New York operator wants new control center

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

New Zealand Renewable Energy Strategy examines decarbonisation, GHG emissions, and net energy as electrification accelerates, expanding hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar PV while weighing intermittency, storage, materials, and energy security for a resilient power system.

Key Points

A plan to expand electricity generation, balancing decarbonisation, net energy limits, and energy security.

✅ Distinguishes decarbonisation targets from renewable capacity growth

✅ Highlights net energy limits, intermittency, and storage needs

✅ Addresses materials, GHG build-out costs, and energy security

The Electricity Authority has released a document outlining a plan to achieve the Government’s goal of more than doubling the amount of electricity generated in New Zealand over the next few decades.

This goal is seen as a way of both reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions overall, as everything becomes electrified, and ensuring we have a 100 percent renewable energy system at our disposal. Often these two goals are seen as being the same – to decarbonise we must transition to more renewable energy to power our society.

But they are quite different goals and should be clearly differentiated. GHG emissions could be controlled very effectively by rationing the use of a fossil fuel lockdown approach, with declining rations being available over a few years. Such a direct method of controlling emissions would ensure we do our bit to remain within a safe carbon budget.

If we took this dramatic step we could stop fretting about how to reduce emissions (that would be guaranteed by the rationing), and instead focus on how to adapt our lives to the absence of fossil fuels.

Again, these may seem like the same task, but they are not. Decarbonising is generally thought of in terms of replacing fossil fuels with some other energy source, signalling that a green recovery must address more than just wind capacity. Adapting our lives to the absence of fossil fuels pushes us to ask more fundamental questions about how much energy we actually need, what we need energy for, and the impact of that energy on our environment.

MBIE data indicate that between 1990 and 2020, New Zealand almost doubled the total amount of energy it produced from renewable energy sources - hydro, geothermal and some solar PV and wind turbines.

Over this same time period our GHG emissions increased by about 25 percent. The increase in renewables didn’t result in less GHG emissions because we increased our total energy use by almost 50 percent, mostly by using fossil fuels. The largest fossil fuel increases were used in transport, agriculture, forestry and fisheries (approximately 60 percent increases for each).

These data clearly demonstrate that increasing renewable energy sources do not necessarily result in reduced GHG emissions.

The same MBIE data indicate that over this same time period, the amount of Losses and Own Use category for energy use more than doubled. As of 2020 almost 30 percent of all energy consumed in New Zealand fell into this category.

These data indicate that more renewable energy sources are historically associated with less energy actually being available to do work in society.

While the category Losses and Own Use is not a net energy analysis, the large increase in this category makes the call for a system-wide net energy analysis all the more urgent.

Net energy is the amount of energy available after the energy inputs to produce and deliver the energy is subtracted. There is considerable data available indicating that solar PV and wind turbines have a much lower net energy surplus than fossil fuels.

And there is further evidence that when the intermittency and storage requirements are engineered into a total renewable energy system, the net energy of the entire system declines sharply. Could the Losses and Other Uses increase over this 30-year period be an indication of things to come?

Despite the importance of net energy analysis in designing a national energy system which is intended to provide energy security and resilience, there is not a single mention of net energy surplus in the EA reference document.

So over the last 30 years, New Zealand has doubled its renewable energy capacity, and at the same time increased its GHG emissions and reduced the overall efficiency of the national energy system.

And we are now planning to more than double our renewable energy system yet again over the next 30 years, even as zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is being debated elsewhere. We need to ask if this is a good idea.

How can we expand New Zealand’s solar PV and wind turbines without using fossil fuels? We can’t.

How could we expand our solar PV and wind turbines without mining rare minerals and the hidden costs of clean energy they entail, further contributing to ecological destruction and often increasing social injustices? We can't.

Even if we could construct, deliver, install and maintain solar PV and wind turbines without generating more GHG emissions and destroying ecosystems and poor communities, this “renewable” infrastructure would have to be replaced in a few decades. But there are at least two major problems with this assumed scenario.

The rare earth minerals required for this replacement will already be exhausted by the initial build out. Recycling will only provide a limited amount of replacements.

The other challenge is that a mostly “renewable” energy system will likely have a considerably lower net energy surplus. So where, in 2060, will the energy come from to either mine or recycle the raw materials, and to rebuild, reinstall and maintain the next iteration of a renewable energy system?

There is currently no plan for this replacement. It is a serious misnomer to call these energy technologies “renewable”. They are not as they rely on considerable raw material inputs and fossil energy for their production and never ending replacement.

New Zealand is, of course, blessed with an unusually high level of hydro electric and geothermal power. New Zealand currently uses over 170 GJ of total energy per capita, 40 percent of which is “renewable”. This provides approximately 70 GJ of “renewable” energy per capita with our current population.

This is the average global per capita energy level from all sources across all nations, as calls for 100% renewable energy globally emphasize. Several nations operate with roughly this amount of total energy per capita that New Zealand can generate just from “renewables”.

It is worth reflecting on the 170 GJ of total energy use we currently consume. Different studies give very different results regarding what levels are necessary for a good life.

For a complex industrial society such as ours, 100 GJ pc is said to be necessary for a high levels of wellbeing, determined both subjectively (life satisfaction/ happiness measures), and objectively (e.g. infant mortality levels, female morbidity as an index of population health, access to nutritious food and educational and health resources, etc). These studies do not take into account the large amount of energy that is wasted either through inefficient technologies, or frivolous use, which effective decarbonization strategies seek to reduce.

Other studies that consider the minimal energy needed for wellbeing suggest a much lower level of per capita energy consumption is required. These studies take a different approach and focus on ensuring basic wellbeing is maintained, but not necessarily with all the trappings of a complex industrial society. Their results indicate a level of approximately 20 GJ per capita is adequate.

In either case, we in New Zealand are wasting a lot of energy, both in terms of the efficiency of our technologies (see the Losses and Own Use info above), and also in our uses which do not contribute to wellbeing (think of the private vehicle travel that could be done by active or public transport – if we had good infrastructure in place).

We in New Zealand need a national dialogue about our future. And energy availability is only one aspect. We need to discuss what our carrying capacity is, what level of consumption is sustainable for our population, and whether we wish to make adjustments in either our per capita consumption or our population. Both together determine whether we are on the sustainable side of carrying capacity. Currently we are on the unsustainable side, meaning our way of life cannot endure. Not a good look for being a good ancestor.

The current trajectory of the Government and Electricity Authority appears to be grossly unsustainable. At the very least they should be able to answer the questions posed here about the GHG emissions from implementing a totally renewable energy system, the net energy of such a system, and the related environmental and social consequences.

Public dialogue is critical to collectively working out our future. Allowing the current profit-driven trajectory to unfold is a recipe for disasters for our children and grandchildren.

Being silent on these issues amounts to complicity in allowing short-term financial interests and an addiction to convenience jeopardise a genuinely secure and resilient future. Let’s get some answers from the Government and Electricity Authority to critical questions about energy security.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

NT Power OEB Compliance Penalty highlights a $75,000 fine for improper disconnection notices, 14-day rule violations, process oversight failures, refunds, LEAP support, and corrective training to strengthen consumer protection and regulatory adherence in Ontario areas.

Key Points

A $75,000 OEB fine to NT Power for improper disconnection notices; refunds, LEAP support, and improved compliance.

✅ $75k administrative monetary penalty; $25k LEAP donation; refunds

✅ 870 notices misdated; 14-day rule training implemented

✅ 10 disconnects reconnected; $100 goodwill credits

The Ontario Energy Board recently ruled against Newmarket-Tay Power Distribution Ltd. (NT Power), fining them $75,000 for failing to issue timely disconnection notices to 870 customers between April and August 2022. These notices did not comply with the Ontario Energy Board's distribution system code, similar to standards reaffirmed in the OEB decision on Hydro One rates earlier this year, which mandates a minimum 14-day notice period before disconnection.

Out of the affected customers, ten had their electricity services disconnected, and six were additionally charged reconnection fees. However, NT Power has since reconnected all disconnected customers and refunded the reconnection fees, as confirmed by the Ontario Energy Board.

In response to these issues, NT Power has voluntarily accepted an assurance of compliance. This agreement stipulates that NT Power will pay a $75,000 administrative monetary penalty. Furthermore, they will make an additional payment of $25,000 to the Salvation Army's Northridge Community Church, which administers the Low-income Energy Assistance Program (LEAP) within NT Power's service area, aligning with broader efforts to reduce costs for industry highlighted by Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters recently, according to the association.

This is not the first time NT Power has faced compliance issues in this regard. The utility company admitted that this incident marks the second instance in three years where they failed to adhere to their disconnection-related obligations as outlined in the code, and sector governance debates, including the Manitoba Hydro board debate, underscore how oversight remains a national focus.

In a statement to NewmarketToday, NT Power acknowledged a similar issue three years ago when they were alerted to problems with their disconnection process. They promptly made adjustments to align their in-house procedures with the requirements of the Ontario Energy Board. Unfortunately, they neglected to implement a secondary check, leading to disconnect notices being dated a few days too early.

Alex Braletic, NT Power's Vice President of Engineering and Operation, clarified that no customers were actually disconnected prematurely, and debates over paying for electricity in India illustrate how enforcement challenges differ globally, but the issued letters contained inaccuracies. He added that NT Power has since instituted additional verification procedures to prevent such errors from occurring again.

The Ontario Energy Board emphasized that NT Power has assured them that corrective measures have been taken to ensure that their staff involved in the disconnection process receive proper training and management oversight, and recent market reactions such as Hydro One shares falling after leadership changes underscore the importance of strong governance to guarantee compliance with regulatory requirements.

Brian Hewson, Vice President of Consumer Protection and Industry Performance at the Ontario Energy Board, stated, referencing earlier Ontario rate reductions for businesses that complemented consumer protections, "As a result of the actions we have taken and NT Power’s assurance that it is aware of its obligations and has taken steps to improve its processes, consumers will be better protected."

Braletic encouraged NT Power's customers who are facing difficulties paying their electricity bills to reach out to their customer service department or visit their website. He emphasized that various programs and services are available to provide relief for bills, and amid ongoing Toronto Hydro impersonation scams customers should contact NT Power directly. NT Power is committed to collaborating with customers proactively and connecting them with assistance to avoid serving them with disconnection notices.

Furthermore, NT Power plans to send a letter to the ten affected customers and provide each of them with a $100 bill credit as a goodwill gesture.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

TotalEnergies Africa Energy Strategy 2025 spotlights oil, gas, LNG, and renewables, with investments in Namibia, Congo, Mozambique, Uganda, Morocco, and South Africa, driving upstream growth, clean energy, and energy transition partnerships.

Key Points

An investment roadmap uniting oil, gas, LNG, and renewables to speed Africa's upstream growth and energy transition.

✅ Keynote by Mike Sangster at IAE Paris 2025.

✅ Oil, gas, LNG projects across Namibia, Congo, Mozambique, Uganda.

✅ Scaling renewables: solar, wind, green ammonia for export.

Mike Sangster, Senior Vice President for Africa at TotalEnergies, will play a pivotal role in the upcoming Invest in African Energy (IAE) Forum, which will take place in Paris on May 13-14, 2025. As a key figure in one of the world’s largest energy companies, Sangster's participation in the forum is expected to offer crucial insights into Africa’s evolving energy landscape, particularly in the areas of oil, gas, and renewable energy.

TotalEnergies' Role in Africa's Energy Landscape

TotalEnergies has long been a major player in Africa’s energy sector, driving development across both emerging and established markets. The company has a significant footprint in countries such as Namibia, the Republic of Congo, Libya, Mozambique, Uganda, and South Africa. TotalEnergies’ investments span both traditional oil and gas projects as well as renewable energy initiatives, reflecting its commitment to a more diversified energy future for Africa.

In Namibia, for instance, TotalEnergies is advancing its Venus-1 discovery, with plans to produce its first oil by the end of the decade. The company is also heavily involved in the Orange Basin exploration. Meanwhile, in the Republic of Congo, TotalEnergies is investing $600 million to enhance deepwater production at its Moho Nord field.

Beyond oil and gas, the company is expanding its renewable energy portfolio across the continent. This includes significant solar, wind, and hydropower projects, such as the 500 MW Sadada solar project in Libya, a 216 MW solar plant with battery storage in South Africa, and a 1 GW wind and solar project in Morocco designed to produce green ammonia for export.

The Invest in African Energy Forum

The IAE Forum, which TotalEnergies’ Sangster will headline, is an exclusive event aimed at facilitating investment between African energy markets and global investors, including discussions on COVID-19 funding for electricity access mechanisms that emerged, and their relevance to current capital flows. With a focus on fostering partnerships and discussions about the future of energy in Africa, the event will bring together industry experts, project developers, investors, and policymakers for two days of intensive engagement.

The forum will also serve as a crucial platform for sharing perspectives on the role of private investment, as outlined in the IEA investment outlook for Africa's power systems, in Africa’s energy future, strategies for unlocking new upstream opportunities, and the transition to a more sustainable energy system. This makes Sangster's participation, as someone directly involved in both conventional and renewable energy projects across the continent, particularly significant.

TotalEnergies' Diversified Strategy in Africa

Sangster’s keynote address and participation in an exclusive fireside chat will provide an in-depth look into TotalEnergies’ strategy for Africa. His insights will touch upon the company's ongoing projects in the oil and gas sectors, as well as its renewable energy investments. TotalEnergies has committed to making its portfolio more sustainable, underscored by its recent VSB acquisition to expand renewables capabilities, while continuing to be a leader in the energy transition.

One of the company’s notable projects is the Mozambique LNG initiative, a $20 billion venture aimed at supplying liquefied natural gas to international markets. Additionally, TotalEnergies is gearing up for the first oil from its Tilenga field in Uganda, which will be transported through the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), the longest heated crude oil pipeline in the world.

In South Africa, TotalEnergies is constructing one of the largest renewable energy projects, a 216 MW solar power plant with integrated battery storage. This project is expected to significantly contribute to the country’s clean energy ambitions. Furthermore, in Morocco, TotalEnergies is developing a major wind and solar facility that will produce green ammonia, aligning with its broader strategy to provide solutions for Europe’s energy needs.

Africa’s Energy Transition

The forum’s timing could not be more critical, given the pressing need for an energy transition in Africa. While the continent remains heavily reliant on fossil fuels for its energy needs, there is growing momentum toward incorporating renewable energy sources, a point reinforced by the IRENA renewables report on decarbonisation and quality of life, which highlights the transformative potential. Africa’s vast natural resources, combined with global investments and partnerships, position the continent as a key player in the global shift toward sustainable energy.

However, Africa faces unique challenges in transitioning to renewable energy, reflecting a broader Sub-Saharan electricity challenge that also presents opportunity, across many markets. These challenges include a lack of infrastructure, financial constraints, and the need for increased political stability in certain regions. The IAE Forum provides an opportunity to address these barriers, with industry leaders like Sangster offering solutions based on real-world experiences and investments.

As the energy sector continues to evolve globally, and even if electricity systems are unlikely to go fully green this decade according to some outlooks, Africa's potential remains vast. The continent’s diverse energy resources, from oil and gas to renewables, offer a unique opportunity to build a more sustainable and resilient energy future. The Invest in African Energy Forum serves as an important platform for global stakeholders to collaborate, learn, and invest in the energy transformation taking place across the continent.

Mike Sangster’s insights at the forum will undoubtedly shape discussions on how companies like TotalEnergies are navigating the intersection of universal electricity access goals, sustainability, and economic growth in Africa. With Africa’s energy needs expected to increase exponentially in the coming decades, ensuring that these needs are met sustainably and equitably will be a priority for both policymakers and private investors.

As the global energy landscape continues to shift, the Invest in African Energy Forum provides a critical space for shaping the future of Africa’s energy sector, offering invaluable opportunities for investment, innovation, and collaboration.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

India Electricity Production 2017 surged to 1,160 BU, ranking third globally; rising TWh output with 334 GW capacity, strong renewables and thermal mix, 7% CAGR in generation, and growing demand, investments, and FDI inflows.

Key Points

India's 2017 power output reached 1,160 BU, third globally, supported by 334 GW capacity, rising renewables, and 7% CAGR.

✅ 1,160 BU generated; third after China and the US

✅ Installed capacity 334 GW; 65% thermal, rising renewables

✅ Generation CAGR ~7%; demand, FDI, investments rising

India now generates around 1,160.1 billion units of electricity in financial year 2017, up 4.72% from the previous year, and amid surging global electricity demand that is straining power systems. The country is behind only China which produced 6,015 terrawatt hours (TWh. 1 TW = 1,000,000 megawatts) and the US (4,327 TWh), and is ahead of Russia, Japan, Germany, and Canada.

India’s electricity production grew 34% over seven years to 2017, and the country now produces more energy than Japan and Russia, which had 27% and 8.77% more electricity generation capacity installed, respectively, than India seven years ago.

India produced 1,160.10 billion units (BU) of electricity–one BU is enough to power 10 million households (one household using average of about 3 units per day) for a month–in financial year (FY) 2017. Electricity production stood at 1,003.525 BU between April 2017-January 2018, according to a February 2018 report by India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF), a trust established by the commerce ministry.

#google#

With a production of 1,423 BU in FY 2016, India was the third largest producer and the third largest consumer of electricity in the world, behind China (6,015 BU) and the United States (4,327 BU).

With an annual growth rate of 22.6% capacity addition over a decade to FY 2017, renewables beat other power sources–thermal, hydro and nuclear. Renewables, however, made up only 18.79% of India’s energy, up 68.65% since 2007, and globally, low-emissions sources are expected to cover most demand growth in the coming years. About 65% of installed capacity continues to be thermal.

As of January 2018, India has installed power capacity of 334.4 gigawatt (GW), making it the fifth largest installed capacity in the world after European Union, China, United States and Japan, and with much of the fleet coal-based, imported coal volumes have risen at times amid domestic supply constraints.

The government is targeting capacity addition of around 100 GW–the current power production of United Kingdom–by 2022, as per the IBEF report.

Electricity generation grew at 7% annually

India achieved a 34.48% growth in electricity production by producing 1,160.10 BU in 2017 compared to 771.60 BU in 2010–meaning that in these seven years, electricity production in India grew at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7.03%, while thermal power plants' PLF has risen recently amid higher demand and lower hydro.

Generation capacity grew at 10% annually

Of 334.5 GW installed capacity as of January 2018–up 60% from 132.30 GW in 2007–thermal installed capacity was 219.81 GW. Hydro and renewable energy installed capacity totaled 44.96 GW and 62.85 GW, respectively, said the report.

The CAGR in installed capacity over a decade to 2017 was 10.57% for thermal power, 22.06% for renewable energy–the fastest among all sources of power–2.51% for hydro power and 5.68% for nuclear power.

Growing demand, higher investments will drive future growth

Growing population and increasing penetration of electricity connections, along with increasing per-capita usage would provide further impetus to the power sector, said the report.

Power consumption is estimated to increase from 1,160.1 BU in 2016 to 1,894.7 BU in 2022, as per the report, though electricity demand fell sharply in one recent period.

Increasing investment remained one of the driving factors of power sector growth in the country.

Power sector has a 100% foreign direct investment (FDI) permit, which boosted FDI inflows in the sector.

Total FDI inflows in the power sector reached $12.97 billion (Rs 83,713 crore) during April 2000 to December 2017, accounting for 3.52% of FDI inflows in India, the report said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Alberta Electricity Peak Demand surged to 10,638 MW, as AESO reported record summer load from air conditioning, Stampede visitors, and heatwave conditions, with ample generation capacity, stable grid reliability, and conservation urged during 5-7 p.m.

Key Points

It is the record summer power load in Alberta, reaching 10,638 MW, with evening conservation urged by AESO.

✅ Record 10,638 MW at 4 pm; likely to rise this week

✅ Drivers: A/C use, heat, Stampede visitors

✅ AESO reports ample capacity; conserve 5-7 pm

Consumer use hit 10,638 MW, blowing past a previous high of 10,520 MW set on July 9, 2015, said the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO).

“We hit a new summer peak and it’s likely we’ll hit higher peaks as the week progresses,” said AESO spokeswoman Tara De Weerd.

“We continue to have ample supply, and as Alberta's electricity future trends toward more wind, our generators are very confident there aren’t any issues.”

That new peak was set at 4 p.m. but De Weerd said it was likely to be exceeded later in the day.

Heightened air conditioner use is normally a major driver of such peak electricity consumption, said De Weerd.

She also said Calgary’s big annual bash is also likely playing a role.

“It’s the beginning of Stampede, you have an influx of visitors so you’ll have more people using electricity,” she said.

Alberta’s generation capacity is 16,420 MW, said the AESO, with wind power increasingly outpacing coal in the province today.

There are no plans, she said, for any of the province’s electricity generators to shut down any of their plants for maintenance or other purposes in the near future as demand rises.

The summer peak is considerably smaller than that reached in the depths of Alberta’s winter.

Alberta’s winter peak usage was recorded last year and was 11,458 MW.

Though the province’s capacity isn’t being strained by the summer heat, De Weerd still encouraged consumers to go easy during the peak use time of the day, between 5 and 7 p.m.

“We don’t have to be running all of our appliances at once,” she said.

Alberta exports an insignificant amount of electricity to Montana, B.C. and Saskatchewan, where demand recently set a new record.

The weather forecast calls for temperatures to soar above 30C through the weekend.

In northern Canada, Yukon electricity demand recently hit a record high, underscoring how extreme temperatures can strain systems.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News