Utilities offer flat-rate payment contracts - at a cost to consumers

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

Key Points

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

✅ Levees and pumps mitigated flooding and storm surge impacts.

✅ All transmission lines failed, crippling the power grid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

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

OpenAI Washington Policy Expansion spotlights AI policy, energy infrastructure, data centers, and national security, advocating AI economic zones and a national transmission grid to advance U.S. competitiveness and align with pro-tech administration priorities.

Key Points

OpenAI's D.C. push to scale policy outreach and AI infrastructure across energy, data centers, and national security.

✅ Triples D.C. policy team to expand bipartisan engagement

✅ Advocates AI economic zones and transmission grid build-out

✅ Aligns with pro-tech leadership, prioritizing national security

OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, is significantly expanding its presence in Washington, D.C., aiming to influence policy decisions that will shape the future of artificial intelligence (AI) and its integration into critical sectors like energy and national security. This strategic move comes as the company seeks to position itself as a key player in the U.S. economic and security landscape, particularly in the context of global competition with China in strategic industries.

Expansion of Policy Team

To enhance its influence, OpenAI is tripling the size of its Washington policy team. While the 12-person team is still smaller compared to tech giants like Amazon and Meta, it reflects OpenAI's commitment to engaging more actively with policymakers, as debates over Biden's climate law shape the regulatory landscape. The company has recruited individuals from across the political spectrum, including former aides to President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, to ensure a diverse and comprehensive approach to policy advocacy.

Strategic Initiatives

OpenAI is promoting an ambitious plan to develop tech and energy infrastructure tailored for AI development. This initiative aims to deliver more affordable energy to data centers and reduce corporate electricity bills, which are essential for AI operations. The company is advocating for the establishment of AI economic zones and a national transmission highway to support the growing energy demands of AI technologies. By aligning these proposals with the incoming Trump administration's pro-tech stance, OpenAI seeks to secure federal support for its projects.

Engagement with the Trump Administration

The transition from the Biden administration to the incoming Trump administration presents new opportunities for OpenAI, even as state legal challenges shape early energy policy moves. The Trump administration is perceived as more favorable toward the tech industry, with appointments of Silicon Valley figures like Elon Musk and David Sacks to key positions. OpenAI is leveraging this environment to advocate for policies that support AI development and infrastructure expansion, positioning itself as a strategic asset in the U.S.-China economic and security competition.

The AI industry is increasingly viewed as a critical component of national security and economic competitiveness. OpenAI's efforts to engage with policymakers reflect a broader industry push to be recognized as a vital player in the U.S. economic and security landscape. By promoting AI as a strategic asset, OpenAI aims to secure support for its initiatives, including clean-energy projects in coal communities, and ensure that the U.S. remains at the forefront of AI innovation.

OpenAI's strategic expansion in Washington, D.C., underscores its commitment to influencing policy decisions that will shape the future of AI and its integration into critical sectors. By enhancing its policy team, advocating for infrastructure development, where Alberta's data center boom illustrates rising demand, and aligning with the incoming administration's priorities, even as energy dominance goals face real-world constraints, OpenAI aims to position itself as a key player in the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence. This proactive approach reflects the company's recognition of the importance of policy engagement in driving innovation and securing a competitive edge in the global AI arena.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hornsea One Offshore Wind Farm delivers first power to the UK grid, scaling renewable energy with 1.2GW capacity, giant offshore turbines, and Yorkshire coast infrastructure to replace delayed nuclear and cut fossil fuel emissions.

Key Points

Hornsea One Offshore Wind Farm is a 1.2GW UK project delivering offshore renewable power to about 1 million homes.

✅ 174 turbines over 407 km2; Siemens Gamesa supply chain in the UK

✅ 1.2GW capacity can power ~1m homes; phases scale with 10MW+ turbines

✅ Supports UK grid, replaces delayed nuclear, cuts fossil generation

An offshore windfarm on the Yorkshire coast that will dwarf the world’s largest when completed is to supply its first power to the UK electricity grid this week, mirroring advances in tidal electricity projects delivering to the grid as well.

The Danish developer Ørsted, which has installed the first of 174 turbines at Hornsea One, said it was ready to step up its plans and fill the gap left by failed nuclear power schemes.

The size of the project takes the burgeoning offshore wind power sector to a new scale, on a par with conventional fossil fuel-fired power stations.

Hornsea One will cover 407 square kilometres, five times the size of the nearby city of Hull. At 1.2GW of capacity it will power 1m homes, making it about twice as powerful as today’s biggest offshore windfarm once it is completed in the second half of this year.

“The ability to generate clean electricity offshore at this scale is a globally significant milestone at a time when urgent action needs to be taken to tackle climate change,” said Matthew Wright, UK managing director of Ørsted, the world’s biggest offshore windfarm builder.

The power station is only the first of four planned in the area, with a green light and subsidies already awarded to a second stage due for completion in the early 2020s, and interest from Japanese utilities underscoring growing investor appetite.

The first two phases will use 7MW turbines, which are taller than London’s Gherkin building.

But the latter stages of the Hornsea development could use even more powerful, 10MW-plus turbines. Bigger turbines will capture more of the energy from the wind and should lower costs by reducing the number of foundations and amount of cabling firms need to put into the water, with developers noting that offshore wind can compete with gas in the U.S. as costs fall.

Henrik Poulsen, Ørsted’s chief executive, said he was in close dialogue with major manufacturers to use the new generation of turbines, some of which are expected to approach the height of the Shard in London, the tallest building in the EU.

The UK has a great wind resource and shallow enough seabed to exploit it, and could even “power most of Europe if it [the UK] went to the extreme with offshore”, he said.

Offshore windfarms could help ministers fill the low carbon power gap created by Hitachi and Toshiba scrapping nuclear plants, the executive suggested. “If nuclear should play less of a role than expected, I believe offshore wind can step up,” he said.

New nuclear projects in Europe had been “dramatically delayed and over budget”, he added, in comparison to “the strong track record for delivering offshore [wind]”.

The UK and Germany installed 85% of new offshore wind power capacity in the EU last year, according to industry data, with wind leading power across several markets. The average power rating of the turbines is getting bigger too, up 15% in 2018.

The turbines for Hornsea One are built and shipped from Siemens Gamesa’s factory in Hull, part of a web of UK-based suppliers that has sprung up around the growing sector, such as Prysmian UK's land cables supporting grid connections.

Around half of the project’s transition pieces, the yellow part of the structure that connects the foundation to the tower, are made in Teeside. Many of the towers themselves are made by a firm in Campbeltown in the Scottish highlands. Altogether, about half of the components for the project are made in the UK.

Ørsted is not yet ready to bid for a share of a £60m pot of further offshore windfarm subsidies, to be auctioned by the government this summer, but expects the price to reach even more competitive levels than those seen in 2017.

Like other international energy companies, Ørsted has put in place contingency planning in event of a no-deal Brexit – but the hope is that will not come to pass. “We want a Brexit deal that will facilitate an orderly transition out of the union,” said Poulsen.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Germany Hydrogen Import Strategy outlines reliance on green hydrogen imports, expanded electrolysis capacity, IPCEI-funded pipelines, and industrial decarbonization for steel and chemicals to reach climate-neutral goals by 2045, meeting 2030 demand of 95-130 TWh.

Key Points

A plan to import 50-70% of hydrogen by 2030, backing green hydrogen, electrolysis, pipelines, and decarbonization.

✅ Imports cover 50-70% of 2030 hydrogen demand

✅ 10 GW electrolysis target with state aid and IPCEI

✅ 1,800 km H2 pipelines to link hubs by 2030

Germany will have to import up to 70% of its hydrogen demand in the future as Europe's largest economy aims to become climate-neutral by 2045, an updated government strategy published on Wednesday showed.

The German cabinet approved a new hydrogen strategy, setting guidelines for hydrogen production, transport infrastructure and market plans.

Germany is seeking to expand reliance on hydrogen as a future energy source to bolster energy resilience and cut greenhouse emissions for highly polluting industrial sectors that cannot be electrified such as steel and chemicals and cut dependency on imported fossil fuel.

Produced using solar and wind power, green hydrogen is a pillar of Berlin's plan to build a sustainable electric planet and transition away from fossil fuels.

But even with doubling the country's domestic electrolysis capacity target for 2030 to at least 10 gigawatts (GW), Germany will need to import around 50% to 70% of its hydrogen demand, forecast at 95 to 130 TWh in 2030, the strategy showed.

"A domestic supply that fully covers demand does not make economic sense or serve the transformation processes resulting from the energy transition and the broader global energy transition overall," the document said.

The strategy underscores the importance of diversifying future hydrogen sources, including potential partners such as Canada's clean hydrogen sector, but the government is working on a separate strategy for hydrogen imports whose exact date is not clear, a spokesperson for the economy ministry said.

"Instead of relying on domestic potential for the production of green hydrogen, the federal government's strategy is primarily aimed at imports by ship," Simone Peter, the head of Germany's renewable energy association, said.

Under the strategy, state aid is expected to be approved for around 2.5 GW of electrolysis projects in Germany this year and the government will earmark 700 million euros ($775 million) for hydrogen research to optimise production methods, research minister Bettina Stark-Watzinger said.

But Germany's limited renewable energy space will make it heavily dependent on imported hydrogen from emerging export hubs such as Abu Dhabi hydrogen exports gaining scale, experts say.

"Germany is a densely populated country. We simply need space for wind and photovoltaic to be able to produce the hydrogen," Philipp Heilmaier, an energy transition researcher at Germany energy agency, told Reuters.

The strategy allows the usage of hydrogen produced through fossil energy sources preferably if the carbon is split off, but said direct government subsidies would be limited to green hydrogen.

Funds for launching a hydrogen network with more than 1,800 km of pipelines in Germany are expected to flow by 2027/2028 through the bloc's Important Projects of Common European Interest (IPCEI) financing scheme, as the EU plans to double electricity use by 2050 could raise future demand, with the goal of connecting all major generation, import and storage centres to customers by 2030.

Transport Minister Volker Wissing said his ministry was working on plans for a network of hydrogen filling stations and for renewable fuel subsidies.

Environmental groups said the strategy lacked binding sustainability criteria and restriction on using hydrogen for sectors that cannot be electrified instead of using it for private heating or in cars, calling for a plan to eventually phase-out blue hydrogen which is produced from natural gas.

Germany has already signed several hydrogen cooperation agreements with countries such as clean energy partnership with Canada and Norway, United Arab Emirates and Australia.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Global Electricity Demand Surge underscores rising coal generation, lagging renewables deployment, and escalating emissions, as nations prioritize reliable power; nuclear energy and grid decarbonization emerge as pivotal solutions to the electricity transition.

Key Points

A rapid post-lockdown rise in power consumption, outpacing renewables growth and driving higher coal use and emissions.

✅ Coal generation rises faster than wind and solar additions

✅ Emissions increase as economies prioritize reliable baseload power

✅ Nuclear power touted for rapid grid decarbonization

By Robert Bryce

As the Covid lockdowns are easing, the global economy is recovering and that recovery is fueling blistering growth in electricity use. The latest data from Ember, the London-based “climate and energy think tank focused on accelerating the global electricity transition,” show that global power demand soared by about 5% in the first half of 2021. That’s faster growth than was happening back in 2018 when electricity use was increasing by about 4% per year.

The numbers from Ember also show that despite lots of talk about the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, coal demand for power generation continues to grow and emissions from the electric sector continue to grow: up by 5% over the first half of 2019. In addition, they show that while about half of the growth in electricity demand was met by wind and solar, as low-emissions sources are set to cover almost all new demand over the next three years, overall growth in electricity use is still outstripping the growth in renewables. 

The soaring use of electricity, and increasing emissions from power generation confirm the sage wisdom of Rasheed Wallace, the volatile former power forward with the Detroit Pistons and other NBA teams, and now an assistant coach at the  University of Memphis, who coined the catchphrase: “Ball don’t lie.” If Wallace or one of his teammates was called for a foul during a basketball game that he thought was undeserved, and the opposing player missed the ensuing free throws, Wallace would often holler, “ball don’t lie,” as if the basketball itself was pronouncing judgment on the referee’s errant call. 

I often think about Wallace’s catchphrase while looking at global energy and power trends and substitute my own phrase: numbers don’t lie.

Over the past few weeks Ember, BP, and the International Energy Agency have all published reports which come to the same two conclusions: that countries all around the world — and China's electricity sector in particular — are doing whatever they need to do to get the electricity they need to grow their economies. Second, they are using lots of coal to get that juice. 

As I discuss in my recent book, A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations, Electricity is the world’s most important and fastest-growing form of energy. The Ember data proves that. At a growth rate of 5%, global electricity use will double in about 14 years, and as surging electricity demand is putting power systems under strain around the world, the electricity sector also accounts for the biggest single share of global carbon dioxide emissions: about 25 percent. Thus, if we are to have any hope of cutting global emissions, the electricity sector is pivotal. Further, the soaring use of electricity shows that low-income people and countries around the world are not content to stay in the dark. They want to live high-energy lives with access to all the electronic riches that we take for granted.  

 Ember’s data clearly shows that decarbonizing the global electric grid will require finding a substitute for coal. Indeed, coal use may be plummeting in the U.S. and western Europe, where U.S. electricity consumption has been declining, but over the past two years, several developing countries including Mongolia, China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, and India, all boosted their use of coal. This was particularly obvious in China, where, between the first half of 2019 and the first half of 2021, electricity demand jumped by about 14%. Of that increase, coal-fired generation provided roughly twice as much new electricity as wind and solar combined. In Pakistan, electricity demand jumped by about 7%, and coal provided more than three times as much new electricity as nuclear and about three times as much as hydro. (Wind and solar did not grow at all in Pakistan over that period.) 

Hate coal all you like, but its century-long persistence in power generation proves its importance. That persistence proves that climate change concerns are not as important to most consumers and policymakers as reliable electricity. In 2010, Roger Pielke Jr. dubbed this the Iron Law of Climate Policy which says “When policies on emissions reductions collide with policies focused on economic growth, economic growth will win out every time.” Pielke elaborated on that point, saying the Iron Law is a “boundary condition on policy design that is every bit as limiting as is the second law of thermodynamics, and it holds everywhere around the world, in rich and poor countries alike. It says that even if people are willing to bear some costs to reduce emissions (and experience shows that they are), they are willing to go only so far.”

Over the past five years, I’ve written a book about electricity, co-produced a feature-length documentary film about it (Juice: How Electricity Explains the World), and launched a podcast that focuses largely on energy and power. I’m convinced that Pielke’s claim is exactly right and should be extended to electricity and dubbed the Iron Law of Electricity which says, “when forced to choose between dirty electricity and no electricity, people will choose dirty electricity every time.” I saw this at work in electricity-poor places all over the world, including India, Lebanon, and Puerto Rico. 

Pielke, a professor at the University of Colorado as well as a highly regarded author on the politics of climate change and sports governance, has since elaborated on the Iron Law. During an interview in Juice, he explained it thusly: “The Iron Law says we’re not going to reduce emissions by willingly getting poor. Rich people aren't going to want to get poorer, poor people aren't going to want to get poorer.” He continued, “If there is one thing that we can count on it is that policymakers will be rewarded by populations if they make people wealthier. We're doing everything we can to try to get richer as nations, as communities, as individuals. If we want to reduce emissions, we really have only one place to go and that's technology.”

Pielke’s point reminds me of another of my favorite energy analysts, Robert Rapier, who made a salient point in his Forbes column last week. He wrote, “Despite the blistering growth rate of renewables, it’s important to keep in mind that overall global energy consumption is growing. Even though global renewable energy consumption has increased by about 21 exajoules in the past decade, overall energy consumption has increased by 51 exajoules. Increased fossil fuel consumption made up most of this growth, with every category of fossil fuels showing increased consumption over the decade.” 

The punchline here – despite my tangential reference to Rasheed Wallace — is obvious: The claims that massive reductions in global carbon dioxide emissions must happen soon are being mocked by the numbers. Countries around the world are acting in their interest, particularly when it comes to their electricity needs and that is resulting in big increases in emissions. As Ember concludes in their report, wind and solar are growing, and some analyses suggest renewables could eclipse coal by 2025, but the “electricity transition” is “not happening fast enough.”

Ember explains that in the first half of 2021, wind and solar output exceeded the output of the world’s nuclear reactors for the first time. It also noted that over the past two years, “Nuclear generation fell by 2% compared to pre-pandemic levels, as closures at older plants across the OECD, especially amid debates over European nuclear trends, exceeded the new capacity in China.” While that may cheer anti-nuclear activists at groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, the truth is obvious: the only way – repeat, the only way – the electric sector will achieve significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions is if we can replace lots of coal-fired generation with nuclear reactors and do so in relatively short order, meaning the next decade or so. Renewables are politically popular and they are growing, but they cannot, will not, be able to match the soaring demand for the electricity that is needed to sustain modern economies and bring developing countries out of the darkness and into modernity. 

Countries like China, Vietnam, India, and others need an alternative to coal for power generation. They need new nuclear reactors that are smaller, safer, and cheaper than the existing designs. And they need it soon. I will be writing about those reactors in future columns.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News