Stimulus money better spent on transmission

Florida Hurricane Irma Power Outages strain the grid as utilities plan rebuilds; FPL and Duke Energy deploy crews to restore transmission lines, substations, and service amid flooding, storm surge, and widespread disruptions statewide.

Key Points

Large-scale post-storm power losses in Florida requiring grid rebuilds, thousands of crews, and phased restoration.

✅ Utilities prioritize plants, transmission, substations, then critical facilities

✅ 50,000-60,000 workers mobilized; bucket trucks wait for safe winds

✅ Remote rerouting and hardening aid faster restoration amid flooding

Parts of Florida could be without electricity for more than a week, as damage from Hurricane Irma will require a complete rebuild of portions of the electricity grid, utility executives said on Monday.

Irma has knocked out power to 6.5 million Florida electricity customers, or nearly two-thirds of the state, since making landfall this weekend. In major areas such as Miami-Dade, 74 percent of the county was without power, according to Florida's division of emergency management.

Getting that power back online may require the help of 50,000 to 60,000 workers from all over the United States and Canadian power crews as well, according to Southern Company CEO and Chairman Thomas Fanning. He is also co-chair of the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council, which coordinates the utility industry and government response to disasters and cyberthreats.

While it is not uncommon for severe storms to down power lines and damage utility poles, Irma's heavy winds and rain batted some of the state's infrastructure to the ground, Fanning said.

"'Restore' may not capture the full sense of where we are. For the very hard impacted areas, I think you're in a 'rebuild' area," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."

"That's a big deal. People need to understand this is going to take perhaps weeks, not days, in some areas," Fanning said.

Parts of northern Florida, including Jacksonville, experienced heavy flooding, which will temporarily prevent crews from accessing some areas.

Duke Energy, which serves 1.8 million customers in parts of central and northwestern Florida, is trying to restore service to 1.2 million residences and businesses.

Florida Power & Light Company, which provides power to an estimated 4.9 million accounts across the state, had about 3.5 million customers without electricity as of Monday afternoon, said Rob Gould, vice president and chief communications officer at FPL.

The initial damage assessments suggest power can be restored to parts of the state's east coast in just days, but some of the west coast will require rebuilding that could stretch out for weeks, Gould told CNBC's "Power Lunch."

"This is not a typical restoration that you're going to see. We actually for the first time in our company history have our entire 27,000-square-mile, 35-county territory under assault by Irma," he said.

FPL said it would first repair any damage to power plants, transmission lines and substations as part of its massive response to Irma, then prioritize critical facilities such as hospitals and water treatment plants. The electricity company would then turn its attention to areas that are home to supermarkets, gas stations and other community services.

Florida utilities invested billions into their systems after devastating hurricane seasons in 2004 and 2005 in order to make them more resilient and easier to restore after a storm. Irma, which ranked among the most powerful storms in the Atlantic, has nevertheless tested those systems.

The upgrades have allowed FPL to automatically reroute power and address about 1.5 million outages, Gould said. The company strategically placed 19,500 restoration workers before the storm hit, but it cannot use bucket trucks to fix power lines until winds die down, he said.

Some parts of Florida's distribution system — the lines that deliver electricity from power plants to businesses and residences — run underground. However, the state's long coastline and the associated danger of storm surge and seawater incursion make it impractical to run lines beneath the surface in some areas.

Duke Energy has equipped 28 percent of its system with smart grid technology to reroute power remotely, according to Harry Sideris, Duke's state president for Florida. He said the company would continue to build out that capability in the future.

Duke deployed more than 9,000 linesmen and support crew members to Irma-struck areas, but cannot yet say how long some customers will be without power.

Separately, Gulf Power crews reported restoring service to more than 32,000 customers.

"At this time we do not know the exact restoration times. However, we're looking at a week or longer from the first look at the widespread damage that we had," Sideris told CNBC's "Closing Bell."

FPL said on Monday it was doing final checks before bringing back nuclear reactors that were powered down as Hurricane Irma hit Florida.

"We are in the process now of doing final checks on a few of them; we will be bringing those up," FPL President and CEO Eric Silagy told reporters.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Bangladesh Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant advances nuclear energy with IAEA support and ROSATOM construction, boosting energy security, baseload capacity, and grid reliability; 2400 MW units aid development, regulatory compliance, and newcomer infrastructure milestones.

Key Points

A 2400 MW nuclear project in Rooppur, built with IAEA guidance and ROSATOM, to boost Bangladesh's reliable power.

✅ Two units totaling 2400 MW for stable baseload supply

✅ IAEA Milestones and INIR reviews guide safe deployment

✅ ROSATOM builds; national regulator strengthens oversight

The beginning of construction at Bangladesh’s first nuclear power reactor on 30 November 2017 marked a significant milestone in the decade-long process to bring the benefits of nuclear energy to the world’s eighth most populous country. The IAEA has been supporting Bangladesh on its way to becoming the third ‘newcomer’ country to nuclear power in 30 years, following the United Arab Emirates in 2012 and Belarus in 2013.

Bangladesh is in the process of implementing an ambitious, multifaceted development programme to become a middle-income country by 2021 and a developed country by 2041. Vastly increased electricity production, with the goal of connecting 2.7 million more homes to the grid by 2021, is a cornerstone of this push for development, and nuclear energy will play a key role in this area, said Mohammad Shawkat Akbar, Managing Director of Nuclear Power Plant Company Bangladesh Limited. Bangladesh is also working to diversify its energy supply to enhance energy security, reduce its dependence on imports and on its limited domestic resources, he added.

#google# In the region, India's nuclear program is taking steps to get back on track, underscoring broader momentum.

“Bangladesh is introducing nuclear energy as a safe, environmentally friendly and economically viable source of electricity generation,” said Akbar.  The plant in Rooppur, 160 kilometres north-west of Dhaka, will consist of two units, with a combined power capacity of 2400 MW(e). It is being built by a subsidiary of Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corporation ROSATOM. The first unit is scheduled to come online in 2023 and the second in 2024, reflecting progress similar to the UK's latest nuclear power station developments.  “This project will enhance the development of the social, economic, scientific and technological potential of the country,” Akbar said.

The country’s goal of increased electricity production via nuclear energy will soon be a reality, Akbar said. “For 60 years, Bangladesh has had a dream of building its own nuclear power plant. The Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant will provide not only a stable baseload of electricity, but it will enhance our knowledge and allow us to increase our economic efficiency.

Milestones for nuclear

Bangladesh is among around 30 countries that are considering, planning or starting the introduction of nuclear power, with milestones at nuclear projects worldwide offering context for this progress. The IAEA assists them in developing their programmes through the Milestones Approach — a methodology that provides guidance on working towards the establishment of nuclear power in a newcomer country, including the associated infrastructure. It focuses on pointing out gaps, if any, in countries’ progress towards the introduction of nuclear power.

The IAEA has been supporting Bangladesh in developing its nuclear power infrastructure, including in establishing a regulatory framework and developing a radioactive waste-management system. This support has been delivered under the IAEA technical cooperation programme and is partially funded through the Peaceful Uses Initiative.

Nuclear infrastructure is multifaceted, containing governmental, legal, regulatory and managerial components, in addition to the physical infrastructure. The Milestones Approach consists of three phases, with a milestone to be reached at the end of each.

The first phase involves considerations before a decision is taken to start a nuclear power programme and concludes with the official commitment to the programme. The second phase entails preparatory work for the contracting and construction of a nuclear power plant, as seen in Bulgaria's nuclear project planning, ending with the commencement of bids or contract negotiations for the construction. The final phase includes activities to implement the nuclear power plant, such as the final investment decision, contracting and construction. The duration of these phases varies by country, but they typically take between 10 and 15 years.

“The IAEA Milestones Approach is a guiding document and the Integrated Work Plan (IWP) is the important means of bringing all of the stakeholders in Bangladesh together to ensure the fulfilment of all safety, security, and safeguards requirements of the Rooppur NPP project,” said Akbar. “This IWP enabled Bangladesh to develop a holistic approach to implementing IAEA guidance as well as cooperating with national stakeholders and other bilateral partners towards the development of a national nuclear power programme.”

When completed, the two units of the Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant will have a combined power capacity of 2400 MW(e). (Photo: Arkady Sukhonin/Rosatom)

INIR Mission

The Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR) is a holistic peer review to assist Member States in assessing the status of their national infrastructure for introducing nuclear power. The IAEA completed its first INIR mission to Bangladesh in November 2011, making recommendations on how to develop a plan to establish the nuclear infrastructure. Nearly five years later, in May 2016, a follow-up mission was conducted, which noted the progress made — Bangladesh had established a nuclear regulatory body, had chosen a site for the power plant and had completed site characterization and environmental impact assessment.

“The IAEA and other bodies, including those from experienced countries, can and do provide support, but the responsibility for safety and security will lie with the Government,” said Dohee Hahn, Director of the IAEA’s Division of Nuclear Power, at the ceremony for the pouring of the first nuclear safety-related concrete at Rooppur on 30 November 2017. “The IAEA stands ready to continue supporting Bangladesh in developing a safe, secure, peaceful and sustainable nuclear power programme.”

Supporting Infrastructure for Introducing a Nuclear Power Plant in Bangladesh: the IAEA Assists with the Review of Regulatory Guidance on Site Evaluation

How the IAEA Assists Newcomer Countries in Building Their Way to Sustainable Energy

"Exciting times for nuclear power," IAEA Director General Says

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

ESCC COVID-19 Response coordinates utilities, public power, and cooperatives to protect the energy grid and electricity reliability, aligning with DOE, DHS, CDC, FERC, and NERC on continuity of operations, mutual assistance, and supply chain resilience.

Key Points

An industry government effort ensuring reliability, operations continuity and supply chain stability during COVID-19.

✅ Twice weekly ESCC calls align DOE, DHS, HHS, CDC, FERC, NERC priorities.

✅ Focus on control centers, generation, quarantine access, mutual aid.

✅ Resource Guide supports localized decisions and supply chain resilience.

The nation’s investor-owned electric companies, public power utilities, and electric cooperatives are working together to protect the energy grid as the U.S. grid addresses COVID-19 challenges and ensure continued access to safe and reliable electricity during the COVID-19 global health crisis.

The electric power industry has been planning for years, including extensive disaster planning across utilities, for an emergency like the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as countless other types of emergencies, and the industry is coordinating closely with government partners through the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council (ESCC) to ensure that organizations have the resources they need to keep the lights on.

The ESCC is holding high-level coordination calls twice a week with senior leadership from the Departments of Energy, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. These calls help ensure that industry and government work together to resolve any challenges that arise during this health emergency and that electricity remains safe for customers.

“Electricity and the energy grid are indispensable to our society, and one of our greatest strengths as an industry is our ability to convene and adapt quickly to changing circumstances and challenging events,” said Edison Electric Institute President Tom Kuhn. “Our industry plans for all types of contingencies, with examples such as local response planning, and strong industry-government coordination and cross-sector collaboration are critical to our planning and response. We appreciate the ongoing leadership and support of our government partners as we all respond to COVID-19 and power through this crisis together.”

The ESCC quickly mobilized and established strategic working groups dedicated to identifying and solving for short-, medium-, and long-term issues facing the industry during the COVID-19 pandemic, with utilities implementing necessary precautions to maintain service across regions.

The five current areas of focus are:

1. Continuity of operations at control centers, including on-site staff lockdowns when needed
2. Continuity of operations at generation facilities
3. Access to, and operations in, restricted or quarantined areas
4. Protocols for mutual assistance
5. Supply chain challenges

“The electric power industry has taken steps to prepare for the evolving coronavirus challenges, while maintaining our commitment to the communities we serve, including customer relief efforts announced by some providers,” said National Rural Electric Cooperative Association CEO Jim Matheson. “We have a strong track record of preparing for many kinds of emergencies that could impact the ability to generate and deliver electricity. While planning for this situation is unique from other business continuity planning, we are taking actions to prepare to operate with a smaller workforce, potential disruptions in the supply chain, and limited support services for an extended period of time.”

The ESCC has developed a COVID-19 Resource Guide linked here and available at electricitysubsector.org. This document was designed to support electric power industry leaders in making informed localized decisions in response to this evolving health crisis. The guide will evolve as additional recommended practices are identified and as more is learned about appropriate mitigation strategies.

“The American Public Power Association (APPA) continues to work with our communityowned public power members and our industry and government partners to gather and share upto-date information, best practices, and guidance to support them in safely maintaining operational integrity,” said APPA CEO Joy Ditto.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hurricane Ida New Orleans Infrastructure faced a split outcome: levees and pumps protected against storm surge, while the power grid collapsed as transmission lines failed, prompting large-scale restoration efforts across Louisiana and Mississippi.

Key Points

It summarizes Ida's impact: levees and pumps held, but the power grid failed, causing outages and slow restoration.

✅ Levees and pumps mitigated flooding and storm surge impacts.

✅ All transmission lines failed, crippling the power grid.

✅ Crews and drones assess damage; restoration may take weeks.

Infrastructure in the city of New Orleans turned in a mixed performance against the fury of Hurricane Ida, with the levees and pumps warding off catastrophic flooding even as the electrical grid, part of the broader Louisiana power grid, failed spectacularly.

Ida’s high winds, measuring 150 miles (240 kilometers) an hour at landfall, took out all eight transmissions lines that deliver power into New Orleans, ripped power poles in half and crumpled at least one steel transmission tower into a twisted metal heap, knocking out electricity to all of the city. A total of more than 1.2 million homes and businesses in Louisiana and Mississippi lost power. While about 90,000 customers were reconnected by Monday afternoon, many could face days without electricity, and frustration can mount as seen during the Houston outage after major storms.

In contrast, the New Orleans area’s elaborate flood defenses seem to have held up, a vindication of the Army Corps of Engineers’ $14.5 billion project to rebuild levees, flood gates and pumps in the wake of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. While there were reports of scattered deaths tied to Ida, the city escaped the kind of flooding that destroyed entire neighborhoods in Katrina’s wake, left parts of the city uninhabitable for months and claimed 1,800 lives. 

“The situation in New Orleans, as bad as it is today with the power, could be so much worse,” Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards said Monday on the Today Show, praising the levee system’s performance. “All you have to do is go back 16 years to get a glimpse of what that would have been like.”

While the levees’ resiliency is no doubt due to the rebuilding effort that followed Katrina, the starkly different outcomes also stems from the storms’ different characteristics. Katrina slammed the coast with a 30-foot storm surge of ocean water, while preliminary estimates from Ida put its surge far lower. 

Ida’s winds, however, were stronger than Katrina’s, and that’s what ultimately took out so many power lines, a dynamic that also saw Texas utilities struggle during Harvey. Deanna Rodriguez, the chief executive officer of power provider Entergy New Orleans, declined to comment on when service would be restored, saying the company was using helicopters and drones to help assess the damage.

Michael Webber, an energy and engineering professor at the University of Texas at Austin, estimated power restoration will take days and possibly weeks, a pattern seen in Florida restoration timelines after major hurricanes, based on the initial damage reports from the storm. More than 25,000 workers from at least 32 states and Washington are mobilized to assist with power restoration efforts, similar to FPL's massive response after Irma, according to the Edison Electric Institute.

“The question is, how long will it take to rebuild these lines,” Webber said. The utilities will first need to complete their damage assessments before they can get a sense of repair timelines, a step that Gulf Power crews have highlighted in past recoveries, he said. “You can imagine that will take days at least, possibly weeks.”

The loss of electricity will have other affects as well, and even though grid resilience during the pandemic was strong, local systems face immediate constraints. Sewer substations, for example, need electricity to keep wastewater moving, said Ghassan Korban, executive director of the New Orleans Sewerage & Water Board. The storm knocked out power to about 80 of the city’s 84 pumping stations, he said at a Monday press conference. “Without electricity, wastewater backs up and can cause overflows,” he said, adding that residents should conserve water to lessen stress on the system.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Ontario Pickering Nuclear Closure will shift supply to natural gas, raising emissions as the electricity grid manages nuclear refurbishment, IESO planning, clean power imports, and new wind, solar, and storage to support electrification.

Key Points

Ontario will close Pickering and rely on natural gas, increasing emissions while other nuclear units are refurbished.

✅ 14% of Ontario electricity supplied by Pickering now

✅ Natural gas use rises; grid emissions projected up 375%

✅ IESO warns gas phaseout by 2030 risks blackouts, costs

The Ontario government will not reconsider plans to close the Pickering nuclear station and instead stop-gap the consequent electricity shortfall with natural gas-generated power in a move that will, as an analysis of Ontario's grid shows, hike the province’s greenhouse gas emissions substantially in the coming years.

In a report released this week, a nuclear advocacy group urged Ontario to refurbish the aging facility east of Toronto, which is set to be shuttered in phases in 2024 and 2025, prompting debate over a clean energy plan after Pickering as the closure nears. The closure of Pickering, which provides 14 per cent of the province’s annual electricity supply, comes at the same time as Ontario’s other two nuclear stations are undergoing refurbishment and operating at reduced capacity.

Canadians for Nuclear Energy, which is largely funded by power workers' unions, argued closing the 50-year-old facility will result in job losses, emissions increases, heightened reliance on imported natural gas and an electricity supply gap across Ontario.

But Palmer Lockridge, spokesperson for the provincial energy minister, said further extending Pickering’s lifespan isn’t on the table.

“As previously announced in 2020, our government is supporting Ontario Power Generation’s plan to safely extend the life of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station through the end of 2025,” said Lockridge in an emailed response to questions.

“Going forward, we are ensuring a reliable, affordable and clean electricity system for decades to come. That’s why we put a plan in place that ensures we are prepared for the emerging energy needs following the closure of Pickering, and as a result of our government’s success in growing and electrifying the province’s economy.”

The Progressive Conservative government under Premier Doug Ford has invested heavily in electrification, sinking billions into electric vehicle and battery manufacturing and industries like steel-making to retool plants to run on electricity rather than coal, and exploring new large-scale nuclear plants to bolster baseload supply.

Natural gas now provides about seven per cent of the province’s energy, a piece of the pie that will rise significantly as nuclear energy dwindles. Emissions from Ontario’s electricity grid, which is currently one of the world’s cleanest with 94 per cent zero-emission power generation, are projected to rise a whopping 375 per cent as the province turns increasingly to natural gas generation. Those increases will effectively undo a third of the hard-won emissions reductions the province achieved by phasing out coal-fired power generation.

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), which manages Ontario’s grid, studied whether the province could phase out natural gas generation by 2030 and concluded that “would result in blackouts and hinder electrification” and increase average residential electricity costs by $100 per month.

The Ontario Clean Air Alliance, however, obtained draft documents from the electricity operator that showed it had studied, but not released publicly, other scenarios that involved phasing out natural gas without energy shortfalls, price hikes or increases in emissions.

The Ontario government will not reconsider plans to close the Pickering nuclear station and instead stop-gap the consequent electricity shortfall facing Ontario with natural gas-generated power in a move that will hike the province’s greenhouse gas emissions.

One model suggested increasing carbon taxes and imports of clean energy from other provinces could keep blackouts, costs and emissions at bay, while another involved increasing energy efficiency, wind generation and storage.

“By banning gas-fired electricity exports to the U.S., importing all the Quebec water power we can with the existing transmission lines and investing in energy efficiency and wind and solar and storage — do all those things and you can phase out gas-fired power and lower our bills,” said Jack Gibbons, chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance.

The IESO has argued in response that the study of those scenarios was not complete and did not include many of the challenges associated with phasing out natural gas plants.

Ontario Energy Minister Todd Smith asked the IESO to develop “an achievable pathway to zero-emissions in the electricity sector and evaluate a moratorium on new-build natural gas generation stations,” said his spokesperson. That report, an early look at halting gas power, is expected in November.

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