it was clear that solar got the better deal in Washington, D.C.

While the wind production tax credit (PTC) began phasing down for new projects almost immediately, solar developers were given until the end of 2019 to qualify projects for the full ITC.

And critically, while the wind PTC drops to nothing after its sunset, commercially owned solar projects will remain eligible for a 10 percent ITC forever, based on the existing legislation. Over time, that amounts to a huge advantage for solar.

In another twist, the solar industry is now openly fighting for an extension of the 30 percent ITC, while the wind industry seemingly remains cooler on the prospect of pushing for a similar prolongation — having said the current PTC extension would be the last.

Plenty of tailwinds, too

Wood Mackenzie's report catalogues multiple factors that could work for or against the wind market in the "uncharted" post-PTC years, many of them, including the Covid-19 crisis, beyond the industry’s direct control.

If things go well, annual installations could bounce back to near-record levels by 2027 after a mid-decade contraction, the report says. But if they go badly, installations could remain depressed at 4 gigawatts or below from 2022 through most of the coming decade, and that includes an anticipated uplift from the offshore market.

An extension of the solar ITC without additional wind support would “severely compound” the wind market’s struggle to rebound in the 2020s, the report says. The already-evident shift in corporate renewables procurement from wind to solar could intensify dramatically.

The other big challenge for wind in the 2020s is the lack of progress on transmission infrastructure that would connect potentially massive low-cost wind farms in interior states with bigger population centers. A hoped-for national infrastructure package that might address the issue has not materialized.

Even so, many in the wind business remain cautiously optimistic about the post-PTC years, with a wind jobs forecast bolstering sentiment, and developers continue to build out longer-term project pipelines.

Turbine technology continues to improve. And an extension of the solar ITC is far from assured.

Other factors that could work in wind’s favor in the years ahead include:

The nascent offshore sector, which despite lingering regulatory uncertainty at the federal level looks set to blossom into a multi-gigawatt annual market by the mid-2020s, in line with an offshore wind forecast that highlights substantial growth potential. Lobbying efforts for an offshore wind ITC extension are gearing up, offering a potential area for cooperation between wind and solar.

The potential linkage of policy support for energy storage to wind projects, building on the current linkage with solar.

Growing electric vehicle sales and a shift toward time-of-use retail electricity billing, which could boost power demand during off-peak hours when wind generation is strong.

The land-use advantages wind farms have over solar in some agricultural regions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

California Grid Modernization Funding will upgrade transmission and distribution, boost grid resilience, enable renewable energy integration, expand energy storage, and deploy smart grid controls statewide with over $500 million in federal infrastructure investment.

Key Points

Federal support to harden California's grid, integrate renewables, add storage, and deploy smart upgrades for reliability.

✅ Strengthens transmission and distribution for wildfire and heat resilience

✅ Integrates solar and wind with storage and advanced grid controls

✅ Deploys smart meters, DER management, and modern cybersecurity

California has recently been awarded over $500 million in federal funds to significantly improve and modernize its power grid. This substantial investment marks a pivotal step in addressing the state’s ongoing energy challenges, enhancing grid resilience, and supporting its ambitious climate goals. The funding, announced by federal and state officials, is set to bolster California’s efforts to upgrade its electrical infrastructure, integrate renewable energy sources, and ensure a more reliable and sustainable energy system for its residents.

California's power grid has faced numerous challenges in recent years, including extreme weather events, high energy demand, and an increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. The state's electrical infrastructure has struggled to keep pace with these demands, leading to concerns about reliability, efficiency, and the capacity to handle new energy technologies. The recent federal funding is a critical component of a broader strategy to address these issues and prepare the grid for future demands.

The $500 million in federal funds is part of a larger initiative to support energy infrastructure projects across the United States, including a Washington state grant that strengthens regional infrastructure. The investment aims to modernize aging grid systems, improve energy efficiency, and enhance the integration of renewable energy sources. For California, this funding represents a significant opportunity to address several key areas of concern in its power grid.

One of the primary objectives of the funding is to enhance the resilience of the power grid. California has experienced a series of extreme weather events, including wildfires and heatwaves, driven in part by climate change impacts across the U.S., which have put considerable strain on the electrical infrastructure. The new investment will support projects designed to strengthen the grid’s ability to withstand and recover from these events. This includes upgrading infrastructure to make it more robust and less susceptible to damage from natural disasters.

Another key focus of the funding is the integration of renewable energy sources. California is a leader in the adoption of solar and wind energy, and the state has set ambitious goals for increasing its use of clean energy. However, integrating these variable energy sources into the grid presents technical challenges, including ensuring a stable and reliable power supply. The federal funds will be used to develop and deploy advanced technologies that can better manage and store renewable energy, such as battery storage systems, improving the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the grid.

In addition to resilience and renewable integration, the funding will also support efforts to modernize grid infrastructure. This includes upgrading transmission and distribution systems, implementing smarter electricity infrastructure and smart grid technologies, and enhancing grid management and control systems. These improvements are essential for creating a more flexible and responsive power grid that can meet the evolving needs of California’s energy landscape.

The investment in grid modernization also aligns with California’s broader climate goals. The state has set targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase the use of clean energy sources as it navigates keeping the lights on during its energy transition. By improving the power grid and supporting the integration of renewable energy, California is making progress toward achieving these goals while also creating jobs and stimulating economic growth.

The allocation of federal funds comes at a crucial time for California. The state has faced significant challenges in recent years, including power outages, energy reliability issues, and increasing energy costs that make repairing California's grid especially complex today. The new funding is expected to address many of these concerns by supporting critical infrastructure improvements and ensuring that the state’s power grid can meet current and future demands.

Federal and state officials have expressed strong support for the funding and its potential impact. The investment is seen as a major step forward in creating a more resilient and sustainable energy system for California. It is also expected to serve as a model for other states facing similar challenges in modernizing their power grids and integrating renewable energy sources.

The federal funding is part of a broader push to address infrastructure needs across the country. The Biden administration has prioritized investment in energy infrastructure, including a $34 million DOE initiative supporting grid improvements, as part of its broader agenda to combat climate change and build a more sustainable economy. The funding for California’s power grid is a reflection of this commitment and an example of how federal resources can support state and local efforts to improve infrastructure and address pressing energy challenges.

In summary, California’s receipt of over $500 million in federal funds represents a significant investment in the state’s power grid. The funding will support efforts to enhance grid resilience, integrate renewable energy sources, and modernize infrastructure. As California continues to face challenges related to extreme weather, energy reliability, and climate goals, this investment will play a crucial role in building a more reliable, efficient, and sustainable energy system. The initiative also highlights the importance of federal support in addressing infrastructure needs and advancing environmental and economic goals.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Siemens Gamesa SG 14-222 DD advances offshore wind with a 14 MW direct-drive turbine, 108 m blades, a 222 m rotor, optional 15 MW boost, powering about 18,000 homes; prototype 2021, commercial launch 2024.

Key Points

A 14 MW offshore wind turbine with 108 m blades and a 222 m rotor, upgradable to 15 MW, targeting commercial use in 2024.

✅ 14 MW direct-drive, upgradable to 15 MW

✅ 108 m blades, 222 m rotor diameter

✅ Powers about 18,000 European homes annually

Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy (SGRE) has released details of a 14-megawatt (MW) offshore wind turbine, as offshore green hydrogen production gains attention, in the latest example of how technology in the sector is increasing in scale.

With 108-meter-long blades and a rotor diameter of 222 meters, the dimensions of the SG 14-222 DD turbine are significant.

In a statement Tuesday, SGRE said that one turbine would be able to power roughly 18,000 average European households annually, while its capacity can also be boosted to 15 MW if needed. A prototype of the turbine is set to be ready by 2021, and it’s expected to be commercially available in 2024, as forecasts suggest a $1 trillion business this decade.

As technology has developed over the last few years, the size of wind turbines has increased, and renewables are set to shatter records globally.

Last December, for example, Dutch utility Eneco started to purchase power produced by the prototype of GE Renewable Energy’s Haliade-X 12 MW wind turbine. That turbine has a capacity of 12 MW, a height of 260 meters and a blade length of 107 meters.

The announcement of Siemens Gamesa’s new turbine plans comes against the backdrop of the coronavirus pandemic, which is impacting renewable energy companies around the world, even as wind power sees growth despite Covid-19 in many markets.

Earlier this month, the European company said Covid-19 had a “direct negative impact” of 56 million euros ($61 million) on its profitability between January and March, amid factory closures in Spain and supply chain disruptions. This, it added, was equivalent to 2.5% of revenues during the quarter.

The pandemic has, in some parts of the world, altered the sources used to power society. At the end of April, for instance, it was announced that a new record had been set for coal-free electricity generation in Great Britain, where UK offshore wind growth has accelerated, with a combination of factors — including coronavirus-related lockdown measures — playing a role.

On Tuesday, the CEO of another major wind turbine manufacturer, Danish firm Vestas, sought to emphasize the importance of renewable energy in the years and months ahead, and the lessons the U.S. can learn from the U.K. on wind deployment.

“I think we have actually, throughout this crisis, also shown to all society that renewables can be trusted,” Henrik Andersen said during an interview on CNBC’s Street Signs.

“But we both know ... that that transformation of energy sources is not going to happen overnight, it’s not going to happen from a quarter to a quarter, it’s going to happen by consistently planning year in, year out.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Define eligible clean vs renewable resources

✅ Mandate vs goal framework with enforcement

✅ Timelines with interim targets and escape clauses

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

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

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

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

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

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

100% targets come in different forms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“We cannot wait”

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

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

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

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

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

How CCAs are driving renewable energy deployment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

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