Clean energy standard would embrace nuclear

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

Hinkley Point C Reactor Installation signals UK energy security, nuclear power expansion, and low-carbon baseload, featuring EPR technology in Somerset to cut emissions, support net-zero goals, and deliver reliable electricity for homes and businesses.

Key Points

First EPR unit fitted at Hinkley Point C, boosting low-carbon baseload, grid reliability, and UK energy security.

✅ Generates 3.2 GW across two EPRs for 7% of UK electricity.

✅ Provides low-carbon baseload to complement wind and solar.

✅ Creates jobs and strengthens supply chains during construction.

The United Kingdom has made a significant stride toward securing its energy future with the installation of the first reactor at its newest nuclear power station. This development marks an important milestone in the nation’s efforts to combat climate change, reduce carbon emissions, and ensure a stable and sustainable energy supply. As the world moves towards greener alternatives to fossil fuels, nuclear power remains a key part of the UK's green industrial revolution and low-carbon energy strategy.

The new power station, located at Hinkley Point C in Somerset, is set to be one of the most advanced nuclear facilities in the country. The installation of its reactor represents a crucial step in the construction of the plant, with earlier milestones like the reactor roof lifted into place underscoring steady progress, which is expected to provide reliable, low-carbon electricity for millions of homes and businesses across the UK. The completion of the first reactor is seen as a pivotal moment in the journey to bring the station online, with the second reactor expected to follow shortly after.

A Historic Milestone

Hinkley Point C will be the UK’s first nuclear power station built in over two decades. The plant, once fully operational, will play a key role in the country's energy transition. The reactors at Hinkley Point C are designed to be state-of-the-art, using advanced technology that is both safer and more efficient than older nuclear reactors. Each of the two reactors will have the capacity to generate 1.6 gigawatts of electricity, enough to power approximately six million homes. Together, they will contribute about 7% of the UK’s electricity needs, providing a steady, reliable source of energy even during periods of high demand.

The installation of the first reactor at Hinkley Point C is not just a technical achievement; it is also symbolic of the UK’s commitment to energy security and its goal to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, a target that industry leaders say multiple new stations will be needed to meet effectively. Nuclear power is a crucial part of this equation, as it provides a stable, baseload source of energy that does not rely on weather conditions, unlike wind or solar power.

Boosting the UK’s Energy Capacity

The addition of Hinkley Point C to the UK’s energy infrastructure is expected to significantly boost the country’s energy capacity and reduce its reliance on fossil fuels. The UK government has been focused on increasing the share of renewable energy in its mix, and nuclear power is seen as an essential complement to intermittent renewable sources, especially as wind and solar have surpassed nuclear in generation at times. Nuclear energy is considered a low-carbon, reliable energy source that can fill the gaps when renewable generation is insufficient, such as on cloudy or calm days when solar and wind energy output may be low.

With the aging of the UK’s existing nuclear fleet and the gradual phase-out of coal-fired power plants, Hinkley Point C will help ensure that the country does not face an energy shortage as it transitions to cleaner energy sources. The plant will help to bridge the gap between the current energy infrastructure and the future, enabling the UK to phase out coal while maintaining a steady, low-carbon energy supply.

Safety and Technological Innovation

The reactors at Hinkley Point C are being constructed using the latest in nuclear technology. They are based on the European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) design, which is known for its enhanced safety features and efficiency, and has been deployed in projects within China's nuclear program as well, making it a proven platform. These reactors are designed to withstand extreme conditions, including earthquakes and flooding, making them highly resilient. Additionally, the EPR technology ensures that the reactors have a low environmental impact, producing minimal waste and offering the potential for increased sustainability compared to older reactor designs.

One of the key innovations in the Hinkley Point C reactors is their advanced cooling system, which is designed to be more efficient and environmentally friendly than previous generations. This system ensures that the reactors operate at optimal temperatures while minimizing the environmental footprint of the plant.

Economic and Job Creation Benefits

The construction of Hinkley Point C has already provided a significant boost to the local economy. Thousands of jobs have been created, not only in the construction phase but also in the ongoing operation and maintenance of the facility. The plant is expected to create more than 25,000 jobs during its construction and around 900 permanent jobs once it is operational.

The project is also expected to have a positive impact on the wider UK economy. As a major infrastructure project, Hinkley Point C will provide long-term economic benefits, including boosting supply chains and providing opportunities for local businesses.

Challenges and the Road Ahead

Despite the progress, the construction of Hinkley Point C has not been without its challenges. The project has faced delays and cost overruns, with setbacks at Hinkley Point C documented by industry observers, and the total estimated cost now standing at around £22 billion. However, the successful installation of the first reactor is a step toward overcoming these hurdles and completing the project on schedule.

Looking ahead, Hinkley Point C’s successful operation could pave the way for future nuclear developments in the UK, including next-gen nuclear designs that aim to be smaller, cheaper, and safer. As the world grapples with the pressing need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear energy may play an even more critical role in ensuring a clean, reliable energy future.

The installation of the first reactor at Hinkley Point C marks a crucial moment in the UK’s energy journey. As the country seeks to meet its carbon reduction targets and bolster its energy security, the new nuclear power station will be a cornerstone of its efforts. With its advanced technology, safety features, and potential to provide low-carbon energy for decades to come, Hinkley Point C offers a glimpse into the future of energy production in the UK and beyond.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Duke Energy Net Metering Proposal updates rooftop solar compensation with time-of-use rates, lower grid credits, and a minimum charge, aligning payments with electricity demand in North Carolina pending regulators' approval.

Key Points

A plan to swap flat credits for time-of-use rates and a minimum charge for rooftop solar customers in North Carolina.

✅ Time-of-use credits vary by grid demand

✅ $10 minimum use charge plus $14 basic fee

✅ Aims to align solar payouts with actual electricity value

Duke Energy has proposed new rules for how owners of rooftop solar panels are paid for electricity they send to the electric grid. It could mean more complexity and lower payments, but the utility says rates would be fairer.

State legislators have called for changes in the payment rules — known as "net metering" policies that allow households to sell power back to energy firms.

Right now, solar panel owners who produce more electricity than they need get credits on their bills, equal to whatever they pay for electricity. Under the proposed changes, the credit would be lower and would vary according to electricity demand, said Duke spokesperson Randy Wheeless.

"So in a cold winter morning, like now, you would get more, but maybe in a mild spring day, you would get less," Wheeless said Tuesday. "So, it better reflects what the price of electricity is."

Besides setting rates by time of use, solar owners also would have to pay a minimum of $10 a month for electricity, even if they don't use any from the grid. That's on top of Duke's $14 basic charge. Duke said it needs the extra revenue to pay for grid infrastructure to serve solar customers.

The proposal is the result of an agreement between Duke and solar industry groups — the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association; the Southern Environmental Law Center, which represented Vote Solar and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy; solar panel maker Sunrun Inc.; and the Solar Energy Industries Association.

The deal is similar to one approved by regulators in South Carolina last year, while in Nova Scotia a solar charge was delayed after controversy.

Daniel Brookshire of the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association said he hopes the agreement will help the solar industry.

"We reached an agreement here that we think will provide certainty over the next decade, at least, for those interested in pursuing solar for their homes, and for our members who are solar installers," Brookshire said.

But other environmental and consumer groups oppose the changes, amid debates over who pays for grid upgrades elsewhere. Jim Warren with NC WARN said the rules would slow the expansion of rooftop solar in North Carolina.

"It would make it even harder for ordinary people to go solar," Warren said. "This would make it more complicated and more expensive, even for wealthier homeowners."

State regulators still must approve the proposal, even as courts weigh aspects of the electricity monopoly in related solar cases. If state regulators approve it, rates for new net metering customers would take effect Jan. 1, 2023.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Ontario Global Adjustment Appeal spotlights Ontario's electricity fee, regulatory charge vs tax debate, FIT contracts, green energy policy, and constitutional challenge as National Steel Car contests soaring power costs before the Ontario Superior Court.

Key Points

Court challenge over Ontario's global adjustment fee, disputing its status as a regulatory charge instead of a tax.

✅ Challenges classification of global adjustment as tax vs regulatory charge.

✅ Focuses on FIT contracts, renewable energy payments, power cost impacts.

✅ Appeals Ontario ruling; implications for ratepayers and policy.

A manufacturer of steel rail cars is pursuing an appeal after its lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a major Ontario electricity fee was struck down earlier this year.

Lawyers for Hamilton, Ont.-based National Steel Car Ltd. filed a notice of appeal in July after Ontario Superior Court Justice Wendy Matheson ruled in June that an electricity fee known as the global adjustment charge was a regulatory charge, and not an unconstitutional tax used to finance policy goals, as National Steel Car alleges.

The company, the decision noted, began its legal crusade last year after seeing its electricity bills had “increased dramatically” since the Ontario government passed green energy legislation nearly a decade ago, and amid concerns that high electricity rates are hurting Ontario manufacturers.

Under that legislation, the judge wrote, “private suppliers of renewable energy were paid to ’feed in’ energy into Ontario’s electricity grid.” The contracts for these so-called “feed-in tariff” contracts, or FIT contracts, were the “primary focus” of the lawsuit.

“The applicant seeks a declaration that part of the amount it has paid for electricity is an unconstitutional tax rather than a valid regulatory charge,” the judge added. “More specifically, it challenges part of the Global Adjustment, which is a component of electricity pricing and incorporates obligations under FIT contracts.”

Chiefly representing the difference between Ontario’s market price for power and the guaranteed price owed to generators, global adjustment now makes up the bulk of the commodity cost of electricity in the province. The fee has risen over the past decade, amid calls to reject steep Nova Scotia rate hikes as well — costing electricity customers $37 billion in global adjustment from 2006 to 2014, according to the province’s auditor general — because of investments in the electricity grid and green-energy contracts, among other reasons.

National Steel Car argued the global adjustment is a tax, and an unconstitutional one at that because it violated a section of the Constitution Act requiring taxes to be authorized by the legislature. The company also said the imposition of the global adjustment broke an Ontario law requiring a referendum to be held for new taxes.

The province, Justice Matheson wrote, had argued “that it is plain and obvious that these applications will fail.” In a decision released in June, the judge granted motions to strike out National Steel Car’s applications.

“The Global Adjustment,” she added, “is not a tax because its purpose, in pith and substance, is not to tax, and it is a regulatory charge and therefore, again, not a tax.”

Now, National Steel Car is arguing that the judge erred in several ways, including in fact, “by finding that the FIT contracts must be paid, when they can be cancelled.”

There has been a change in government at Queen’s Park since National Steel Car first filed its lawsuit last year, and that change has put green energy contracts under fire. The Progressive Conservative government of new Premier Doug Ford has already made a number of decisions on the electricity file, such as moving to cancel and wind down more than 750 renewable energy contracts, as well as repealing the province’s Green Energy Act.

The Tories also struck a commission of inquiry into the province’s finances that warned the global adjustment “may be struck down as unconstitutional,” a warning delivered amid cases where Nova Scotia's regulator approved a 14% rate hike in a high-profile decision.

“There is a risk that a court may find the global adjustment is not a valid regulatory charge if shifting costs over a longer period of time inadvertently results in future ratepayers cross-subsidizing today’s ratepayers,” the commission’s report said.

A spokesperson for Ontario’s Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines said in an email that it would be “inappropriate to comment about the specifics of any case before the courts or currently under arbitration.”

National Steel Car is also prepared to fight its case all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, according to its lawyer.

“What is clear from our proceeding with the appeal is National Steel Car has every intention of seeing that lawsuit through to its conclusion if this government isn’t interested or prepared to reasonably settle it,” Jerome Morse said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

New England oil-fired generation surges as ISO New England manages a cold snap, dual-fuel switching, and a natural gas price spike, highlighting winter reliability challenges, LNG and pipeline limits, and rising CO2 emissions.

Key Points

Reliance on oil-burning power plants during winter demand spikes when natural gas is costly or constrained.

✅ Driven by dual-fuel switching amid high natural gas prices

✅ ISO-NE winter reliability rules encourage oil stockpiles

✅ Raises CO2 emissions despite coal retirements and renewables growth

New England is relying on oil-fired generators for the most electricity since 2018 as a frigid blast boosts demand for power and natural gas prices soar across markets. 

Oil generators were producing more than 4,200 megawatts early Thursday, accounting for about a quarter of the grid’s power supply, according to ISO New England. That was the most since Jan. 6, 2018, when oil plants produced as much as 6.4 gigawatts, or 32% of the grid’s output, said Wood Mackenzie analyst Margaret Cashman.  

Oil is typically used only when demand spikes, because of higher costs and emissions concerns. Consumption has been consistently high over the past three weeks as some generators switch from gas, which has surged in price in recent months. New England generators are producing power from oil at an average rate of almost 1.8 gigawatts so far this month, the highest for January in at least five years. 

Oil’s share declined to 16% Friday morning ahead of an expected snowstorm, which was “a surprise,” Cashman said. 

“It makes me wonder if some of those generators are aiming to reserve their fuel for this weekend,” she said.

During the recent cold snap, more than a tenth of the electricity generated in New England has been produced by power plants that haven’t happened for at least 15 years.

Burning oil for electricity was standard practice throughout the region for decades. It was once our most common fuel for power and as recently as 2000, fully 19% of the six-state region’s electricity came from burning oil, according to ISO-New England, more than any other source except nuclear power at the time.

Since then, however, natural gas has gotten so cheap that most oil-fired plants have been shut or converted to burn gas, to the point that just 1% of New England’s electricity came from oil in 2018, whereas about half our power came from natural gas generation regionally during that period. This is good because natural gas produces less pollution, both particulates and greenhouse gasses, although exactly how much less is a matter of debate.

But as you probably know, there’s a problem: Natural gas is also used for heating, which gets first dibs. Prolonged cold snaps require so much gas to keep us warm, a challenge echoed in Ontario’s electricity system as supply tightens, that there might not be enough for power plants – at least, not at prices they’re willing to pay.

After we came close to rolling brownouts during the polar vortex in the 2017-18 winter because gas-fired power plants cut back so much, ISO-NE, which has oversight of the power grid, established “winter reliability” rules. The most important change was to pay power plants to become dual-fuel, meaning they can switch quickly between natural gas and oil, and to stockpile oil for winter cold snaps.

We’re seeing that practice in action right now, as many dual-fuel plants have switched away from gas to oil, just as was intended.

That switch is part of the reason EPA says the region’s carbon emissions have gone up in the pandemic, from 22 million tons of CO2 in 2019 to 24 million tons in 2021. That reverses a long trend caused partly by closing of coal plants and partly by growing solar and offshore wind capacity: New England power generation produced 36 million tons of CO2 a decade ago.

So if we admit that a return to oil burning is bad, and it is, what can we do in future winters? There are many possibilities, including tapping more clean imports such as Canadian hydropower to diversify supply.

The most obvious solution is to import more natural gas, especially from fracked fields in New York state and Pennsylvania. But efforts to build pipelines to do that have been shot down a couple of times and seem unlikely to go forward and importing more gas via ocean tanker in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG) is also an option, but hits limits in terms of port facilities.

Aside from NIMBY concerns, the problem with building pipelines or ports to import more gas is that pipelines and ports are very expensive. Once they’re built they create a financial incentive to keep using natural gas for decades to justify the expense, similar to moves such as Ontario’s new gas plants that lock in generation. That makes it much harder for New England to decarbonize and potentially leaves ratepayers on the hook for a boatload of stranded costs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Central Asia power shortages strain grids across Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan, driven by drought-hit hydropower, aging coal and gas plants, rising demand, cryptomining loads, and winter peak consumption risks.

Key Points

Regionwide blackouts from drought, aging plants and grids, rising demand, and winter peaks stressing Central Asia.

✅ Drought slashes hydropower in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan

✅ Aging coal and gas TPPs and weak grids cause frequent outages

✅ Cryptomining loads and winter heating spike demand and stress supply

Central Asians from western Kazakhstan to southern Tajikistan are suffering from power and energy shortages that have caused hardship and emergency situations affecting the lives of millions of people.

On October 14, several units at three power plants in northeastern Kazakhstan were shut down in an emergency that resulted in a loss of more than 1,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity.

It serves as an example of the kind of power failures that plague the region 30 years after the Central Asian countries gained independence and despite hundreds of millions of dollars being invested in energy infrastructure and power grids, and echo risks seen in other advanced markets such as Japan's near-blackouts during recent cold snaps.

Some of the reasons for these problems are clear, but with all the money these countries have allocated to their energy sectors and financial help they have received from international financial institutions, it is curious the situation is already so desperate with winter officially still weeks away.

The Current Problems
Three power plants were affected in the October 14 shutdowns of units: Ekibastuz-1, Ekibastuz-2, and the Aksu power plant.

Ekibastuz-1 is the largest power plant in Kazakhstan, capable of generating some 4,000 MW, roughly 13 percent of Kazakhstan’s total power output.

The Kazakhstan Electricity Grid Operating Company (KEGOC) explained the problems resulted partially from malfunctions and repair work, but also from overuse of the system that the government would later say was due to cryptominers, a large number of whom have moved to Kazakhstan recently from China after Beijing banned the mining needed by Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, amid its own China's power cuts across several provinces in 2021.

But between November 8 and 9, rolling blackouts were reported in the East Kazakhstan, North Kazakhstan, and Kyzylorda provinces, as well as the area around Almaty, Kazakhstan’s biggest city, and Shymkent, its third largest city.

People in Uzbekistan say they, too, are facing blackouts that the Energy Ministry described as “short-term outages,” even as authorities have looked to export electricity to Afghanistan to support regional demand, though it has been clear for several weeks that the country will have problems with natural gas supplies this winter.

Power lines in Uzbekistan
Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov continues to say there won't be any power rationing in Kyrgyzstan this winter, but at the end of September the National Energy Holding Company ordered “restrictions on the lighting of secondary streets, advertisements, and facades of shops, cafes, and other nonresidential customers.”

Many parts of Tajikistan are already experiencing intermittent supplies of electricity.

Even in Turkmenistan, a country with the fourth-largest reserves of natural gas in the world, there were reports of problems with electricity and heating in the capital, Ashgabat.

What Is Going On?
The causes of some of these problems are easy to see.

The population of the region has grown significantly, with the population of Central Asia when the Soviet Union collapsed in late 1991 being some 50 million and today about 75 million.

Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are mountainous countries that have long been touted for their hydropower potential and some 90 percent of Kyrgyzstan’s domestically produced electricity and 98 percent of Tajikistan’s come from hydropower.

But a severe drought that struck Central Asia this year has resulted in less hydropower and, in general, less energy for the region, similar to constraints seen in Europe's reduced hydro and nuclear output this year.

Tajik authorities have not reported how low the water in the country’s key reservoirs is, but Kyrgyzstan has reported the water level in the reservoir at its Toktogul hydropower plant (HPP) is 11.8 billion cubic meters (bcm), the lowest level in years and far less than the 14.7 bcm of water it had in November 2020.

The Toktogul HPP, with an installed capacity of 1,200 MW, provides some 40 percent of the country's domestically produced electricity, but operating the HPP this winter to generate desperately needed energy brings the risk of leaving water levels at the reservoir critically low next spring and summer when the water is also needed for agricultural purposes.

This year’s drought is something Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan will have to take into consideration as they plan how to provide power for their growing populations in the future. Hydropower is a desirable option but may be less reliable with the onset of climate change, prompting interest in alternatives such as Ukraine's wind power to diversify generation.

Uzbekistan is also feeling the effects of this year’s drought, and, like the South Caucasus where Georgia's electricity imports have increased, supply shortfalls are testing grids.

According to the International Energy Agency, HPPs account for some 12 percent of Uzbekistan’s generating capacity.

Uzbekistan’s Energy Ministry attributed low water levels at HPPs that have caused a 23 percent decrease in hydropower generation this year.

A reservoir in Kyrgyzstan
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are the most populous Central Asian countries, and both depend on thermal power plants (TPP) for generating most of their electricity.

Most of the TPPs in Kazakhstan are coal-fired, while most of the TPPs in Uzbekistan are gas-fired.

Kazakhstan has 68 power plants, 80 percent of which are coal-fired TPPs, and most are in the northern part of the country where the largest deposits of coal are located. Kazakhstan has the world's 10th largest reserves of coal.

About 88 percent of Uzbekistan’s electricity comes from TTPs, most of which use natural gas.

Uzbekistan’s proven reserves are some 800 billion cubic meters, but gas production in Uzbekistan has been decreasing.

In December 2020, Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoev ordered a halt to the country’s gas exports and instructed that gas to be redirected for domestic use. Mirziyoev has already given similar instructions for this coming winter.

How Did It Come To This?
The biggest problem with the energy infrastructure in Central Asia is that it is generally very old. Nearly all of its power plants date back to the Soviet era -- and some well back into the Soviet period.

The use of power plants and transmission lines that some describe as “obsolete” and a few call “decrepit” has unfortunately been a necessity in Central Asia, even as regional players pursue new interconnections like Iran's plan to transmit electricity to Europe as a power hub.

Reporting on Kazakhstan in September 2016, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) said, “70 percent of the power generation infrastructure is in need of rehabilitation.”

The Ekibastuz-1 TPP is relatively new by the power-plant standards of Central Asia. The first unit of the eight units of the TPP was commissioned in 1980.

The first unit at the AKSU TPP was commissioned in 1968, and the first unit of the gas- and fuel-fired TPP in southern Kazakhstan’s Zhambyl Province was commissioned in 1967.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News