Progress Energy looks to close 11 coal plants

US Renewable Power Outlook 2030 projects surging capacity, solar PV and wind growth, grid modernization, and favorable tax credits, detailing market trends, CAGR, transmission expansion, and policy drivers shaping clean energy generation and consumption.

Key Points

A forecast of US power capacity, generation, and consumption, highlighting solar, wind, tax credits, and grid modernization.

✅ Targets 48.4% renewable capacity share by 2030

✅ Strong growth in solar PV and onshore wind installations

✅ Investment and tax credits drive grid and transmission upgrades

GlobalData’s latest report, ‘United States Power Market Outlook to 2030, Update 2021 – Market Trends, Regulations, and Competitive Landscape’ discusses the power market structure of the United States and provides historical and forecast numbers for capacity, generation and consumption up to 2030. Detailed analysis of the country’s power market regulatory structure, competitive landscape and a list of major power plants are provided. The report also gives a snapshot of the power sector in the country on broad parameters of macroeconomics, supply security, generation infrastructure, transmission and distribution infrastructure, about a quarter of U.S. electricity from renewables in recent years, electricity import and export scenario, degree of competition, regulatory scenario, and future potential. An analysis of the deals in the country’s power sector is also included in the report.

Renewable power held a 19% share of the US’s total power capacity in 2020, and in that year renewables became the second-most prevalent source in the U.S. electricity mix by generation; this share is expected to increase significantly to 48.4% by 2030. Favourable policies introduced by the US Government will continue to drive the country’s renewable sector, particularly solar photovoltaics (PV) and wind power, with wind now the most-used renewable source in the U.S. generation mix. Installed renewable capacity* increased from 16.5GW in 2000 to 239.2GW in 2020, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14.3%. By 2030, the cumulative renewable capacity is expected to rise to 884.6GW, growing at a CAGR of 14% from 2020 to 2030. Despite increase in prices of renewable equipment, such as solar modules, in 2021, the US renewable sector will show strong growth during the 2021 to 2030 period as this increase in equipment prices are short term due to supply chain disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.

The expansion of renewable power capacity during the 2000 to 2020 period has been possible due to the introduction of federal schemes, such as Production Tax Credits, Investment Tax Credits and Manufacturing Tax Credits. These have massively aided renewable installations by bringing down the cost of renewable power generation and making it at par with power generated from conventional sources. Over the last few years, the cost of solar PV and wind power installations has declined sharply, and by 2023 wind, solar, and batteries made up most of the utility-scale pipeline across the US, highlighting investor confidence. Since 2010, the cost of utility-scale solar PV projects decreased by around 82% while onshore wind installations decreased by around 39%. This has supported the rapid expansion of the renewable market. However, the price of solar equipment has risen due to an increase in raw material prices and supply shortages. This may slightly delay the financing of some solar projects that are already in the pipeline.

The US will continue to add significant renewable capacity additions during the forecast period as industry outlooks point to record solar and storage installations over the coming years, to meet its target of reaching 80% clean energy by 2030. In November 2021, President Biden signed a $1tr Infrastructure Bill, within which $73bn is designated to renewables. This includes not just renewable capacity building, but also strengthening the country’s power grid and laying new high voltage transmission lines, both of which will be key to driving solar and wind power capacity additions as wind power surges in the U.S. electricity mix nationwide.

The US was one of the worst hit countries in the world due to the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. With respect to the power sector, the electricity consumption in the country declined by 2.5% in 2020 as compared to 2019, even as renewable electricity surpassed coal in 2022 in the generation mix, highlighting continued structural change. Power plants that were under construction faced delays due to unavailability of components due to supply chain disruptions and unavailability of labour due to travel restrictions.

According to the US Energy Information Administration, 61 power projects, having a total capacity of 2.4GWm which were under construction during March and April 2020 were delayed because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Among renewable power technologies, solar PV and wind power projects were the most badly affected due to the pandemic.

In March and April 2020, 53 solar PV projects, having a total capacity of 1.3GW, and wind power projects, having a total capacity of 1.2GW, were delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Moreover, several states suspended renewable energy auctions due to the pandemic.

For instance, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) had issued a new offshore wind solicitation for 1GW and up to 2.5GW in April 2020, but this was suspended due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In July 2020, the authority relaunched the tender for 2.5GW of offshore wind capacity, with a submission deadline in October 2020.

To ease the financial burden on consumers during the pandemic, more than 1,000 utilities in the country announced disconnection moratoria and implemented flexible payment plans. Duke Energy, American Electric Power, Dominion Power and Southern California Edison were among the major utilities that voluntarily suspended disconnections.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Aurelia Boat Club delivers electric boat membership in Seattle, featuring zero-emission propulsion, quiet cruising, sustainable recreation, and a managed fleet with maintenance, insurance, moorage, and charging handled for members seeking hassle-free, eco-friendly boating.

Key Points

Aurelia Boat Club is a Seattle membership offering all-electric boats, with maintenance, insurance, and moorage included.

✅ Unlimited access to an all-electric fleet

✅ Maintenance, insurance, moorage, and charging included

✅ Quiet, zero-emission cruising on Seattle waters

Seattle's maritime scene has welcomed a new player: Aurelia Boat Club. Founded by former Pure Watercraft employees, Aurelia is poised to redefine electric boating in the city, where initiatives like Washington State Ferries hybrid-electric upgrade are underway. The club's inception follows the unexpected closure of Pure Watercraft, a Seattle-based startup that aimed to revolutionize the pleasure boating industry before its financial troubles led to its downfall.

From Pure Watercraft to Aurelia Boat Club

Pure Watercraft, established in 2011, garnered attention for its innovative electric propulsion systems designed to replace traditional gas-powered motors in boats, while efforts to build the first commercial electric speedboats also advanced. The company attracted significant investment, including a notable partnership with General Motors in 2021, which acquired a 25% stake in Pure Watercraft. Despite these efforts, Pure Watercraft faced financial difficulties and entered receivership in 2024, leading to the liquidation of its assets. 

Amidst this transition, Danylo Kurgan and Mrugesh Desai saw an opportunity to continue the vision of electric boating. Kurgan, formerly a financial analyst at Pure Watercraft and involved in the company's boat club operations, teamed up with Desai, a technology executive and startup investor. Together, they acquired key assets from Pure Watercraft's receivership, including electric outboard motors, pontoon boats, inflatable crafts, battery systems, spare parts, and digital infrastructure. 

Aurelia Boat Club's Offerings

Aurelia Boat Club aims to provide a sustainable and accessible alternative to traditional gas-powered boat clubs in Seattle. Members can enjoy unlimited access to a fleet of all-electric boats without the responsibilities of ownership. The club's boats are equipped with electric motors, offering a quiet and environmentally friendly boating experience, similar to how electric ships are clearing the air on the B.C. coast. Additionally, Aurelia handles maintenance, repairs, insurance, and moorage, allowing members to focus solely on enjoying their time on the water. 

The Future of Electric Boating in Seattle

Aurelia Boat Club's launch signifies a growing interest in sustainable boating practices in Seattle. The club's founders are committed to scaling the business and expanding their fleet to meet the increasing demand for eco-friendly recreational activities, as projects like battery-electric high-speed ferries indicate. By leveraging the assets and knowledge gained from Pure Watercraft, Aurelia aims to continue the legacy of innovation in the electric boating industry.

As the boating community becomes more environmentally conscious, initiatives like Aurelia Boat Club play a crucial role in promoting sustainable practices, and examples such as Harbour Air's electric aircraft highlight the momentum. The club's success could serve as a model for other cities, demonstrating that with the right vision and resources, the transition to electric boating is not only feasible but also desirable.

While the closure of Pure Watercraft marked the end of one chapter, it also paved the way for new ventures like Aurelia Boat Club to carry forward the mission of transforming the boating industry, with regional moves like the Kootenay Lake electric-ready ferry and international innovations such as Berlin electric flying ferry showing what's possible. With a strong foundation and a clear vision, Aurelia is set to make significant waves in Seattle's electric boating scene.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ukraine Nuclear Plant Ownership Proposal outlines U.S. management of Ukrainian reactors amid the Russia-Ukraine war, citing nuclear safety, energy security, and IAEA oversight; Kyiv rejects ownership transfer, especially regarding Zaporizhzhia under Russian control.

Key Points

U.S. control of Ukraine's nuclear plants for safety; Kyiv rejects transfer, citing sovereignty risks at Zaporizhzhia.

✅ U.S. proposal to manage Ukraine's reactors amid war

✅ Kyiv refuses ownership transfer; open to investment

✅ Zaporizhzhia under Russian control raises safety risks

In the midst of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed a controversial idea: Ukraine should give its nuclear power plants to the United States for safekeeping and management. This suggestion came during a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, wherein Trump expressed the belief that American ownership of these nuclear plants could offer them the best protection amid the ongoing war. But Kyiv, while open to foreign support, has firmly rejected the idea of transferring ownership, especially as the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant remains under Russian occupation.

Ukraine’s nuclear energy infrastructure has always been a vital component of its power generation. Before the war, the country’s four nuclear plants supplied nearly half of its electricity. As Russia's military forces target Ukraine's energy infrastructure, including power plants and coal mines, international watchdogs like the IAEA have warned of nuclear risks as these nuclear facilities have become crucial to maintaining the nation’s energy stability. The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, has attracted international concern due to its size and the ongoing threat of a potential nuclear disaster.

Trump’s Proposal and Ukraine’s Response

Trump’s proposal of U.S. ownership came as a response to the ongoing threats posed by Russia’s occupation of the Zaporizhzhia plant. Trump argued that the U.S., with its expertise in running nuclear power plants, could safeguard these facilities from further damage and potential nuclear accidents. However, Zelenskyy quickly clarified that the discussion was only focused on the Zaporizhzhia plant, which is currently under Russian control. The Ukrainian president emphasized that Kyiv would not entertain the idea of permanently transferring ownership of its nuclear plants, even though they would welcome investment in their restoration and modernization, particularly after the war.

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant has been a focal point of geopolitical tensions since Russia's occupation in 2022. Despite being in "cold shutdown" to prevent further risk of explosions, the facility remains a major concern due to its potential to cause a nuclear disaster. Ukrainian officials, along with international observers, have raised alarm about the safety risks posed by the plant, including mines at Zaporizhzhia reported by UN watchdogs, which is situated in a war zone and under the control of Russian forces who are reportedly neglecting proper safety protocols.

The Fear of a Nuclear Provocation

Ukrainians have expressed concerns that Trump’s proposal could embolden Russia to escalate tensions further, even as a potential agreement on power-plant attacks has been discussed by some parties. Some fear that any attempt to reclaim the plant by Ukraine could trigger a Russian provocation, including a deliberate attack on the plant, which would have catastrophic consequences for both Ukraine and the broader region. The analogy is drawn with the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam, which Ukraine accuses Russia of sabotaging, an act that severely disrupted water supplies to the Zaporizhzhia plant. Ukrainian military officials, including Ihor Romanenko, a former deputy head of Ukraine’s armed forces, warned that Trump’s suggestion might be an exploitation of Ukraine’s vulnerable position in the ongoing war.

Despite these fears, there are some voices within Ukraine, including former employees of the Zaporizhzhia plant, who believe that a deliberate attack by Russian forces is unlikely. They argue that the Russian military needs the plant in functioning condition for future negotiations, with Russia building new power lines to reactivate the site as part of that calculus, and any damage could reduce its value in such exchanges. However, the possibility of Russian negligence or mismanagement remains a significant risk.

The Strategic Role of Ukraine's Nuclear Plants

Ukraine's nuclear plants were a cornerstone of the country’s energy sector long before the conflict began. In recent years, as Ukraine lost access to coal resources in the Donbas region due to Russian occupation, nuclear power became even more vital, alongside a growing focus on wind power to improve resilience. The country’s reliance on these plants grew as Russia launched a sustained campaign to destroy Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, including attacks on nuclear power stations.

The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, holds strategic importance not only due to its size but also because of its location in southeastern Ukraine, an area that has been at the heart of the conflict. Despite being in Russian hands, the plant’s reactors have been safely shut down, reducing the immediate risk of a nuclear explosion. However, the plant’s future remains uncertain, as Russia’s long-term control over it could disrupt Ukraine’s energy security for years to come.

Wider Concerns About Aging Nuclear Infrastructure

Beyond the geopolitical tensions, there are broader concerns about the aging infrastructure of Ukraine's nuclear power plants. International watchdogs, including the environmentalist group Bankwatch, have criticized these facilities as “zombie reactors” due to their outdated designs and safety risks. Experts have called for Ukraine to decommission some of these reactors, fearing that they are increasingly unsafe, especially in the context of a war.

However, Ukrainian officials, including Petro Kotin, head of Energoatom (Ukraine's state-owned nuclear energy company), argue that these reactors are still functional and critical to Ukraine's energy needs. The ongoing conflict, however, complicates efforts to modernize and secure these facilities, which are increasingly vulnerable to both physical damage and potential nuclear hazards.

The Global Implications

Trump's suggestion to take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants has raised significant concerns on the international stage. Some fear that such a move could set a dangerous precedent for nuclear security and sovereignty. Others see it as an opportunistic proposal that exploits Ukraine's wartime vulnerability.

While the future of Ukraine's nuclear plants remains uncertain, one thing is clear: these facilities are now at the center of a geopolitical struggle that could have far-reaching consequences for the energy security of Europe and the world. The safety of these plants and their role in Ukraine's energy future will remain a critical issue as the war continues and as Ukraine navigates its relations with both the U.S. and Russia, with the grid even having resumed electricity exports at times.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

ISEM Price Volatility reflects Ireland-Northern Ireland grid balancing pressures, driven by dispatchable power shortages, day-ahead market dynamics, renewable shortfalls, and interconnector constraints, affecting intraday trading, operational reserves, and cross-border electricity flows.

Key Points

ISEM price volatility is Irish power price swings from grid balancing stress and limited dispatchable capacity.

✅ One-off spike linked to plant outage and low renewables

✅ Day-ahead market settling; intraday trading integration pending

✅ Interconnectors and reserves vital to manage adequacy

Irish grid-balancing prices soared to €3,774 ($4,284) per megawatt-hour last month amid growing concerns over dispatchable power capacity across Europe.

The price spike, triggered by an alert regarding generation losses, came only four months after Ireland and Northern Ireland launched an Integrated Single Electricity Market (ISEM) designed to make trading more competitive and improve power distribution across the island.

Evie Doherty, senior consultant for Ireland at Cornwall Insight, a U.K.-based energy consultancy, said significant price volatility was to be expected while ISEM is still settling down, aligning with broader 2019 grid edge trends seen across markets.

When the U.K. introduced a single market for Great Britain, called British Electricity Trading and Transmission Arrangements, in 2005, it took at least six months for volatility to subside, Doherty said.

In the case of ISEM, “it will take more time to ascertain the exact drivers behind the high prices,” she said. “We are being told that the day-ahead market is functioning as expected, but it will take time to really be able to draw conclusions on efficiency.”

Ireland and Northern Ireland have been operating with a single market “very successfully” since 2007, said Doherty. Although each jurisdiction has its own regulatory authority, they make joint decisions regarding the single market.

ISEM, launched in October 2018, was designed to help include Ireland and Northern Ireland day-ahead electricity prices in a market pricing system called the European Union Pan-European Hybrid Electricity Market Integration Algorithm.

In time, ISEM should also allow the Irish grids to participate in European intraday markets, and recent examples like Ukraine's grid connection underline the pace of integration efforts across Europe. At present, they are only able to do so with Great Britain. “The idea was to...integrate energy use and create more efficient flows between jurisdictions,” Doherty said.

EirGrid, the Irish transmission system operator, has reported that flows on its interconnector with Northern Ireland are more efficient than before, she said.

The price spike happened when the System Operator for Northern Ireland issued an alert for an unplanned plant outage at a time of low renewable output and constraints on the north-south tie-line with Ireland, according to a Cornwall Insight analysis.

Not an isolated event

Although it appears to have been a one-off event, there are increasing worries that a shortage of dispatchable power could lead to similar situations elsewhere across Europe, as seen in Nordic grid constraints recently.

Last month, newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reported that German industrial concerns had been forced to curtail more than a gigawatt of power consumption to maintain operational reserves on the grid in December, after renewable production fell short of expectations and harsh weather impacts strained systems elsewhere.

Paul-Frederik Bach, a Danish energy consultant, has collected data showing that this was not an isolated incident. The FAZ report said German aluminum smelters had been forced to cut back on energy use 78 times in 2018, he noted.

Energy availability was also a concern last year in Belgium, where six out of seven nuclear reactors had been closed for maintenance. The closures forced Belgium to import 23 percent of its electricity from neighboring countries, Bach reported.

In a separate note, Bach revealed that 11 European countries that were net importers of energy had boosted their imports by 26 percent between 2017 and 2018. It is important to note that electricity imports do not necessarily imply a shortage of power, he stated.

However, it is also true that many European grid operators are girding themselves for a future in which dispatchable power is scarcer than today.

EirGrid, for example, expects dispatchable generation and interconnection capacity to drop from 10.6 gigawatts in 2018 to 9 gigawatts in 2027.

The Swedish transmission system operator Svenska Kraftnät, meanwhile, is forecasting winter peak power deficits could rise from 400 megawatts currently to 2.5 gigawatts in 2020-21.

Research conducted by the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity, suggests power adequacy will fall across most of Europe up to 2025, although perhaps not to a critical degree.

The continent’s ability to deal with the problem will be helped by having more efficient trading systems, Bach told GTM. That means developments such as ISEM could be a step in the right direction, despite initial price volatility.

In the long run, however, Europe will need to make sure market improvements are accompanied by investments in HVDC technology and interconnectors and reserve capacity. “Somewhere there must be a production of electricity, even when there is no wind,” said Bach. 

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

Nuclear fusion breakthrough signals progress toward clean energy as NIF lasers near ignition and net energy gain, while tokamak designs like ITER advance magnetic confinement, plasma stability, and self-sustaining chain reactions for commercial reactors.

Key Points

A milestone as lab fusion nears ignition and net gain, indicating clean energy via lasers and tokamak confinement.

✅ NIF laser shot approached ignition and triggered self-heating

✅ Tokamak path advances with ITER and stronger magnetic confinement

✅ Net energy gain remains the critical milestone for power plants

Just 100 years ago, when English mathematician and astronomer Arthur Eddington suggested that the stars power themselves through a process of merging atoms to create energy, heat, and light, the idea was an unthinkable novelty. Now, in 2021, we’re getting remarkably close to recreating the process of nuclear fusion here on Earth. Over the last century, scientists have been steadily chasing commercial nuclear fusion, ‘the holy grail of clean energy.’ The first direct demonstration of fusion in a lab took place just 12 years after it was conceptualized, at Cambridge University in 1932, followed by the world’s first attempt to build a fusion reactor in 1938. In 1950, Soviet scientists Andrei Sakharov and Igor Tamm propelled the pursuit forward with their development of the tokamak, a fusion device involving massive magnets which is still at the heart of many major fusion pursuits today, including the world’s biggest nuclear fusion experiment ITER in France.

Since that breakthrough, scientists have been getting closer and closer to achieving nuclear fusion. While fusion has indeed been achieved in labs throughout this timeline, it has always required far more energy than it emits, defeating the purpose of the commercial fusion initiative, and elsewhere in nuclear a new U.S. reactor start-up highlights ongoing progress. If unlocked, commercial nuclear fusion would change life as we know it. It would provide an infinite source of clean energy requiring no fossil fuels and leaving behind no hazardous waste products, and many analysts argue that net-zero emissions may be out of reach without nuclear power, underscoring fusion’s promise.

Nuclear fission, the process which powers all of our nuclear energy production now, including next-gen nuclear designs in development, requires the use of radioactive isotopes to achieve the splitting of atoms, and leaves behind waste products which remain hazardous to human and ecological health for up to tens of thousands of years. Not only does nuclear fusion leave nothing behind, it is many times more powerful. Yet, it has remained elusive despite decades of attempts and considerable investment and collaboration from both public and private entities, such as the Gates-backed mini-reactor concept, around the world.

But just this month there was an incredible breakthrough that may indicate that we are getting close. “For an almost imperceptible fraction of a second on Aug. 8, massive lasers at a government facility in Northern California re-created the power of the sun in a tiny hot spot no wider than a human hair,” CNET reported in August. This breakthrough occurred at the National Ignition Facility, where scientists used lasers to set off a fusion reaction that emitted a stunning 10 quadrillion watts of power. Although the experiment lasted for just 100 trillionths of a second, the amount of energy it produced was equal to about “6% of the total energy of all the sunshine striking Earth’s surface at any given moment.”

“This phenomenal breakthrough brings us tantalizingly close to a demonstration of ‘net energy gain’ from fusion reactions — just when the planet needs it,” said Arthur Turrell, physicist and nuclear fusion expert. What’s more, scientists and experts are hopeful that the rate of fusion breakthroughs will continue to speed up, as interest in atomic energy is heating up again across markets, and commercial nuclear fusion could be achieved sooner than ever seemed possible before. At a time when it has never been more important or more urgent to find a powerful and affordable means of producing clean energy, and as policies like the U.K.’s green industrial revolution guide the next waves of reactors, commercial nuclear fusion can’t come fast enough.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News