TECO power bills to drop in January

Puerto Rico Earthquakes continue as a seismic swarm with aftershocks, landslides near Pef1uelas, damage in Ponce and Guayanilla, grid outages from Costa Sur Plant, PREPA recovery, vulnerable buildings post-Hurricane Maria raising safety concerns.

Key Points

Recurring seismic events impacting Puerto Rico, causing damage, aftershocks, outages, and displacement.

✅ Seismic swarm with 6.4 and 5.9 magnitude quakes and ongoing aftershocks

✅ Costa Sur Plant offline; PREPA urges conservation amid grid repairs

✅ Older, code-deficient buildings and landslides raise safety risks

Some in Puerto Rico are beginning to fear the ground will never stop shaking. The island has been pummeled by hundreds of earthquakes in recent weeks, including the recent 5.9 magnitude temblor, where there were reports of landslides in the town of Peñuelas along the southern coast, rattling residents already on edge from the massive 6.4 magnitude quake, and raising wider concerns about climate risks to the grid in disaster-prone regions.

That was the largest to strike the island in more than a century causing hundreds of structures to crumble, forcing thousands from their homes and leaving millions without power, a scenario echoed by Texas power outages during winter storms too. One person was killed and several others injured.

Utility says 99% of customers have electricity

Puerto Rico's public utility, PREPA, tweeted some welcome news Monday: that nearly all of the homes and businesses it serves have had electric power restored. Still it is urging customers to conserve energy amid utility supply-chain shortages that can slow critical repairs.

Reporting from the port city of Ponce, NPR's Adrian Florido said the Costa Sur Plant, which produces more than 40% of Puerto Rico's electricity, was badly damaged in last week's quake. It remains offline indefinitely, even as grid operators elsewhere have faced California blackout warnings during extreme heat.

He also reports many residents are still reeling from the devastation caused by Hurricane Maria, a deadly Category 4 storm that battered the island in September 2017. The storm exposed the fact that buildings across the island were not up to code, similar to how aging systems have contributed to PG&E power line fires in California. The series of earthquakes are only amplifying fears that structures have been further weakened.

"People aren't coping terribly well," Florido said on NPR's Morning Edition Monday, noting that households elsewhere have endured pandemic power shutoffs and burdensome bills.

Many earthquake victims sleeping outdoors

Florido spoke to one displaced resident, Leticia Espada, who said more than 50 homes in her town of Guayanilla, about an hour drive east of the port city of Ponce, had collapsed.

After sleeping outside for days on her patio following Tuesday's quake, she eventually came to her town's baseball stadium where she's been sleeping on one of hundreds of government-issued cots.

She's like so many others sleeping in open-air shelters, many unwilling to go back to their homes until they've been deemed safe, while even far from disaster zones, brief events like a Northeast D.C. outage show how fragile service can be.

"Thousands of people across several towns sleeping in tents or under tarps, or out in the open, protected by nothing but the shade of a tree with no sense of when these quakes are going to stop," Florido reports.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BC Hydro Site C and Clean Energy Policy shapes B.C.'s power mix, affecting run-of-river hydro, net metering for rooftop solar, independent power producers, and surplus capacity forecasts tied to LNG Canada demand.

Key Points

BC Hydro's strategy centers on Site C, limiting new run-of-river projects and tightening net metering amid surplus power

✅ Site C adds long-term capacity with lower projected rates.

✅ Run-of-river IPP growth paused amid surplus forecasts.

✅ Net metering limits deter oversized rooftop solar.

Innergex Renewable Energy Inc. is celebrating the official commissioning today of what may be the last large run-of-river hydro project in B.C. for years to come.

The project – two new generating stations on the Upper Lillooet River and Boulder Creek in the Pemberton Valley – actually began producing power in 2017, but the official commissioning was delayed until Friday September 14.

Innergex, which earlier this year bought out Vancouver’s Alterra Power, invested $491 million in the two run-of-river hydro-electric projects, which have a generating capacity of 106 megawatts of power. The project has the generating capacity to power 39,000 homes.

The commissioning happened to coincide with an address by BC Hydro CEO Chris O’Riley to the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade Friday, in which he provided an update on the progress of the $10.7-billion Site C dam project.

That project has put an end, for the foreseeable future, of any major new run-of-river projects like the Innergex project in Pemberton.

BC Hydro expects the new dam to produce a surplus of power when it is commissioned in November 2024, so no new clean energy power calls are expected for years to come.

Independent power producers aren’t the only ones who have seen a decline in opportunities to make money in B.C. providing renewable power, as the Siwash Creek project shows. So will homeowners who over-build their own solar power systems, in an attempt to make money from power sales.

There are about 1,300 homeowners in B.C. with rooftop solar systems, and when they produce surplus power, they can sell it to BC Hydro.

BC Hydro is amending the net metering program to discourage homeowners from over-building. In some cases, some howeowners have been generating 40% to 50% more power than they need.

“We were getting installations that were massively over-sized for their load, and selling this big quantity of power to us,” O’Riley said. “And that was never the idea of the program.”

Going forward, BC Hydro plans to place limits on how much power a homeowner can sell to BC Hydro.

BC Hydro has been criticized for building Site C when the demand for power has been generally flat, and reliance on out-of-province electricity has drawn scrutiny. But O’Riley said the dam isn’t being built for today’s generation, but the next.

“We’re not building Site C for today,” he said. “We have an energy surplus for the short term. We’re not even building it for 2024. We’re building it for the next 100 years.”

O’Riley acknowledged Site C dam has been a contentious and “extremely challenging” project. It has faced numerous court challenges, a late-stage review by the BC Utilities Commission, cost overruns, geotechnical problems and a dispute with the main contractors.

In a separate case, the province was ordered to pay $10 million over the denial of a Squamish power project, highlighting broader legal risk.

But those issues have been resolved, O’Riley said, and the project is back on track with a new construction schedule.

“As we move forward, we have a responsibility to deliver a project on time and against the new revised budget, and I’m confident the changes we’ve made are set up to do that,” O’Riley said.

Currently, there are about 3,300 workers employed on the dam project.

Despite criticisms that BC Hydro is investing in a legacy mega-project at a time when cost of wind and solar have been falling, O’Riley insisted that Site C was the best and lowest cost option.

“First, it’s the lowest cost option,” he said. “We expect over the first 20 years of Site C’s operating life, our customers will see rates 7% to 10% below what it would otherwise be using the alternatives.”

BC Hydro missed a critical window to divert the Peace River, something that can only be done in September, during lower river flows. That added a full year’s delay to the project.

O’Riley said BC Hydro had built in a one-year contingency into the project, so he expects the project can still be completed by 2024 – the original in-service target date. But the delay will add more than $2 billion to the last budget estimate, boosting the estimated capital cost from $8.3 billion to $10.7 billion.

Meeting the 2024 in-service target date could be important, if Royal Dutch Shell and its consortium partners make a final investment decision this year on the $40 billion LNG Canada project.

That project also has a completion target date of 2024, and would be a major new industrial customer with a substantial power draw for operations.

“If they make a decision to go forward, they will be a very big customer of BC Hydro,” O’Riley told Business in Vancouver. “They would be in our top three or four biggest customers.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Transcranial electrical stimulation synchronizes brain waves to bolster working memory, aligning neural oscillations across the prefrontal and temporal cortex. This noninvasive brain stimulation may counter cognitive aging by restoring network coupling and improving short-term recall.

Key Points

Transcranial electrical stimulation applies scalp currents to synchronize brain waves, briefly enhancing working memory.

✅ Synchronizes prefrontal-temporal networks to restore coupling

✅ Noninvasive tES/tACS protocols show rapid, reversible gains

✅ Effects lasted under an hour; durability remains to be tested

To read this sentence, you hold the words in your mind for a few seconds until you reach the period. As you do, neurons in your brain fire in coordinated bursts, generating electrical waves that let you hold information for as long as it is needed, much as novel devices can generate electricity from falling snow under specific conditions. But as we age, these brain waves start to get out of sync, causing short-term memory to falter. A new study finds that jolting specific brain areas with a periodic burst of electricity might reverse the deficit—temporarily, at least.

The work makes “a strong case” for the idea that out-of-sync brain waves in specific regions can drive cognitive aging, says Vincent Clark, a neuroscientist at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, who was not involved in the research. He adds that the brain stimulation approach in the study may result in a new electrical therapy for age-related deficits in working memory.

Working memory is “the sketchpad of the mind,” allowing us to hold information in our minds over a period of seconds. This short-term memory is critical to accomplishing everyday tasks such as planning and counting, says Robert Reinhart, a neuroscientist at Boston University who led the study. Scientists think that when we use this type of memory, millions of neurons in different brain areas communicate through coupled bursts of activity, a form of electrical conduction that coordinates timing across networks. “Cells that fire together, wire together,” Reinhart says.

But despite its critical role, working memory is a fragile cognitive resource that declines with age, Reinhart says. Previous studies had suggested that reduced working-memory performance in the elderly is linked to uncoupled activity in different brain areas. So Reinhart and his team set out to test whether recoupling brain waves in older adults could boost the brain’s ability to temporarily store information, a systems-level coordination challenge akin to efforts to use AI for energy savings on modern power grids.

To do so, the researchers used jolts of weak electrical current to synchronize waves in the prefrontal and temporal cortex—two brain areas critical for cognition, a targeted approach not unlike how grids use batteries to stabilize power during strain—and applied the current to the scalps of 42 healthy people in their 60s and 70s who showed no signs of decline in mental ability. Before their brains were zapped, participants looked at a series of images: an everyday object, followed briefly by a blank screen, and then either an identical or a modified version of the same object. The goal was to spot whether the two images were different.

Then the participants took the test again, while their brains were stimulated with a current. After about 25 minutes of applying electricity, participants were on average more accurate at identifying changes in the images than they were before the stimulation. Following stimulation, their performance in the test was indistinguishable from that of a group of 42 people in their 20s. And the waves in the prefrontal and temporal cortex, which had previously been out of sync in most of the participants, started to fire in sync, the researchers report today in Nature Neuroscience, a synchronization imperative reminiscent of safeguards that prevent power blackouts on threatened grids. No such effects occurred in a second group of older people who received jolts of current that didn’t synchronize waves in the prefrontal and temporal cortex.

By using bursts of current to knock brain waves out of sync, the researchers also modulated the brain chatter in healthy people in their 20s, making them slower and less accurate at spotting differences in the image test.

“This is a very nice and clear demonstration of how functional connections underlie memory in younger adults and how alterations … can lead to memory reductions in older adults,” says Cheryl Grady, a cognitive neuroscientist at the Rotman Research Institute at Baycrest in Toronto, Canada. It’s also the first time that transcranial stimulation has been shown to restore working memory in older people, says Michael O’Sullivan, a neuroscientist at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, though electricity in medicine extends far beyond neurostimulation.

But whether brain zapping could turbocharge the cognitive abilities of seniors or help improve the memories of people with diseases like Alzheimer’s is still unclear: In the study, the positive effects on working memory lasted for just under an hour—though Reinhart says that’s as far as they recorded in the experiment. The team didn’t see the improvements decline toward the end, so he suspects that the cognitive boost may last for longer. Still, researchers say much more work has to be done to better understand how the stimulation works.

Clark is optimistic. “No pill yet developed can produce these sorts of effects safely and reliably,” he says. “Helping people is the ultimate goal of all of our research, and it’s encouraging to see that progress is being made.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Maryland Renewable Energy Violations highlight RPS compliance gaps as facilities selling renewable energy certificates, including waste-to-energy, biomass, and paper mills, face emissions and permit issues, prompting PSC and Attorney General scrutiny of environmental standards.

Key Points

Alleged RPS noncompliance by REC-eligible plants, prompting PSC review and potential decertification under Maryland law.

✅ Complaint targets waste-to-energy, biomass plants, and paper mills

✅ Facilities risk loss of REC certification for environmental violations

✅ PSC may investigate nonreporting; AG reviewing evidence

Many facilities that supply Maryland with renewable energy have exceeded pollution limits or otherwise broken environmental rules, violating a state law, according to a complaint sent by environmental groups to state energy and law enforcement officials.

Maryland law says that any company that contributes to a state renewable energy goal — half the state’s energy portfolio must come from renewable sources by 2030 — must “substantially comply” with rules on air and water quality and waste management. The complaint says more than two dozen power generators, including paper mills and trash incinerators, have records of formal or informal enforcement actions by environmental authorities.

For years, environmental groups have criticized Maryland policy that counts power plants that produce planet-warming carbon dioxide and health-threatening pollution as “renewable” energy generation, and similar tensions have emerged in California’s reliance on fossil fuels despite ambitious targets, but lawmakers concerned about protecting industrial jobs have resisted reforms. The renewable label qualifies the companies for subsidies drawn from energy bills across the state.

In a complaint filed this week, the groups asked the attorney general and Public Service Commission to step in.

“We’re subsidizing companies to produce dirty energy, but we’re also using ratepayer money to support companies that in many instances are paying environmental fines or just flouting the law,” said Timothy Whitehouse, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “There’s no one to hold them to account in Maryland.”

A spokeswoman for Attorney General Brian Frosh said his office would review the complaint, which was signed by Whitehouse and Mike Ewall, executive director of the Energy Justice Network.

Public Service Commission officials said the facilities must notify them if found out of compliance with environmental rules, while at the federal level FERC action on aggregated DERs is shaping market participation, and the commission can then revoke certification under the state renewable energy program. In a statement, commission officials said they would launch an investigation if any facility had failed to notify them of any environmental violations, and encouraged anyone with evidence of such a transgression to file a complaint.

Companies named in the document accused the groups of painting an inaccurate picture.

“This complaint is based on misleading arguments designed to halt waste-to-energy practices that have clear environmental benefits recognized by the global scientific community,” said Jim Connolly, vice president of environment, health and safety for Wheelabrator, which owns a Baltimore trash incinerator.

Maryland launched its renewable energy program in 2004, diversifying the state’s energy portfolio with more environmentally friendly sources of power, even as regional debates over a Maine-Québec transmission line highlight cross-border impacts. Under the program, separate from the electricity they generate and sell to the grid, renewable power facilities can sell what are known as renewable energy certificates. Utilities such as Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. are required to buy a growing number of the certificates each year, essentially subsidizing the renewable energy facilities with money from ratepayer bills.

A dozen types of power generation qualify to sell the certificates: Solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric plants, as well as “biomass” facilities that burn wood and other organic matter, waste-to-energy plants that burn household trash and paper mills that burn a byproduct known as black liquor.

The complaint focuses on waste incinerators, biomass plants and paper mills, all of which environmental groups have cast as counter to the renewable energy program’s environmental goals, even as ACORE criticized a coal and nuclear subsidy proposal in federal proceedings.

“By subsidizing these corporations, Maryland is diverting the hard-earned income of Maryland ratepayers to wealthy corporations with poor environmental compliance records and undermining the state’s transition to clean renewable energy,” Whitehouse and Ewall wrote.

For example, they note that the Wheelabrator plant in Southwest Baltimore has been fined for exceeding mercury limits in the past. That occurred in 2011, when the plant settled with state regulators for violations in 2010 and 2009.

Connolly said there is “no question” the facility complies with Maryland’s renewable energy law.

Incinerators in Montgomery County and in Fairfax County, Virginia, that are owned by Covanta and sell the energy certificates in Maryland have been cited for accidental fires inside both facilities. The Maryland incinerator violated emissions rules in 2014, the same year that New Jersey forbade the Virginia facility from selling energy certificates into that state’s renewable energy program over concerns it wasn’t following ash testing regulations.

James Regan, a spokesman for Covanta, said both facilities “have excellent compliance records and they operate well below their permitted limits.” He said the Virginia facility is complying with ash testing requirements, and that both facilities emit far lower levels of pollutants such as particulate matter than vehicles do.

“It’s clear to us there’s a lot of misleading and wrong information in this document," Regan said.

The Environmental Protection Agency endorsed waste-to-energy facilities under former President Barack Obama because, while burning household trash emits carbon dioxide, scientists said that still had a smaller impact on global warming than sending trash to landfills, even as industry groups have backed the EPA in a legal challenge to the ACE rule as regulatory approaches shifted.

Environmentalists and community groups say the facilities still are harmful because they emit high levels of pollutants such as mercury, nitrogen oxides and lead. The concerns prompted Baltimore City Council to pass an ordinance in February that tightened emissions limits on the Wheelabrator facility, even as the new EPA pollution limits for coal and gas plants are being proposed, so dramatically that the company said it would no longer be able to operate once the rules go into effect in 2022.

The complaint does not mention the century-old Luke paper mill in Western Maryland that long faced criticism for its participation in the renewable energy program, but which owner Verso Co. closed this year.

It does say several of paper company WestRock’s mills in North Carolina and Virginia have faced both formal and informal EPA enforcement actions for violation of the Clean Water Act, including evolving EPA wastewater limits for power plants and other facilities, and the Clean Air Act. A WestRock spokesperson could not be reached for comment.

The complaint also says a large biomass facility in South Boston, Virginia, owned by the Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative has a record of noncompliance with the Clean Air Act over three years.

John Rainey, the plant’s operations director, said it “experienced some small exceedances to its permit limits,” but that it addressed the issues with Virginia environmental officials and has installed new technology.

All those plants have sold credits in Maryland.

Whitehouse said the environmental groups’ goal is to clean up Maryland’s renewable energy program. They did not file a lawsuit because he said there was no clear cause of action to take the state to court, but said he hopes the complaint nonetheless spurs action.

“It’s not acceptable in a clean energy program that we’re subsidizing some of the most dirty sources of energy,” he said. “Those sources aren’t even in compliance with the law, and no one seems to care.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

Netherlands vs Canada Solar Power compares per capita capacity, renewable energy policies, photovoltaics adoption, rooftop installations, grid integration, and incentives like feed-in tariffs and BIPV, highlighting efficiency, costs, and public engagement.

Key Points

Concise comparison of per capita capacity, policies, technology, and engagement in Dutch and Canadian solar adoption.

✅ Dutch per capita PV capacity exceeds Canada's by wide margin.

✅ Strong incentives: net metering, feed-in tariffs, rooftop focus.

✅ Climate, grid density, and awareness drive higher yields.

When it comes to harnessing solar power, the Netherlands stands as a shining example of efficient and widespread adoption, far surpassing Canada in solar energy generation per capita. Despite Canada's vast landmass and abundance of sunlight, the Netherlands has managed to outpace its North American counterpart, which some experts call a solar power laggard in solar energy production. This article explores the factors behind the Netherlands' success in solar power generation and compares it to Canada's approach.

Solar Power Capacity and Policy Support

The Netherlands has rapidly expanded its solar power capacity in recent years, driven by a combination of favorable policies, technological advancements, and public support. According to recent data, the Netherlands boasts a significantly higher per capita solar power capacity compared to Canada, where demand for solar electricity lags relative to deployment in many regions, leveraging its smaller geographical size and dense population centers to maximize solar panel installations on rooftops and in urban areas.

In contrast, Canada's solar energy development has been slower, despite having vast areas of suitable land for solar farms. Challenges such as regulatory hurdles, varying provincial policies, and the high initial costs of solar installations have contributed to a more gradual adoption of solar power across the country. However, provinces like Ontario have seen significant growth in solar installations due to supportive government incentives and favorable feed-in tariff programs, though growth projections were scaled back after Ontario scrapped a key program.

Innovation and Technological Advancements

The Netherlands has also benefited from ongoing innovations in solar technology and efficiency improvements. Dutch companies and research institutions have been at the forefront of developing new solar panel technologies, improving efficiency rates, and exploring innovative applications such as building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV). These advancements have helped drive down the cost of solar energy and increase its competitiveness with traditional fossil fuels.

In contrast, while Canada has made strides in solar technology research and development, commercialization and widespread adoption have been more restrained due to factors like market fragmentation and the country's reliance on other energy sources such as hydroelectricity.

Public Awareness and Community Engagement

Public awareness and community engagement play a crucial role in the Netherlands' success in solar power adoption. The Dutch government has actively promoted renewable energy through public campaigns, educational programs, and financial incentives for homeowners and businesses to install solar panels. This proactive approach has fostered a culture of energy conservation and sustainability among the Dutch population.

In Canada, while there is growing public support for renewable energy, varying levels of awareness and engagement across different provinces have impacted the pace of solar energy adoption. Provinces like British Columbia and Alberta have seen increasing interest in solar power, driven by environmental concerns, technological advancements, and economic benefits, as the country is set to hit 5 GW of installed capacity in the near term.

Climate and Geographic Considerations

Climate and geographic considerations also influence the disparity in solar power generation between the Netherlands and Canada. The Netherlands, despite its northern latitude, benefits from relatively mild winters and a higher average annual sunlight exposure compared to most regions of Canada. This favorable climate has facilitated higher solar energy yields and made solar power a more viable option for electricity generation.

In contrast, Canada's diverse climate and geography present unique challenges for solar energy deployment. Northern regions experience extended periods of darkness during winter months, limiting the effectiveness of solar panels in those areas. Despite these challenges, advancements in energy storage technologies and hybrid solar-diesel systems are making solar power increasingly feasible in remote and off-grid communities across Canada, even as Alberta faces expansion challenges related to grid integration and policy.

Future Prospects and Challenges

Looking ahead, both the Netherlands and Canada face opportunities and challenges in expanding their respective solar power capacities. In the Netherlands, continued investments in solar technology, grid infrastructure upgrades, and policy support will be crucial for maintaining momentum in renewable energy development.

In Canada, enhancing regulatory consistency, scaling up solar installations in urban and rural areas, and leveraging emerging technologies will be essential for narrowing the gap with global leaders in solar energy generation and for seizing opportunities in the global electricity market as the energy transition accelerates.

In conclusion, while the Netherlands currently generates more solar power per capita than Canada, with the Prairie Provinces poised to lead growth in the Canadian market, both countries have unique strengths and challenges in their pursuit of a sustainable energy future. By learning from each other's successes and leveraging technological advancements, both nations can further accelerate the adoption of solar power and contribute to global efforts to combat climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News