China tops in new wind energy

Kentucky Coal Wage Protection Bill strengthens performance bond enforcement, links Energy and Environment Cabinet and Labor Cabinet notifications, addresses Blackjewel bankruptcy fallout, safeguards unpaid miners, ties mining permits to payroll bonds, penalizes violators via revocations.

Key Points

A Kentucky plan to enforce wage bonds and revoke mining permits to protect miners after bankruptcies.

✅ Requires wage bonds for firms under 5 years

✅ Links Energy and Environment Cabinet and Labor Cabinet

✅ Violators face permit revocation in 90 days

Following the high-profile bankruptcy of a coal company that left hundreds of Kentucky miners with bad checks last month, Sen. Johnny Ray Turner (D-Prestonsburg) said he will pre-file a bill Thursday aimed at closing a loophole that allowed the company to operate in violation of state law.

The bill would also compel state agencies to determine whether other companies are currently in violation of the law, and could revoke mining permits if the companies don't comply.

Turner's bill would amend an already-existing law that requires coal and construction companies that have been operating in Kentucky for less than five years to post a performance bond to protect wages if the companies cease their operations.

Blackjewel LLC., which employed hundreds of miners in Eastern Kentucky, failed to post that bond. When it shut its mines down and filed for bankruptcy last month, it left hundreds of miners without payment for 3 weeks and one day of work.

The bond issue has sparked criticism from various state officials, including Attorney General Andy Beshear, who said Tuesday that he would investigate whether other companies are currently in violation, similar to an external investigation of utility workers in another jurisdiction.

Blackjewel issued cold checks to its employees June 28, and when the checks bounced days later, many employees were left with bank accounts overdrawn by more than $1,000. The bankruptcy left many miners and their families with concerns over upcoming bill and mortgage payments, and, as unpaid days off at utilities elsewhere show, the strain on workers can be severe, and fostered a ongoing protest that blocked a train hauling coal from one of the company's Harlan County mines.

Blackjewel had been operating in Kentucky for about two years before it filed for bankruptcy, so it should have paid the performance bond, according to state law.

David A. Dickerson, the Kentucky Labor Cabinet Secretary, said the law as it's currently written does not set up any mechanism that notifies the cabinet, or provides comparable public reporting at large utility projects elsewhere, when a company opens in Kentucky that is supposed to pay the bond.

That allowed Blackjewel to operate for two years without any protection for workers before it closed its mines. Had the company posted the bond according to state law, miners likely would have been paid for the work they had already completed, officials said.

The law requires companies to set aside enough money to cover payroll for four weeks.

Turner's bill would compel the state Energy and Environment Cabinet to notify the Labor Cabinet's Department of Workplace Standards of any application for a mining permit from a company that has been doing business in Kentucky for less than five years.

It also compels the EEC to notify the Labor Cabinet of any companies that already have permits that are subject to the bond.

"It should have already been that way, but I'm happy so our children don't have to go through this," said Jeff Willig, a former Blackjewel miner who helped launch the protest at the railroad.

Willig said he and other miners will continue to block the tracks until they receive payment for their past work.

Any company currently operating in violation of the law would have 90 days to become compliant before its mining permits are revoked. New companies that are applying for permits will be required post the bond before permits are issued.

"Hopefully it will take care of the loopholes that had been exploited by Blackjewel," Turner said.

The bill will be taken up by the legislature when it returns to session in January. It would also cover attorneys' fees if workers are forced to sue their employer to cover wages, underscoring broader worker safety concerns during health emergencies.

Turner said he has reached out to Republican leadership in the Senate, and expects the bill to have bipartisan support come January.

Turner announced the legislation at a press conference in Harlan, the county with the highest population of Blackjewel employees affected by the bankruptcy, and as prolonged utility outages after tornadoes have strained other Kentucky communities.

State rep. Angie Hatton (D-Whitesburg) was also in attendance, along with rep. Chris Fugate (R-Chavies) and state Sen. Morgan McGarvey (D-Louisville).

Hatton said the bankruptcy has had serious economic impact throughout Eastern Kentucky, including in Letcher County, which is home to more than 130 former Blackjewel workers.

"This is something that has done a lot of damage to Eastern Kentucky," Hatton said.

Hatton plans to file the same bill in the state House of Representatives.

Fugate commended community members in Harlan County and elsewhere who have banded together in support of the miners by donating children's clothing, school supplies, food and other goods, while other regions have created a coal transition fund to help displaced workers.

Mosley called the bankruptcy "totally unprecedented" and said the current performance bond law, which has been on-the-books since 1986, lacked the enforcement necessary to protect miners in bankruptcies like Blackjewel's, even as a workplace safety fine in another case shows regulatory consequences in other industries.

"There was a law, there wasn't good enough process," Mosley said.

Blackjewel received court approval to sell many of its mines last month, including many in Kentucky, to Kopper Glo Mining, LLC.

As part of the sale agreement, Kopper Glo said it would pay $450,000 to cover the past wages of Blackjewel miners, and collect a per ton fee accumulating up to $550,000 that it will also contribute to pay back wages.

That total $1 million is less than half of all back wages owed to Blackjewel miners, but attorneys who filed a class action suit against the company said miners have a priority lien on the purchase price. That could allow former Blackjewel employees to make good on their back wages as bankruptcy proceedings continue.

Mosley said he spoke with a Kopper Glo official Thursday, who said the company is working to re-open the mines as quickly as possible. The official did not give an exact timeline.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

Shell's Industrial Electricity Supply Strategy targets UK and US industrial customers, leveraging gas-to-power, renewables, long-term PPAs, and energy transition momentum to disrupt utilities, cut costs, and secure demand in the evolving electricity market.

Key Points

Shell will sell power directly to industrial clients, leveraging gas, renewables, and PPAs to secure demand and pricing.

✅ Direct power sales to industrials in UK and US

✅ Leverages gas-to-power, renewables, and flexible sourcing

✅ Targets long-term PPAs, price stability, and demand security

Royal Dutch Shell’s decision to sell electricity direct to industrial customers is an intelligent and creative one. The shift is strategic and demonstrates that oil and gas majors are capable of adapting to a new world as the transition to a lower carbon economy develops. For those already in the business of providing electricity it represents a dangerous competitive threat. For the other oil majors it poses a direct challenge on whether they are really thinking about the future sufficiently strategically.

The move starts small with a business in the UK that will start trading early next year, in a market where the UK’s second-largest electricity operator has recently emerged, signaling intensifying competition. Shell will supply the business operations as a first step and it will then expand. But Britain is not the limit — Shell recently announced its intention of making similar sales in the US. Historically, oil and gas companies have considered a move into electricity as a step too far, with the sector seen as oversupplied and highly politicised because of sensitivity to consumer price rises. I went through three reviews during my time in the industry, each of which concluded that the electricity business was best left to someone else. What has changed? I think there are three strands of logic behind the strategy.

First, the state of the energy market. The price of gas in particular has fallen across the world over the last three years to the point where the International Energy Agency describes the current situation as a “glut”. Meanwhile, Shell has been developing an extensive range of gas assets, with more to come. In what has become a buyer’s market it is logical to get closer to the customer — establishing long-term deals that can soak up the supply, while options such as storing electricity in natural gas pipes gain attention in Europe. Given its reach, Shell could sign contracts to supply all the power needed by the UK’s National Health Service or with the public sector as a whole as well as big industrial users. It could agree long-term contracts with big businesses across the US.

To the buyers, Shell offers a high level of security from multiple sources with prices presumably set at a discount to the market. The mutual advantage is strong. Second, there is the transition to a lower carbon world. No one knows how fast this will move, but one thing is certain: electricity will be at the heart of the shift with power demand increasing in transportation, industry and the services sector as oil and coal are displaced. Shell, with its wide portfolio, can match inputs to the circumstances and policies of each location. It can match its global supplies of gas to growing Asian markets, including China’s 2060 electricity share projections, while developing a renewables-based electricity supply chain in Europe. The new company can buy supplies from other parts of the group or from outside. It has already agreed to buy all the power produced from the first Dutch offshore wind farm at Egmond aan Zee.

The move gives Shell the opportunity to enter the supply chain at any point — it does not have to own power stations any more than it now owns drilling rigs or helicopters. The third key factor is that the electricity market is not homogenous. The business of supplying power can be segmented. The retail market — supplying millions of households — may be under constant scrutiny, as efforts to fix the UK’s electricity grid keep infrastructure in the headlines, with suppliers vilified by the press and governments forced to threaten price caps but supplying power to industrial users is more stable and predictable, and done largely out of the public eye. The main industrial and commercial users are major companies well able to negotiate long-term deals.

Given its scale and reputation, Shell is likely to be a supplier of choice for industrial and commercial consumers and potentially capable of shaping prices. This is where the prospect of a powerful new competitor becomes another threat to utilities and retailers whose business models are already under pressure. In the European market in particular, electricity pricing mechanisms are evolving and public policies that give preference to renewables have undermined other sources of supply — especially those produced from gas. Once-powerful companies such as RWE and EON have lost much of their value as a result. In the UK, France and elsewhere, public and political hostility to price increases have made retail supply a risky and low-margin business at best. If the industrial market for electricity is now eaten away, the future for the existing utilities is desperate.

Shell’s move should raise a flag of concern for investors in the other oil and gas majors. The company is positioning itself for change. It is sending signals that it is now viable even if oil and gas prices do not increase and that it is not resisting the energy transition. Chief executive Ben van Beurden said last week that he was looking forward to his next car being electric. This ease with the future is rather rare. Shareholders should be asking the other players in the old oil and gas sector to spell out their strategies for the transition.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

PG&E Wind Shutdown and Renewable Reliability examines PSPS strategy, wildfire risk, transmission line exposure, wind turbine cut-out speeds, grid stability, and California's energy mix amid historic high-wind events and supply constraints across service areas.

Key Points

An overview of PG&E's PSPS decisions, wildfire mitigation, and how wind cut-out limits influence grid reliability.

✅ Wind turbines reach cut-out near 55 mph, reducing generation.

✅ PSPS mitigates ignition from damaged transmission infrastructure.

✅ Baseload diversity improves resilience during high-wind events.

According to the official, widely reported story, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) initiated power shutoffs across substantial portions of its electric transmission system in northern California as a precautionary measure.

Citing high wind speeds they described as “historic,” the utility claims that if it didn’t turn off the grid, wind-caused damage to its infrastructure could start more wildfires.

Perhaps that’s true. Perhaps. This tale presumes that the folks who designed and maintain PG&E’s transmission system are unaware of or ignored the need to design it to withstand severe weather events, and that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) allowed the utility to do so.

Ignorance and incompetence happens, to be sure, but there’s much about this story that doesn’t smell right—and it’s disappointing that most journalists and elected officials are apparently accepting it without question.

Take, for example, this statement from a Fox News story about the Kincade Fires: “A PG&E meteorologist said it’s ‘likely that many trees will fall, branches will break,’ which could damage utility infrastructure and start a fire.”

Did you ever notice how utilities cut wide swaths of trees away when transmission lines pass through forests? There’s a reason for that: When trees fall and branches break, the grid can still function, and even as the electric rhythms of New York City shifted during COVID-19, operators planned for variability.

So, if badly designed and poorly maintained infrastructure isn’t the reason PG&E cut power to millions of Californians, what might have prompted them to do so? Could it be that PG&E’s heavy reliance on renewable energy means they don’t have the power to send when a “historic” weather event occurs, especially as policymakers weigh the postponed closure of three power plants elsewhere in California?

Wind Speed Limits

The two most popular forms of renewable energy come with operating limitations, which is why some energy leaders urge us to keep electricity options open when planning the grid. With solar power, the constraint is obvious: the availability of sunlight. One doesn’t generate solar power at night and energy generation drops off with increasing degrees of cloud cover during the day.

The main operating constraint of wind power is, of course, wind speed, and even in markets undergoing 'transformative change' in wind generation, operators adhere to these technical limits. At the low end of the scale, you need about a 6 or 7 miles-per-hour wind to get a turbine moving. This is called the “cut-in speed.” To generate maximum power, about a 30 mph wind is typically required. But, if the wind speed is too high, the wind turbine will shut down. This is called the “cut-out speed,” and it’s about 55 miles per hour for most modern wind turbines.

It may seem odd that wind turbines have a cut-out speed, but there’s a very good reason for it. Each wind turbine rotor is connected to an electric generator housed in the turbine nacelle. The connection is made through a gearbox that is sized to turn the generator at the precise speed required to produce 60 Hertz AC power.

The blades of the wind turbine are airfoils, just like the wings of an airplane. Adjusting the pitch (angle) of the blades allows the rotor to maintain constant speed, which, in turn, allows the generator to maintain the constant speed it needs to safely deliver power to the grid. However, there’s a limit to blade pitch adjustment. When the wind is blowing so hard that pitch adjustment is no longer possible, the turbine shuts down. That’s the cut-out speed.

Now consider how California’s power generation profile has changed. According to Energy Information Administration data, the state generated 74.3 percent of its electricity from traditional sources—fossil fuels and nuclear, amid debates over whether to classify nuclear as renewable—in 2001. Hydroelectric, geothermal, and biomass-generated power accounted for most of the remaining 25.7 percent, with wind and solar providing only 1.98 percent of the total.

By 2018, the state’s renewable portfolio had jumped to 43.8 percent of total generation, with clean power increasing and wind and solar now accounting for 17.9 percent of total generation. That’s a lot of power to depend on from inherently unreliable sources. Thus, it wouldn’t be at all surprising to learn that PG&E didn’t stop delivering power out of fear of starting fires, but because it knew it wouldn’t have power to deliver once high winds shut down all those wind turbines

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

India Coal Supply Rationing redirects shipments from high-inventory power plants to stations facing shortages as electricity demand surges, inventories fall, and outages persist; Coal India, NTPC imports, and smaller mines bolster domestic supply.

Key Points

A temporary policy redirecting coal from high-stock plants to shortage-hit plants amid rising demand

✅ Shipments halted 1 week to plants with >14 days coal stock

✅ Smaller mines asked to raise output; NTPC to import 270,000 tons

✅ Outages at Adani and Tata Mundra units pressure domestic supply

India will ration coal supplies to power plants with high inventories to direct more shipments to stations battling shortages, even as shortages ease in some regions, as surging demand outstrips production.

Supplies to plants with more than two weeks’ coal inventory will be halted for a week, a team headed by federal Coal Secretary Alok Kumar decided on Saturday, the Power Ministry said in a statement. The government has also requested smaller mines to raise output to supplement shipments from state miner Coal India Ltd., and is taking steps to get nuclear back on track to diversify the energy mix.

A jump in electricity consumption spurred by a reviving economy and an extended summer, after an earlier steep demand decline in India, is driving demand for coal, which helps produce about 70% of the nation’s electricity. The surge in demand complicates India’s clean-energy transition efforts amid solar supply headwinds that cloud near-term alternatives, and may bolster arguments favoring the country’s dependence on coal to fuel economic growth.

“There’s no doubt India will continue to need coal for stable power for years,” said Rupesh Sankhe, vice president at Elara Capital India Pvt. in Mumbai. “Plants that meet environmental standards and are able to produce power efficiently will see utilization rising, but I doubt we’re going to have many new coal plants.”  

Coal stockpiles at the country’s power plants had fallen to 14.7 million tons as of Aug. 24, tumbling 62% from a year earlier, according to the latest data from the Central Electricity Authority. More than 88 gigawatts of generation plants, about half the capacity monitored by the power ministry, had inventories of six days or less as of that date, the data show. Power demand jumped 10.5% in July from a year earlier, even as global electricity use dipped 15% during the pandemic, according to the government.
Outages at some large plants that run on imported coal have increased the burden on those that burn domestic supplies, aiding shortfalls.

Adani Power Ltd. had almost 2 gigawatts of capacity in outage at its Mundra plant in Gujarat at the start of the week, while Tata Power Co. Ltd. had shut 80% of its 4-gigawatt plant in the same town for maintenance, power ministry data show.

NTPC Ltd., the largest power generator, will import the 270,000 tons of coal it left out from contracts placed earlier to mitigate the fuel shortage, reflecting higher imported coal volumes this fiscal, the power ministry said in a separate statement.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Australia Renewable Energy Transition: solar capacity growth, net-zero goals, rising electricity demand, coal reliance, EV adoption, grid decarbonization, heat waves, air conditioning loads, and policy incentives shaping clean power, efficiency, and emissions reduction.

Key Points

Australia targets net-zero by 2050 by scaling renewables, curbing demand, and phasing down coal and gas.

✅ Solar capacity up 200% since 2018, yet coal remains dominant.

✅ Transport leads energy use; EV uptake lags global average.

✅ Heat waves boost AC load, stressing grids and emissions goals.

A more than 200% increase in installed solar power generation capacity since 2018 helped Australia rank sixth globally in terms of solar capacity last year and emerge as one of the world's fastest-growing major renewable energy producers, aligning with forecasts that renewables to surpass coal in global power generation by 2025.

However, to realise its goal of becoming a net-zero carbon emitter by 2050, Australia must reverse the trajectory of its energy use, which remains on a rising path, even as Asia set to use half of electricity underscores regional demand growth, in contrast with several peers that have curbed energy use in recent years.

Australia's total electricity consumption has grown nearly 8% over the past decade, amid a global power demand surge that has exceeded pre-pandemic levels, compared with contractions over the same period of more than 7% in France, Germany and Japan, and a 14% drop in the United Kingdom, data from Ember shows.

Sustained growth in Australia's electricity demand has in turn meant that power producers must continue to heavily rely on coal for electricity generation on top of recent additions in supply of renewable energy sources, with low-emissions generation growth expected to cover most new demand.

Australia has sharply boosted clean energy capacity in recent years, but remains heavily reliant on coal & natural gas for electricity generation
To accomplish emissions reduction targets on time, Australia's energy use must decline while clean energy supplies climb further, as that would give power producers the scope to shut high-polluting fossil-powered energy generation systems ahead of the 2050 deadline.

DEMAND DRIVERS
Reducing overall electricity and energy use is a major challenge in all countries, where China's electricity appetite highlights shifting consumption patterns, but will be especially tough in Australia which is a relative laggard in terms of the electrification of transport systems and is prone to sustained heat waves that trigger heavy use of air conditioners.

The transport sector uses more energy than any other part of the Australian economy, including industry, and accounted for roughly 40% of total final energy use as of 2020, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA.)

Transport energy demand has also expanded more quickly than other sectors, growing by over 5% from 2010 to 2020 compared to industry's 1.3% growth over the same period.

Transport is Australia's main energy use sector, and oil products are the main source of energy type
To reduce energy use, and cut the country's fuel import bill which topped AUD $65 billion in 2022 alone, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian government is keen to electrify car fleets and is offering large incentives for electric vehicle purchases.

Even so, electric vehicles accounted for only 5.1% of total Australian car sales in 2022, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

That compares to 13% in New Zealand, 21% in the European Union, and a global average of 14%.

More incentives for EV purchases are expected, but any rapid adoption of EVs would only serve to increase overall electricity demand, and with surging electricity demand already straining power systems worldwide, place further pressure on power producers to increase electricity supplies.

Heating and cooling for homes and businesses is another major energy demand driver in Australia, and accounts for roughly 40% of total electricity use in the country.

Australia is exposed to harsh weather conditions, especially heat waves which are expected to increase in frequency, intensity and duration over the coming decades due to climate change, according to the New South Wales government.

To cope, Australians are expected to resort to increased use of air conditioners during the hottest times of the year, and with reduced power reserves flagged by the market operator, adding yet more strain to electricity systems.

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