Anger erupts over conflicting coal bed decisions

Texas Power Grid Reliability faces ERCOT blackouts and winter storm risks; solutions span weatherization, natural gas coordination, PUC-ERCOT reform, capacity market signals, demand response, grid batteries, and geothermal to maintain resilient electricity supply.

Key Points

Texas Power Grid Reliability is ERCOT's ability to keep electricity flowing during extreme weather and demand spikes.

✅ Weatherize power plants and gas supply to prevent freeze-offs

✅ Merge PUC and Railroad Commission for end-to-end oversight

✅ Pay for firm capacity, demand response, and grid storage

The blackouts in February shined a light on the fragile infrastructure that supports modern life. More and more, every task in life requires electricity, and no one is in charge of making sure Texans have enough.

Of the 4.5 million Texans who lost power last winter, many of them also lost heat and at least 100 froze to death. Wi-Fi stopped working and phones soon lost their charges, making it harder for people to get help, find someplace warm to go or to check in on loved ones.

In some places pipes froze, and people couldn’t get water to drink or flush after power and water failures disrupted systems, and low water pressure left some health care facilities unable to properly care for patients. Many folks looking for gasoline were out of luck; pumps run on electricity.

But rather than scouting for ways to use less electricity, we keep plugging in more things. Automatic faucets and toilets, security systems and locks. Now we want to plug in our cars, so that if the grid goes down, we have to hope our Teslas have enough juice to get to Oklahoma.

The February freeze illuminated two problems with electricity sufficiency. First, power plants had mechanical failures, triggering outages for days. But also, Texans demanded a lot more electricity than usual as heaters kicked on because of the cold. The ugly truth is, the Texas power grid probably couldn’t have generated enough electricity to meet demand, even if the plants kept whirring. And that is what should chill us now.

The stories of the people who died because the electricity went out during the freeze are difficult to read. A paletero and cotton-candy vendor well known in Old East Dallas, Leobardo Torres Sánchez, was found dead in his armchair, bundled in quilts beside two heaters that had no power.

Arnulfo Escalante Lopez, 41, and Jose Anguiano Torres, 28, died from carbon monoxide poisoning after using a gas-powered generator to heat their apartment in Garland.

Pramod Bhattarai, 23, a college student from Nepal, died from carbon monoxide after using a charcoal grill to heat his home in Houston, according to news reports. And Loan Le, 75; Olivia Nguyen, 11; Edison Nguyen, 8; and Colette Nguyen, 5, died in Sugar Land after losing control of a fire they started in the fireplace to keep warm.

A 65-year-old San Antonio man with esophageal cancer died after power outages cut off supply from his oxygen machine. And local Abilene media reported that a man died in a local hospital when a loss of water pressure prevented staff from treating him.

Gloria Jones of Hillsboro, 87, was living by herself, healthy and social. According to the Houston Chronicle, as the cold weather descended, she told her friends and family she was fine. But when her children checked on her after she didn’t answer her phone, they found her on the floor beside her bed. Hospital workers tried to warm her, but they soon pronounced her dead.

Officials said in July that 210 people died because of the freezing weather, including those who died in car crashes and other weather-related causes, but that figure will be updated. The Department of State Health Services said most of those deaths were due to hypothermia.

Policy recommendation: Weatherize power plants and fuel suppliers

Texas could have avoided those deaths if power plants had worked properly. It’s mechanically possible to generate electricity in freezing temperatures; the Swedes and Finns have electricity in winter. But preparing equipment for the winter costs money, and now that the Public Utility Commission set new requirements for plant owners to weatherize equipment, we expect better reliability.

The PUC officials certainly expect better performance. Chairman Peter Lake earlier this month promised: “We go into this winter knowing that because of all these efforts the lights will stay on.”

Yet, there’s no matching requirement to weatherize key fuel supplies for natural gas-fired power plants. While the PUC and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas were busy this year coming up with standards and enforcement processes, the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates oil and gas production, was not.

The Railroad Commission is working to ensure that natural gas producers who supply power plants have filed the proper paperwork so that they do not lose electricity in a blackout, rendering them unable to provide vital fuel. But weatherization regulations will not happen for some months, not in time for this winter.

Policy recommendation: Combine the state’s Public Utility Commission and Railroad Commission into one energy agency

Electricity and natural gas regulators came to realize the importance of natural gas suppliers communicating their electricity needs with the PUC to avoid getting cut off when the fuel is needed the most. Not last year; they realized this ten years ago, when the same thing happened and triggered a day of rolling outages.

Why did it take a decade for the companies regulated by one agency to get their paperwork in order with a separate agency? It makes more sense for a single agency to regulate the entire energy process, from wellhead to lightbulb. (Or well-to-wheel, as cars increasingly need electricity, too.)

Over the years, various legislative sunset commissions have recommended combining the agencies, with different governance suggestions, none of which passed the Legislature. We urge lawmakers in 2023 to take up the idea in earnest, hammer out the governance details, and make sure the resulting agency has the heft and resources to regulate energy in a way that keeps the industry healthy and holds it accountable.

Policy recommendation: Incentivize building more power plants

Regardless, if energy companies in February had operated their equipment exactly right, the lights likely would have still gone out. Perhaps for a shorter period, perhaps in a more shared way, allowing people to keep homes above freezing and phones charged between rolling blackouts. But Texas was heading for trouble.

Before the winter freeze, ERCOT anticipated Texas would have 74,000 MW of power generation capacity for the winter of 2021. That’s less than the usual summer fleet as some plants go down for maintenance in the winter, but sufficient to meet their wildest predictions of winter electricity demand. The power generation on hand for the winter would have met the historic record winter demand, at 65,918 MW. Even in ERCOT’s planning scenario with extreme generator failures, the grid had enough capacity.

But during the second week of February, as weather forecasts became more dire, grid operators began rapidly hiking their estimates of electricity demand. On Valentine’s Day, ERCOT estimated demand would rise to 75,573 MW in the coming week.

Clearly that is more demand than all of Texas’ winter power generation fleet of 74,000 MW could handle. Demand never reached that level because ERCOT turned off service to millions of customers when power plants failed.

This raises questions about whether the Texas grid has enough power plants to remain resilient as climate change brings more frequent bouts of extreme weather and blackout risks across the U.S. Or if we have enough power to grow, as more people and companies, more homes and businesses and manufacturing plants, move to Texas.

What a shame if the Texas Miracle, our robust and growing economy, died because we ran out of electricity.

This is no exaggeration. In November, ERCOT released its seasonal assessment of whether Texas will have enough electricity resources for the coming winter. If weather is normal, yes, Texas will be in good shape. But if extreme weather again pushes Texas to use an inordinate amount of electricity for heat, and if wind and solar output are low, there won’t be enough. In that scenario, even if power plants mostly continue to operate properly, we should brace for outages.

Further, there are few investors planning to build more power plants in Texas, other than solar and wind. Renewable plants have many good qualities, but reliability isn’t one of them. Some investors are building grid-scale batteries, a technology that promises to add reliability to the grid.

How come power plant developers aren’t building more generators, especially with flat electricity demand in many markets today?

Policy recommendation: Incentivize reliability

The Texas electrical grid, independent of the rest of the U.S., operates as a competitive market. No regulator plans a power plant; investors choose to build plants based on expectations of profit.

How it works is, power generators offer their electricity into the market at the price of their choosing. ERCOT accepts the lowest bids first, working up to higher bids as demand for power increases in the course of a day.

The idea is that Texans always get the lowest possible price, and if prices rise high, investors will build more power plants. Basic supply and demand. When the market was first set up, this worked pretty well, because the big, reliable baseload generators, the coal and nuclear industries, were the cheapest to operate and bid their power at prices that kept them online all the time. The more agile natural gas-fired plants ramped up and down to meet demand minute-by-minute, at higher prices.

Renewable energy disrupts the market in ways that are great, generating cheap, clean power that has forced some high-polluting coal plants to mothball. But the disruption also undermines reliability. Wind and solar plants are the cheapest and quickest power generation to build and they have the lowest operating cost, allowing them to bid very low prices into the power market. Wind tends to blow hardest in West Texas at night, so the abundance of wind turbines has pushed many of those old baseload plants out of the market.

That’s how markets work, and we’re not crying for coal plant operators. But ERCOT has to figure out how to operate the market differently to keep the lights on.

The PUC announced a slew of electricity market reforms last week to address this very problem, including new to market pricing and an emergency reliability service for ERCOT to contract for more back-up power. These changes cost money, but failing to make any changes could cost more lives.

Texas became the No. 1 wind state thanks in part to a smart renewable energy credit system that created financial incentives to erect wind turbines. But those credits mean that sometimes at night, wind generators bid electricity into the market at negative prices, because they will make money off of the renewable energy credits.

It’s time for the Legislature to review the credit program to determine if it’s still needed, of a similar program could be added to incentivize reliability. The market-based program worked better than anyone could have expected to produce clean energy. Why not use this approach to create what we need now: clean and reliable energy?

We were pleased that PUC commissioners discussed last week an idea that would create a market for reliable power generation capacity by adding requirements that power market participants meet a standard of reliability guarantees.

A market for reliable electricity capacity will cost more, and we hope regulators keep the requirements as modest as possible. Renewable requirements were modest, but turned out to be powerful in a competitive market.

We expect a reliability program to be flexible enough that entrepreneurs can participate with new technology, such as batteries or geothermal energy or something that hasn’t been invented yet, rather than just old reliable fossil fuels.

We also welcome the PUC’s review of pricing rules for the market. Commissioners intend for a new pricing formula to offer early price signals of pending scarcity, to allow time for industrial customers to reduce consumption or suppliers to ramp up. This is intriguing, but we hope the final implementation keeps market interventions at a minimum.

We witnessed in February a scenario in which extremely high prices on the power market did nothing to attract more electricity into the market. Power plants broke down; there was no way to generate more power, no matter how high market prices went. So the PUC was silly to intervene in the market and keep prices artificially high; the outcome was billions of dollars of debt and a proposed electricity market bailout that electricity customers will end up paying.

Nor did this PUC pricing intervention prompt power generation developers to say: “I tell you what, let’s build more plants in Texas.” In the next few years, ERCOT can expect more solar power generation to come online, but little else.

Natural gas plant operators have told the PUC that market price signals show that a new plant wouldn’t be profitable. Natural gas plants are cheaper and faster to build than nuclear reactors; if those developers cannot figure out how to make money, then the prospect of a new nuclear reactor in Texas is a fantasy, even setting aside the environmental and political opposition.

Policy proposal: Use less energy

Politicians like to imagine that technology will solve our energy problem. But the quickest, cheapest, cleanest solution to all of our energy problems is to use less. Investing some federal infrastructure money to make homes more energy efficient would cut energy use, and could help homes retain heat in an emergency.

The PUC’s plan to offer more incentives for major power users to reduce demand in a grid emergency is a good idea. Bravo – next let’s take this benefit to the masses.

Upgrading building codes to require efficiency for office buildings and apartments can help, and might have prevented the frozen pipes in so many multifamily housing units that left people without water.

When North Texas power-line utility Oncor invested in smart grid technology in past decades, part of the promise was to help users reduce demand when electricity prices rise or in emergencies. A review and upgrade of the smart technology could allow more customers to benefit from discounts in exchange for turning things off when electricity supply is tight.

Problem is, we seem to be going in the opposite direction as consumers. Forget turning off the TV and unplugging the coffee machine as we leave the house each morning; now everything is always-on and always connected to Wi-Fi. Our appliances, electronics and the services that operate them can text us when anything interesting happens, like the laundry finishes or somebody opens the patio door or the first season of Murder She Wrote is available for streaming.

As Texans plug in electric vehicles, we will need even more power generation capacity. Researchers at the University of Texas at Austin estimated that if every Texan switched to an electric vehicle, demand for electricity would rise about 30%.

Texans will need to think realistically and rationally about where that electricity is going to come from. Before we march toward a utopian vision of an all-electric world, we need to make sure we have enough electricity.

Getting this right is a matter of life and death for each of one us and for Texas.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Germany Solar Cap Removal would accelerate photovoltaics, storage, and renewables, replacing coal and nuclear during phaseout with 10GW per year toward 162GW by 2030, boosting grid resilience, O&M jobs, and domestic clean energy growth.

Key Points

A policy change to scrap the 52GW limit, enabling 10GW/year PV and storage to replace coal and nuclear capacity.

✅ Scrap 52GW cap to prevent post-2020 market slump

✅ Add 10GW PV annually; scale residential, commercial, grid storage

✅ Create jobs in planning, installation, and O&M through 2030

The German Solar Association (BSW) has called on the government to remove barriers to the development of new solar power capacity in Germany and storage capacity needed to replace coal and nuclear generation that is being phased out.

A 52GW cap should be scrapped, otherwise there is a risk that a market slump will occur in the solar industry after 2020, BSW said, especially as U.S. solar expansion plans signal accelerating global demand.

BSW managing director Carsten Körnig said: “Time is running out, and further delays are irresponsible. The 52GW mark will already be reached within a few months.”
A new report from BSW, in cooperation with Bonn-based marketing and social research company EuPD Research and The smarter E Europe initiative, said 10GW a year is needed as well as an increase in battery storage capacity.

This would lead to cumulative photovoltaic capacity of 162GW and 15GW residential, commercial and grid storage systems by 2030, in line with global renewable records being set, leading to new job opportunities.

The number of jobs in the domestic photovoltaic and storage industries could increase to 78,000 by the end of the next decade from today’s level of 26,400, aligning with forecasts of wind and solar reaching 50% by mid-century, said 'The Energy Transition in the Context of the Nuclear and Coal Phaseout – Perspectives in the Electricity Market to 2040' study.

Job growth would take place for the most part in the fields of planning, installation and operations and maintenance of PV systems, as solar uptake in Poland increases, the report said.

In maintenance alone, employment would increase from 9,200 to 26,000, with additional opened up by tapping into the market potential of medium- to long-term storage systems, alongside changing electricity prices in Northern Europe that favor flexibility, it said.

The report added that industry revenue could grow from €5bn to €12.5bn in the coming decade.

The report was supported by BayWa Re E3/DC, Fronius, Goldbeck Solar, IBC Solar, Panasonic, Sharp, Siemens, Sonnen, Suntech, Tesvolt and Varta.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Fukushima Hydrogen Energy System leverages a 10,000 kW H2 production hub for grid balancing, demand response, and renewable integration, delivering hydrogen supply across Tohoku while supporting storage, forecasting, and flexible power management.

Key Points

A 10,000 kW H2 project in Namie for grid balancing, renewable integration, and regional hydrogen supply.

✅ 10,000 kW H2 production hub in Namie, Fukushima

✅ Balances renewable-heavy grids via demand response

✅ Supported by NEDO; partners Toshiba, Tohoku Electric, Iwatani

Toshiba Corporation, Tohoku Electric Power Co. and Iwatani Corporation have announced they will construct and operate a large-scale hydrogen (H2) energy system in Japan, based on a 10,000 kilowat class H2 production facility, which reflects advances in PEM hydrogen R&D worldwide.

The system, which will be built in Namie-Cho, Fukushima, will use H2 to offset grid loads and deliver H2 to locations in Tohoku and beyond, while complementary approaches like power-to-gas storage in Europe demonstrate broader storage options, and will seek to demonstrate the advantages of H2 as a solution in grid balancing and as a H2 gas supply.

The product has won a positive evaluation from Japan’s New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organisation (NEDO), and its continued support for the transition to the technical demonstration phase. The practical effectiveness of the large-scale system will be determined by verification testing in financial year 2020, even as interest grows in nuclear beyond electricity for complementary services.

The main objectives of the partners are to promote expanded use of renewable energy in the electricity grid, including UK offshore wind investment by Japanese utilities, in order to balance supply and demand and process load management; and to realise a new control system that optimises H2 production and supply with demand forecasting for H2.

Hiroyuki Ota, General Manager of Toshiba’s Energy Systems and Solutions Company, said, “Through this project, Toshiba will continue to provide comprehensive H2 solutions, encompassing all processes from the production to utilisation of hydrogen.”

Manager of Tohoku Electric Power Co., Ltd, Mitsuhiro Matsumoto, added, “We will study how to use H2 energy systems to stabilize electricity grids with the aim of increasing the use of renewable energy and contributing to Fukushima.”

Moriyuki Fujimoto, General Manager of Iwatani Corporation, commented, “Iwatani considers that this project will contribute to the early establishment of a H2 economy that draws on our experience in the transportation, storage and supply of industrial H2, and the construction and operation of H2stations.”

Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry’s ‘Long-term Energy Supply and Demand Outlook’ targets increasing the share of renewable energy in Japan’s overall power generation mix from 10.7% in 2013 to 22-24% by 2030. Since output from renewable energy sources is intermittent and fluctuates widely with the weather and season, grid management requires another compensatory power source, as highlighted by a near-blackout event in Japan. The large hydrogen energy system is expected to provide a solution for grids with a high penetration of renewables.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Germany Energy Transition faces offshore wind expansion, grid bottlenecks, and North-South transmission delays, while Nord Stream 2 boosts Russian gas reliance and lignite coal persists amid a nuclear phaseout and rising re-dispatch costs.

Key Points

Germanys shift to renewables faces grid delays, boosting gas via Nord Stream 2 and extending lignite coal use.

✅ Offshore wind grows, but grid congestion curtails turbines.

✅ Nord Stream 2 expands Russian gas supply to German industry.

✅ Lignite coal persists, raising emissions amid nuclear exit.

On a blazing hot August day on Germany’s Baltic Sea coast, a few hundred tourists skip the beach to visit the “Fascination Offshore Wind” exhibition, held in the port of Mukran at the Arkona wind park. They stand facing the sea, gawking at white fiberglass blades, which at 250 feet are longer than the wingspan of a 747 aircraft. Those blades, they’re told, will soon be spinning atop 60 wind-turbine towers bolted to concrete pilings driven deep into the seabed 20 miles offshore. By early 2019, Arkona is expected to generate 385 megawatts, enough electricity to power 400,000 homes.

“We really would like to give the public an idea of what we are going to do here,” says Silke Steen, a manager at Arkona. “To let them say, ‘Wow, impressive!’”

Had the tourists turned their backs to the sea and faced inland, they would have taken in an equally monumental sight, though this one isn’t on the day’s agenda: giant steel pipes coated in gray concrete, stacked five high and laid out in long rows on a stretch of dirt. The port manager tells me that the rows of 40-foot-long, 4-foot-thick pipes are so big that they can be seen from outer space. They are destined for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a colossus that, when completed next year, will extend nearly 800 miles from Russia to Germany, bringing twice the amount of gas that a current pipeline carries.

The two projects, whose cargo yards are within a few hundred feet of each other, provide a contrast between Germany’s dream of renewable energy and the political realities of cheap Russian gas. In 2010, Germany announced an ambitious goal of generating 80 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2050. In 2011, it doubled down on the commitment by deciding to shut down every last nuclear power plant in the country by 2022, as part of a broader coal and nuclear phaseout strategy embraced by policymakers. The German government has paid more than $600 billion to citizens and companies that generate solar and wind power. As a result, the generating capacity from renewable sources has soared: In 2017, a third of the nation’s electricity came from wind, solar, hydropower and biogas, up from 3.6 percent in 1990.

But Germany’s lofty vision has run into a gritty reality: Replacing fossil fuels and nuclear power in one of the largest industrial nations in the world is politically more difficult and expensive than planners thought. It has forced Germany to put the brakes on its ambitious renewables program, ramp up its investments in fossil fuels, amid a renewed nuclear option debate over climate strategy, and, to some extent, put its leadership role in the fight against climate change on hold.

The trouble lies with Germany’s electricity grid. Solar and wind power call for more complex and expensive distribution networks than conventional large power plants do. “What the Germans were good at was getting new technology into the market, like wind and solar power,” said Arne Jungjohann, author of Energy Democracy: Germany’s ENERGIEWENDE to Renewables. To achieve its goals, “Germany needs to overhaul its whole grid.”

The North-South Conundrum

The boom in wind power has created an unanticipated mismatch between supply and demand. Big wind turbines, especially offshore plants such as Arkona, produce powerful, concentrated gusts of energy. That’s good when the factory that needs that energy is nearby and the wind kicks up during working hours. It’s another matter when factories are hundreds of miles away. In Germany, wind farms tend to be located in the blustery north. Many of the nation’s big factories lie in the south, which also happens to be where most of the country’s nuclear plants are being mothballed.

Getting that power from north to south is problematic. On windy days, northern wind farms generate too much energy for the grid to handle. Power lines get overloaded. To cope, grid operators ask wind farms to disconnect their turbines from the grid—those elegant blades that tourists so admired sit idle. To ensure a supply of power, operators employ backup generators at great expense. These so-called re-dispatching costs ran to 1.4 billion euros ($1.6 billion) last year.

The solution is to build more power transmission lines to take the excess wind from northern wind farms to southern factories. A grid expansion project is underway to do exactly that. Nearly 5,000 miles of new transmission lines, at a cost of billions of euros, will be paid for by utility customers. So far, less than a fifth of the lines have been built.

The grid expansion is “catastrophically behind schedule,” Energy Minister Peter Altmaier told the Handelsblatt business newspaper in August. Among the setbacks: citizens living along the route of four high-voltage power lines have demanded the cables be buried underground, which has added to the time and expense. The lines won’t be finished before 2025—three years after Germany’s nuclear shutdown is due to be completed.

With this backlog, the government has put the brakes on wind power, reducing the number of new contracts for farms and curtailing the amount it pays for renewable energy. “In the past, we have focused too much on the mere expansion of renewable energy capacity,” Joachim Pfeiffer, a spokesman for the Christian Democratic Union, wrote to Newsweek. “We failed to synchronize this expansion of generation with grid expansion.”

Advocates of renewables are up in arms, accusing the government of suffocating their industry and making planning impossible. Thousands of people lost their jobs in the wind industry, according to Wolfram Axthelm, CEO of the German Wind Energy Association. “For 2019 and 2020, we see a highly problematic situation for the industry,” he wrote in an email.

Fueling the Gap

Nord Stream 2, by contrast, is proceeding according to schedule. A beige and black barge, Castoro 10, hauls dozens of lengths of giant pipe off Germany’s Baltic Sea coast, where a welding machine connects them for lowering onto the seabed. The $11 billion project is funded by Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom and five European investors, at no direct cost to the German taxpayer. It is slated to cross the territorial waters of five countries—Germany, Russia, Finland, Sweden and Denmark. All but Denmark have approved the route. “We have good reason to believe that after four governments said yes, that Denmark will also approve the pipeline,” says Nord Stream 2 spokesman Jens Mueller.

Construction of the pipeline off Finland began in September, and the gas is expected to start flowing in late 2019, giving Russia leverage to increase its share of the European gas market. It already provides a third of the gas used in the EU and will likely provide more after the Netherlands stops its gas production in 2030. President Donald Trump has called the pipeline “a very bad thing for NATO” and said that “Germany is totally controlled by Russia.” U.S. senators have threatened sanctions against companies involved in the project. Ukraine and Poland are concerned the new pipeline will make older pipelines in their territories irrelevant.

German leaders are also wary of dependence on Russia but are under considerable pressure to deliver energy to industry. Indeed, among the pipeline’s investors are German companies that want to run their factories, like BASF’s Wintershall subsidiary and Uniper, the German utility. “It’s not that Germany is naive,” says Kirsten Westphal, an energy expert at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. It’s just pragmatic. “Economically, the judgment is that yes, this gas will be needed, we have an import gap to fill.”

The electricity transmission problem has also opened an opportunity for lignite coal, as coal generation in Germany remains significant, the most carbon-intensive fuel available and the source for nearly a quarter of Germany’s power. Mining companies are expanding their operations in coal-rich regions to strip out the fuel while it is still relevant. In the village of Pödelwitz, 155 miles south of Berlin, most houses feature a white sign with the logo of Mibrag, the German mining giant, which has paid nearly all the 130 residents to relocate. The company plans to level the village and scrape lignite that lies below the soil.

A resurgence in coal helped raise carbon emissions in 2015 and 2016 (2017 saw a slight decline), maintaining Germany’s place as Europe’s largest carbon emitter. Chancellor Angela Merkel has scrapped her pledge to slash carbon emissions to 40 percent of 1990 levels by the year 2020. Several members have threatened to resign from her policy commission on coal if the government allows utility company RWE to mine for lignite in Hambach Forest.

Only a few years ago, during the Paris climate talks, Germany led the EU in pushing for ambitious plans to curb emissions. Now, it seems to be having second thoughts. Recently, the European Union’s climate chief, Miguel Arias Cañete, suggested EU nations step up their commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 45 percent of 1990 levels instead of 40 percent by 2030. “I think we should first stick to the goals we have already set ourselves,” Merkel replied, even as a possible nuclear phaseout U-turn is debated, “I don’t think permanently setting ourselves new goals makes any sense.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hornsea One Offshore Wind Farm delivers first power to the UK grid, scaling renewable energy with 1.2GW capacity, giant offshore turbines, and Yorkshire coast infrastructure to replace delayed nuclear and cut fossil fuel emissions.

Key Points

Hornsea One Offshore Wind Farm is a 1.2GW UK project delivering offshore renewable power to about 1 million homes.

✅ 174 turbines over 407 km2; Siemens Gamesa supply chain in the UK

✅ 1.2GW capacity can power ~1m homes; phases scale with 10MW+ turbines

✅ Supports UK grid, replaces delayed nuclear, cuts fossil generation

An offshore windfarm on the Yorkshire coast that will dwarf the world’s largest when completed is to supply its first power to the UK electricity grid this week, mirroring advances in tidal electricity projects delivering to the grid as well.

The Danish developer Ørsted, which has installed the first of 174 turbines at Hornsea One, said it was ready to step up its plans and fill the gap left by failed nuclear power schemes.

The size of the project takes the burgeoning offshore wind power sector to a new scale, on a par with conventional fossil fuel-fired power stations.

Hornsea One will cover 407 square kilometres, five times the size of the nearby city of Hull. At 1.2GW of capacity it will power 1m homes, making it about twice as powerful as today’s biggest offshore windfarm once it is completed in the second half of this year.

“The ability to generate clean electricity offshore at this scale is a globally significant milestone at a time when urgent action needs to be taken to tackle climate change,” said Matthew Wright, UK managing director of Ørsted, the world’s biggest offshore windfarm builder.

The power station is only the first of four planned in the area, with a green light and subsidies already awarded to a second stage due for completion in the early 2020s, and interest from Japanese utilities underscoring growing investor appetite.

The first two phases will use 7MW turbines, which are taller than London’s Gherkin building.

But the latter stages of the Hornsea development could use even more powerful, 10MW-plus turbines. Bigger turbines will capture more of the energy from the wind and should lower costs by reducing the number of foundations and amount of cabling firms need to put into the water, with developers noting that offshore wind can compete with gas in the U.S. as costs fall.

Henrik Poulsen, Ørsted’s chief executive, said he was in close dialogue with major manufacturers to use the new generation of turbines, some of which are expected to approach the height of the Shard in London, the tallest building in the EU.

The UK has a great wind resource and shallow enough seabed to exploit it, and could even “power most of Europe if it [the UK] went to the extreme with offshore”, he said.

Offshore windfarms could help ministers fill the low carbon power gap created by Hitachi and Toshiba scrapping nuclear plants, the executive suggested. “If nuclear should play less of a role than expected, I believe offshore wind can step up,” he said.

New nuclear projects in Europe had been “dramatically delayed and over budget”, he added, in comparison to “the strong track record for delivering offshore [wind]”.

The UK and Germany installed 85% of new offshore wind power capacity in the EU last year, according to industry data, with wind leading power across several markets. The average power rating of the turbines is getting bigger too, up 15% in 2018.

The turbines for Hornsea One are built and shipped from Siemens Gamesa’s factory in Hull, part of a web of UK-based suppliers that has sprung up around the growing sector, such as Prysmian UK's land cables supporting grid connections.

Around half of the project’s transition pieces, the yellow part of the structure that connects the foundation to the tower, are made in Teeside. Many of the towers themselves are made by a firm in Campbeltown in the Scottish highlands. Altogether, about half of the components for the project are made in the UK.

Ørsted is not yet ready to bid for a share of a £60m pot of further offshore windfarm subsidies, to be auctioned by the government this summer, but expects the price to reach even more competitive levels than those seen in 2017.

Like other international energy companies, Ørsted has put in place contingency planning in event of a no-deal Brexit – but the hope is that will not come to pass. “We want a Brexit deal that will facilitate an orderly transition out of the union,” said Poulsen.

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