More farmers seeing wind as cash crop

Texas EV Registration Fee adds a $200 annual charge under Senate Bill 505, offsetting lost gasoline tax revenue to the State Highway Fund, impacting electric vehicle owners at registration and renewals across Texas.

Key Points

A $200 yearly charge on electric vehicles to replace lost gasoline tax revenue and support Texas Highway Fund road work.

✅ $200 due at registration or renewal; $400 upfront on new EVs.

✅ Enacted by Senate Bill 505 to offset lost gasoline tax revenue.

✅ Advocates propose mileage-based fees; limited $2,500 rebates exist.

Plano resident Tony Federico bought his Tesla five years ago in part because he hated spending lots of money on gas, and Supercharger billing changes have also influenced charging expenses. But that financial calculus will change slightly on Sept. 1, when Texas will start charging electric vehicle drivers an additional fee of $200 each year.

“It just seems like it’s arbitrary, with no real logic behind it,” said Federico, 51, who works in information technology. “But I’m going to have to pay it.”

Earlier this year, state lawmakers passed Senate Bill 505, which requires electric vehicle owners to pay the fee when they register a vehicle or renew their registration, even as fights for control over charging continue among utilities, automakers and retailers. It’s being imposed because lawmakers said EV drivers weren’t paying their fair share into a fund that helps cover road construction and repairs across Texas.

The cost will be especially high for those who purchase a new electric vehicle and have to pay two years of registration, or $400, up front.

Texas agencies estimated in a 2020 report that the state lost an average of $200 per year in federal and state gasoline tax dollars when an electric vehicle replaced a gas-fueled one. The agencies called the fee “the most straightforward” remedy.

Gasoline taxes go to the State Highway Fund, which the Texas Department of Transportation calls its “primary funding source.” Electric vehicle drivers don’t pay those taxes, though, because they don’t use gasoline.

Still, EV drivers do use the roads. And while electric vehicles make up a tiny portion of cars in Texas for now, that fraction is expected to increase, raising concerns about state power grids in the years ahead.

Many environmental and consumer advocates agreed with lawmakers that EV drivers should pay into the highway fund but argued over how much, and debates over fairer vehicle taxes are surfacing abroad as well.

Some thought the state should set the fee lower to cover only the lost state tax dollars, rather than both the state and federal money, because federal officials may devise their own scheme. Others argued the state should charge nothing because EVs help reduce greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change and can offer budget benefits for many owners.

“We urgently need to get more electric vehicles on the road,” said Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas. “Any increased fee could create an additional barrier for Texans, and particularly more moderate- to low-income Texans, to make that transition.”

Tom “Smitty” Smith, the executive director of the Texas Electric Transportation Resources Alliance, advocated for a fee based on how many miles a person drove their electric car, which would better mirror how the gas taxes are assessed.

Texas has a limited incentive that could offset the cost: It offers rebates of up to $2,500 for up to 2,000 new hydrogen fuel cell, electric or hybrid vehicles every two years. Adrian Shelley, Public Citizen’s Texas office director, recommended that the state expand the rebates, noting that state-level EV benefits can be significant.

In the Houston area, dealer Steven Wolf isn’t worried about the fee deterring potential customers from buying the electric Ford F-150 Lightning and Mustang Mach-E vehicles he sells. Electric cars are already more expensive than comparable gasoline-fueled cars, and charging networks compete for drivers, he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Work From Home Energy Consumption is driving higher electricity bills as residential usage rises. Smart meter data, ISO-New-England trends, and COVID-19 telecommuting show stronger power demand and sensitivity to utility rates across regions.

Key Points

Higher household electricity use from telecommuting, shifting load to residences and raising utility bills.

✅ Smart meters show 5-22 percent residential usage increases.

✅ Commercial demand fell as home cooling and IT loads rose.

✅ Utility rates and AC use drive bill spikes during summer.

Don't be surprised if your electric bills are looking higher than usual, with a sizable increase in the amount of power that you have used.

Summer traditionally is a peak period for electricity usage because of folks' need to run fans and air-conditioners to cool their homes or run that pool pump. But the arrival of the coronavirus and people working from home is adding to amount of power people are using.

Under normal conditions, those who work in their employer's offices might not be cooling their homes as much during the middle of the day or using as much electricity for lights and running computers.

For many, that's changed.

Estimates on how much of an increase residential electric customers are seeing as result of working from home vary widely.

ISO-New England, the regional electric grid operator, has seen a 3 percent to 5 percent decrease in commercial and industrial power demand, even as the grid overseer issued pandemic warnings nationally. The expectation is that much of that decrease translates into a corresponding increase in residential electricity usage.

But other estimates put the increase in residential electricity usage much higher. A Washington state company that makes smart electric meters, Itron, estimates that American households are using 5 percent to 10 percent more electricity per month since March, when many people began working from home as part of an effort to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Another smart metering company, Cambridge, Mass.-based Sense, found that average home electricity usage increased 22 percent in April compared to the same period in 2019, a reflection of people using more electricity while they stayed home. Based on its analysis of data from 5,000 homes across 30 states, Sense officials said a typical customer's monthly electric bill increased by between $22 and $25, with a larger increase for consumers in states with higher electricity rates.

Connecticut-specfic data is harder to come by.

Officials with Orange-based United Illuminating declined to provide any customer usage data, though, like others in the power industry, they did acknowledge that residential customers are using more electricity. And the state's other large electric distribution utility, Eversource, was unable to provide any recent data on residential electric usage. The company did tell Connecticut utility regulators there was a 3 percent increase in residential power usage for the week of March 21 compared to the week before.

Over the same time period, Eversource officials saw a 3 percent decrease in power usage by commercial and industrial customers.

Separately, nuclear plant workers raised concerns about pandemic precautions at some facilities, reflecting operational strains.

Alan Behm of Cheshire said he normally uses 597 kilowatt hours of electricity during an average month. But in April of this year, the amount of electricity he used rose by nearly 51 percent.

With many offices closed, the expense of heating, cooking and lighting is being shifted from employer to employee, and some utilities such as Manitoba Hydro have pursued unpaid days off to trim costs during the pandemic. And one remote work expert believes some companies are recognizing the burden those added costs are placing on workers -- and are trying to do something about it.

Technology giant Google announced in late May that it was giving employees who work from home $1,000 allowances to cover equipment costs and other expenses associated with establishing a home office.

Moe Vela, chief transparency officer for the New York City-based computer software company TransparentBusiness, said the move by Google executives is a savvy one.

"Google is very smart to have figured this out," Vela said. "This is what employees want, especially millenials. People are so much happier to be working remotely, getting those two to three hours back per day that some people spend getting to and from work is so much more important than a stipend."

Vela predicted that even after a vaccine is found for the corona virus, one of the key worklife changes is likely to be a broader acceptance of telework and working from home.

Beyond the immediate shifts, more young Canadians would work in electricity if awareness improved, pointing to future talent pipelines.

"I think that's where we're headed," he said. "I think it will make an employer more attractive as they try to attract talent from around the world."

Vela said employers save an average of $11,000 per year for each employee they have working from home.

"It would be a brilliant move if a company were to share some of that amount with employees," he said. "I wouldn't do it if it's going to cause a company to not be there (in business) though."

The idea of a company sharing whatever savings it achieves by having employees work from home wasn't well received by many Connecticut residents who responded to questions posed via social media by Hearst Connecticut Media. More than 100 people responded and an overwhelming number of people spoke out against the idea.

"You are saving on gas and other travel related expenses, so the small increase in your electric bill shouldn't really be a concern," said Kathleen Bennett Charest of Wallingford.

Jim Krupp, also of Wallingford, said, "to suggest that the employers compensate the employees makes as much sense as suggesting that the employees should take a pay cut due to their reduced expenses for travel, day care, and eating lunch at work."

"Employers must still maintain their offices and incur all of the fixed expenses involved, including basic utilities, taxes and insurance," Krupp said. "The cost savings (for employers) that are realized are also offset by increased costs of creating and maintaining IT networks that allow employees to access their work sites from home and the costs of monitoring and managing the work force."

Kiki Nichols Nugent of Cheshire said she was against the idea of an employee trying to get their employer to pay for the increased electricity costs associated with working from home.

"I would not nickle and dime," Nugent said. "If companies are saving on electricity now, maybe employers will give better raises next year."

New Haven resident Chris Smith said he is "just happy to have a job where I am able to telecommute."

"When teleworking becomes more the norm, either now or in the future, we may see increased wages for teleworkers either for the lower cost to the employer or for the increase in productivity it brings," Smith said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

Netherlands vs Canada Solar Power compares per capita capacity, renewable energy policies, photovoltaics adoption, rooftop installations, grid integration, and incentives like feed-in tariffs and BIPV, highlighting efficiency, costs, and public engagement.

Key Points

Concise comparison of per capita capacity, policies, technology, and engagement in Dutch and Canadian solar adoption.

✅ Dutch per capita PV capacity exceeds Canada's by wide margin.

✅ Strong incentives: net metering, feed-in tariffs, rooftop focus.

✅ Climate, grid density, and awareness drive higher yields.

When it comes to harnessing solar power, the Netherlands stands as a shining example of efficient and widespread adoption, far surpassing Canada in solar energy generation per capita. Despite Canada's vast landmass and abundance of sunlight, the Netherlands has managed to outpace its North American counterpart, which some experts call a solar power laggard in solar energy production. This article explores the factors behind the Netherlands' success in solar power generation and compares it to Canada's approach.

Solar Power Capacity and Policy Support

The Netherlands has rapidly expanded its solar power capacity in recent years, driven by a combination of favorable policies, technological advancements, and public support. According to recent data, the Netherlands boasts a significantly higher per capita solar power capacity compared to Canada, where demand for solar electricity lags relative to deployment in many regions, leveraging its smaller geographical size and dense population centers to maximize solar panel installations on rooftops and in urban areas.

In contrast, Canada's solar energy development has been slower, despite having vast areas of suitable land for solar farms. Challenges such as regulatory hurdles, varying provincial policies, and the high initial costs of solar installations have contributed to a more gradual adoption of solar power across the country. However, provinces like Ontario have seen significant growth in solar installations due to supportive government incentives and favorable feed-in tariff programs, though growth projections were scaled back after Ontario scrapped a key program.

Innovation and Technological Advancements

The Netherlands has also benefited from ongoing innovations in solar technology and efficiency improvements. Dutch companies and research institutions have been at the forefront of developing new solar panel technologies, improving efficiency rates, and exploring innovative applications such as building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV). These advancements have helped drive down the cost of solar energy and increase its competitiveness with traditional fossil fuels.

In contrast, while Canada has made strides in solar technology research and development, commercialization and widespread adoption have been more restrained due to factors like market fragmentation and the country's reliance on other energy sources such as hydroelectricity.

Public Awareness and Community Engagement

Public awareness and community engagement play a crucial role in the Netherlands' success in solar power adoption. The Dutch government has actively promoted renewable energy through public campaigns, educational programs, and financial incentives for homeowners and businesses to install solar panels. This proactive approach has fostered a culture of energy conservation and sustainability among the Dutch population.

In Canada, while there is growing public support for renewable energy, varying levels of awareness and engagement across different provinces have impacted the pace of solar energy adoption. Provinces like British Columbia and Alberta have seen increasing interest in solar power, driven by environmental concerns, technological advancements, and economic benefits, as the country is set to hit 5 GW of installed capacity in the near term.

Climate and Geographic Considerations

Climate and geographic considerations also influence the disparity in solar power generation between the Netherlands and Canada. The Netherlands, despite its northern latitude, benefits from relatively mild winters and a higher average annual sunlight exposure compared to most regions of Canada. This favorable climate has facilitated higher solar energy yields and made solar power a more viable option for electricity generation.

In contrast, Canada's diverse climate and geography present unique challenges for solar energy deployment. Northern regions experience extended periods of darkness during winter months, limiting the effectiveness of solar panels in those areas. Despite these challenges, advancements in energy storage technologies and hybrid solar-diesel systems are making solar power increasingly feasible in remote and off-grid communities across Canada, even as Alberta faces expansion challenges related to grid integration and policy.

Future Prospects and Challenges

Looking ahead, both the Netherlands and Canada face opportunities and challenges in expanding their respective solar power capacities. In the Netherlands, continued investments in solar technology, grid infrastructure upgrades, and policy support will be crucial for maintaining momentum in renewable energy development.

In Canada, enhancing regulatory consistency, scaling up solar installations in urban and rural areas, and leveraging emerging technologies will be essential for narrowing the gap with global leaders in solar energy generation and for seizing opportunities in the global electricity market as the energy transition accelerates.

In conclusion, while the Netherlands currently generates more solar power per capita than Canada, with the Prairie Provinces poised to lead growth in the Canadian market, both countries have unique strengths and challenges in their pursuit of a sustainable energy future. By learning from each other's successes and leveraging technological advancements, both nations can further accelerate the adoption of solar power and contribute to global efforts to combat climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Defer payments or set no-penalty payment plans

✅ Apply for up to $600 Customer Crisis Fund grants

✅ Measures to ensure reliable power and remote customer service

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

SaskPower-Manitoba Hydro Power Sale outlines up to 215 MW of clean hydroelectric baseload for Saskatchewan, supporting renewable energy targets, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and interprovincial transmission line capacity starting 2022 under a 30-year agreement.

Key Points

A long-term deal supplying up to 215 MW of hydroelectric baseload from Manitoba to Saskatchewan to cut emissions.

✅ Up to 215 MW delivered starting 2022 via new intertie

✅ Supports 40% GHG reduction target by 2030

✅ 30-year term; complements wind and solar integration

Saskatchewan's Crown-owned electric utility has made an agreement to buy more hydroelectricty from Manitoba.

A term sheet providing for a new long--term power sale has been signed between Manitoba Hydro and SaskPower which will see up to 215 megawatts flow from Manitoba to Saskatchewan, as new turbine investments advance in Manitoba, beginning in 2022.

SaskPower has two existing power purchase agreements with Manitoba Hydro that were made in 2015 and 2016, but the newest one announced Monday is the largest, as financial pressures at Manitoba Hydro continue.

SaskPower President and CEO Mike Marsh says in a news release that the clean, hydroelectric power represents a significant step forward when it comes to reaching the utility's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent by 2030, aligning with progress on renewable electricity by 2030 initiatives.

Marsh says it's also reliable baseload electricity, which SaskPower will need as it adds more intermittent generation options like wind and solar.

SaskPower says a final legal contract for the sale is expected to be concluded by mid-2019 and be in effect by 2022, and the purchase agreement would last up to 30 years.

"Manitoba Hydro has been a valued neighbour and business partner over the years and this is a demonstration of that relationship," Marsh said in the news release.

The financial terms of the agreement are not being released, though SaskPower's latest annual report offers context on its finances.

Both parties say the sale will partially rely on the capacity provided by a new transmission line planned for construction between Tantallon, Sask. and Birtle, Man. that was previously announced in 2015 and is expected to be in service by 2021.

"Revenues from this sale will assist in keeping electricity rates affordable for our Manitoba customers, while helping SaskPower expand and diversify its renewable energy supply," Manitoba Hydro president and CEO Kelvin Shepherd said in the utility's own news release.

In 2015, SaskPower signed a 25 megawatt agreement with Manitoba Hydro that lasts until 2022. A 20-year agreement for 100 megawatts was signed in 2016 and comes into effect in 2020, and SaskPower is also exploring a purchase from Flying Dust First Nation to further diversify supply.

The deals are part of a memorandum of understanding signed in 2013 involving up to 500 megawatts.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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