Burning wood debris for generation

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

Montreal Power Outage linked to Hydro-Que9bec infrastructure after an underground explosion and manhole fire in Rosemont–La Petite–Patrie, disrupting the STM Blue Line and forcing strategic, cold-weather grid restoration on Be9langer Street.

Key Points

Outage from an underground blast and manhole fire disrupted STM service; Hydro-Que9bec restored the grid in cold weather.

✅ Peak impact: 41,000 customers; 10,981 still without power by 7:00 p.m.

✅ STM Blue Line restored after afternoon shutdown; Be9langer Street reopened.

✅ Hydro-Que9bec pacing restoration to avoid grid overload in cold weather.

Hydro-Québec says a power outage affecting Montreal is connected to an underground explosion and a fire in a manhole in Rosemont—La Petite–Patrie. 

The fire started in underground pipes belonging to Hydro-Québec on Bélanger Street between Boyer and Saint-André streets, according to Montreal firefighters, who arrived on the scene at 12:18 p.m.

The electricity had to be cut so that firefighters could get into the manhole where the equipment was located.

At the peak of the shutdown, nearly 41,000 customers were without power across Montreal.  As of 7:00 p.m., 10,981 clients still had no power.

In similar storms, Toronto power outages have persisted for hundreds, underscoring restoration challenges.

Hydro-Québec spokesperson Louis-Olivier Batty said the utility is being strategic about how it restores power across the grid. 

Because of the cold, and patterns seen during freezing rain outages, it anticipates that people will crank up the heat as soon as they get their electricity back, and that could trigger an overload somewhere else on the network, Batty said.

The Metro's Blue line was down much of the afternoon, but the STM announced the line was back up and running just after 4:30 p.m.

Bélanger Street was blocked to traffic much of the afternoon, however, it has now been reopened.

Batty said once the smoke clears, Hydro-Québec workers will take a look at the equipment to see what failed. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Enbridge Alberta CCS Project targets carbon capture and storage in Alberta, capturing emissions from industrial emitters to advance net-zero goals, leveraging carbon pricing, regulatory support, and a hub model despite a key partner's exit.

Key Points

A proposed Alberta carbon capture hub by Enbridge to store industrial emissions and support net-zero targets.

✅ Seeks emitters across power, oil and gas, and heavy industry

✅ Backed by carbon pricing, regulation, and net-zero mandates

✅ Faces high capex, storage risk, and anchor-tenant uncertainty

Enbridge Inc., a Canadian energy giant, is digging its heels in on its proposed carbon capture and storage (CCS) project in Alberta. This comes despite the recent withdrawal of Capital Power, a major potential emitter that was expected to utilize the CCS technology. Enbridge maintains the project remains viable, but questions linger about its future viability without a cornerstone anchor.

The CCS project, envisioned as a major carbon capture hub in Alberta, aimed to capture emissions from industrial facilities and permanently store them underground. This technology has the potential to play a significant role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change, alongside grid solutions like bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap that can complement decarbonization efforts.

Capital Power's decision to shelve its $2.4 billion Genesee Generating Station project, which was designed to integrate with the CCS hub, threw a wrench into Enbridge's plans. The Genesee project was expected to be a key source of emissions for capture and storage, and its status is being weighed as Ottawa advances the federal coal plan to phase out unabated coal.

Enbridge, however, remains optimistic. The company cites ongoing discussions with other potential emitters interested in utilizing the CCS technology, amid new funding signals such as the U.S. DOE's $110M for CCUS that highlight momentum. They believe the project holds significant value despite Capital Power's departure.

"We are confident in the long-term viability of the project and continue to actively engage with potential customers," said Enbridge spokesperson Rachel Giroux. "Carbon capture and storage is a critical technology for achieving net-zero emissions, and we believe there is a strong business case for our CCS project."

Enbridge's confidence hinges on several factors. Firstly, they believe there is a growing appetite for CCS technology amongst industrial facilities facing increasing pressure to reduce their carbon footprint. Regulations and carbon pricing mechanisms, including new U.S. EPA power plant rules that test CCS readiness, could further incentivize companies to adopt CCS solutions.

Secondly, Enbridge highlights the potential for capturing emissions from not just power plants but also from other industrial sectors like oil and gas production and clean hydrogen projects in Canada, where reforming processes can generate CO2. This broader application could significantly increase the captured carbon volume and strengthen the project's economic viability.

However, skepticism remains. Critics point to the high upfront costs associated with CCS development and the nascent stage of the technology. They argue that without a guaranteed stream of captured emissions, the project might not be financially sound. Additionally, the long-term safety and effectiveness of large-scale carbon storage solutions remain under scrutiny.

The success of Enbridge's CCS project hinges on attracting new emitters. Replacing Capital Power's contribution will be a significant challenge. Enbridge will need to demonstrate the project's economic viability and navigate the complex regulatory landscape surrounding CCS technology.

The Alberta government's position on CCS is crucial. While the government has expressed support for the technology, the level of financial and regulatory incentives offered will significantly impact investor confidence, especially as the IEA net-zero outlook underscores Canada's need for much more electricity. A clear and stable policy framework will be essential for attracting emitters to the project.

The future of Enbridge's CCS project remains uncertain. Capital Power's withdrawal is a setback, but Enbridge's continued commitment suggests they believe the technology holds promise. Whether they can find enough emitters to justify the project's development will be a critical test. The outcome will have significant implications for the future of CCS technology in Alberta and Canada's broader efforts to achieve net-zero emissions, including Canada-Germany clean energy cooperation that seeks to scale low-carbon fuels.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Ontario Clean Energy Expansion signals IESO-backed renewables, energy storage, and low-CO2 power to meet EV-driven demand, offset Pickering nuclear retirement, and balance interim gas-fired generation while advancing grid reliability, decarbonization, and net-zero targets.

Key Points

Ontario Clean Energy Expansion plans to grow renewables and storage, manage short-term gas, and meet rising demand.

✅ IESO long-term procurements for renewables and storage

✅ Interim reliance on gas to replace Pickering capacity

✅ Targets align with net-zero grid reliability goals

After cancelling hundreds of renewable power projects four years ago, the Doug Ford government appears set to expand clean energy to meet a looming electricity shortfall across the province.

Recent announcements from Ontario Energy Minister Todd Smith and the province’s electric grid management agency suggest the province plans to expand low-CO2 electricity with new wind and solar plans in the long-term, even as it ramps up gas-fired power over the next five years.

The moves are in response to an impending electricity shortfall as climate-conscious drivers switch to electric vehicles, farmers replace field crops with greenhouses and companies like ArcelorMittal Dofasco in Hamilton switch from CO2-heavy manufacturing to electricity-based production. Forecasters predict Canada will need to double its power supply by 2050.

While Ontario has a relatively low-CO2 power system, the province’s electricity supply will be reduced in 2025 when Ontario Power Generation closes the 50-year-old Pickering nuclear station, now near the end of its operating life. This will remove 3,100 megawatts of low-CO2 generation, about eight per cent of the province’s 40,000-megawatt total.

The impending closure has created a difficult situation for the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), the provincial agency managing Ontario’s grid. Last year, it forecasted it would need to sharply increase CO2-polluting natural gas-fired power to avoid widespread blackouts.

This would mean drivers switching to electric vehicles or companies like Dofasco cutting CO2 through electrification would end up causing higher power system emissions.

It would also fly in the face of the federal government’s ambition to create a net-zero national electricity system by 2035, a critical part of Canada’s pledge to reduce CO2 emissions to zero by 2050.

Yet the Ford government has appeared reluctant to expand clean energy. In the 2018 election, clean electricity was a key issue as it appealed to anti-turbine voters in rural Ontario and cancelled more than 700 renewable energy contracts shortly after taking office, taking 400 megawatts out of the system.

But there are signs the government is having a change of heart. IESO recently released a list of 55 companies approved to submit bids for 3,500 megawatts of long-term electricity contracts starting between 2025 and 2027, and the energy minister has outlined a plan to address growing energy needs as well.

The companies include a variety of potential producers, ranging from Canadian and global renewable companies to local utilities and small startups. Most are renewable power or energy storage companies specializing in low- or zero-emission power. IESO plans additional long-term bid offerings in the future.

This doesn’t mean gas generation will be turned off. IESO will contract yearly production from existing gas plants until 2028 (the annual contract in 2023 will be for about 2,000 megawatts). As well, IESO has issued contracts to four gas-fired producers, a small wind company and a storage company to begin production of about 700 megawatts to boost gas plant output starting between 2024 and 2026.

While this represents an expansion of existing gas-fired generation, Smith has asked IESO to report on a gas moratorium, saying he doesn’t believe new gas plants will be needed over the long term.

The NDP and Greens criticized the government for relying on gas in the near term. But clean energy advocates greeted the long-term plans positively.

The IESO process “will contribute to a clean, reliable and affordable grid,” said the Canadian Renewable Energy Association.

Rachel Doran, director of policy and strategy at Clean Energy Canada, said in an email the potential gas generation moratorium “is an encouraging step forward,” although she criticized the “unfortunate decision to replace near-term nuclear power capacity with climate-change-causing natural gas.”

There will have to be a massive clean energy expansion to green Ontario’s grid well beyond what has been announced in recent days for Ontario to meet its future energy needs (think a doubling of Ontario’s current 40,000-megawatt capacity by 2050).

But these first steps hold promise that Ontario is at least starting on the path to that goal, rather than scrambling to keep the lights on with CO2-polluting natural gas.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EU Renewable Power Overtakes Fossil Fuels, reflecting a greener energy mix as wind, solar, and hydro expand, cutting CO2 emissions and curbing coal while negative prices rise amid pandemic-driven demand drops.

Key Points

A milestone as renewables surpass fossil power in the EU, driven by wind, solar, hydro growth and pandemic demand.

✅ 40% renewables vs 34% fossil in H1 across 27 EU states

✅ Wind, solar, hydro rose; coal generation fell 32% year-on-year

✅ Lower demand, carbon prices, grid priority boosted clean output

Renewable power for the first time contributed a bigger share in the European generation mix than fossil fuels, as described in Europe's green surge as the fallout from the pandemic cut energy demand.

About 40 percent of the electricity in the first half in the 27 EU countries came from renewable sources, exceeding the global renewables share reported elsewhere, compared with 34 percent from plants burning fossil fuels, according to environmental group Ember in London. As a result, carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector fell 23 percent.

The rise is significant and encouraging for law makers as Europe prepares to spend billions of euros to recover from the virus, with wind power investments underscoring the momentum, and set the bloc on track to neutralize its carbon footprint by the middle of the century.

“This marks a symbolic moment ​in the transition of Europe’s electricity sector,” said Dave Jones, an electricity analyst at Ember. “For countries like Poland and Czech Republic grappling with how to get off coal, there is now a clear way out.”

While power demand slumped, output from wind and solar farms increased, reflecting global wind and solar gains, because more plants came online in breezy and sunny weather. At the same time, wet conditions boosted hydro power in Iberia and the Nordic markets.

Those conditions helped renewables become a rare bright spot throughout the economic tumult this year. In many areas, renewable sources of electricity have priority to the grid, meaning they could keep growing even as demand shrank and other power plants were turned off.

Electricity demand in the EU fell 7 percent overall. Fossil-fuel power generation plunged 18 percent in the first half compared with a year earlier. Renewable generation grew by 11 percent, according to Ember.

Coal was by far the biggest loser in 2020. It’s one of the most-polluting sources of power and its share is slumping in Europe as the price of carbon increases, with renewables surpassing coal in the US illustrating the broader shift, and governments move to cut emissions. Power from coal fell 32 percent across the EU.

Despite the economics, the decision to shut off coal for good will come down to political agreements between producers and governments, while reducing reliance on Russian energy reshapes policy debates.

One consequence of the jump in renewables is that negative prices have increased, as solar is reshaping prices in Northern Europe in similar ways. On particularly windy or sunny days when there isn’t much demand, the grid can be flooded with power. That’s leading wind farms to be shut off and customers to be paid to consume electricity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

BC Hydro Cryptocurrency Mining Suspension pauses new grid connections for Bitcoin data centers, preserving electricity for EVs, heat pumps, and industry electrification, as Site C capacity and megawatt demand trigger provincial energy policy review.

Key Points

An 18-month pause on new crypto-mining grid hookups to preserve electricity for EVs, heat pumps, and electrification.

✅ 18-month moratorium on new BC Hydro crypto connections

✅ Preserves capacity for EVs, heat pumps, and industry

✅ 21 pending mines sought 1,403 MW; Site C adds 1,100 MW

New cryptocurrency mining businesses in British Columbia are now temporarily banned from being hooked up to BC Hydro’s electrical grid.

The 18-month suspension on new electricity-connection requests is intended to provide the electrical utility and provincial government with the time needed, a move similar to N.B. Power's pause during a crypto review, to create a permanent framework for any future additional cryptocurrency mining operations.

Currently, BC Hydro already provides electricity to seven cryptocurrency mining operations, and six more are in advanced stages of being connected to the grid, with a combined total power consumption of 273 megawatts. These existing operations, unlike the Siwash Creek project now in limbo, will not be affected by the temporary ban.

The electrical utility’s suspension comes at a time when there are 21 applications to open cryptocurrency mining businesses in BC, even as electricity imports supplement the grid during peaks, which would have a combined total power consumption of 1,403 megawatts — equivalent to the electricity needed for 570,000 homes or 2.3 million battery-electric vehicles annually.

In fact, the 21 cryptocurrency mining businesses would completely wipe out the new electrical capacity gained by building the $16 billion Site C hydroelectric dam, alongside two newly commissioned stations that add supply, which has an output capacity of 1,100 megawatts or enough power for the equivalent of 450,000 homes. Site C is expected to be operational by 2025.

Cryptocurrency mining, such as Bitcoin, use a very substantial amount of electricity to operate high-powered computers around the clock, which perform complex cryptographic and math problems to verify transactions. High electricity needs are the result of not only to run the racks of computers, but to provide extreme cooling given the significant heat produced.

“We are suspending electricity connection requests from cryptocurrency mining operators to preserve our electricity supply for people who are switching to electric vehicles, amid BC Hydro's first call for power in 15 years, and heat pumps, and for businesses and industries that are undertaking electrification projects that reduce carbon emissions and generate jobs and economic opportunities,” said Josie Osborne, the BC minister of energy, mines and low carbon innovation, adding that cryptocurrency mining creates very few jobs for the local economy.

Such businesses are attracted to BC due to the availability of its clean, plentiful, and cheap hydroelectricity, which LNG companies continue to seek for their operations as well.

If left unchecked, the provincial government suggests BC Hydro’s long-term electrical capacity could be wiped out by cryptocurrency mining operations, even as debates over going nuclear persist among residents across the province.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News