Bangladeshi government implements electricity rationing to cope with power crisis

AEMC Storage Charging Rules spark industry backlash as Tesla, Snowy Hydro, and investors warn transmission charges on batteries and pumped hydro could deter grid-scale storage, distort the National Electricity Market, and slow decarbonisation.

Key Points

AEMC Storage Charging Rules are proposals to bill grid storage for network use, shaping costs and investment.

✅ Charges apply when batteries draw power; double-charging concerns.

✅ Tesla and Snowy Hydro warn of reduced viability and delays.

✅ AEMO recommends exemptions; investors seek certainty.

Tesla, Snowy Hydro and other big suppliers of storage capacity on Australia’s main electricity grid warn proposed rule changes amount to a tax on their operations that will deter investors and slow the decarbonisation of the industry.

The Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) will release its final decision this Thursday on new rules for integrating batteries, pumped hydro and other forms of storage.

The AEMC’s draft decision, released in July, angered many firms because it proposed charging storage providers for drawing power, ignoring a recommendation by the Australian Electricity Market Operator (AEMO) that they be exempt.

Battery maker Tesla, which has supplied some of the largest storage to the National Electricity Market, said in a submission that the charges would “kill the commercial viability of all grid storage projects, causing inefficient investment in alternative network”, with consumers paying higher costs.

Snowy Hydro, which is building the giant Snowy 2 pumped storage project and already operates a smaller one, said in its submission the proposed changes if implemented would jeopardise investment.

“This is a major policy change, amounting to a tax on infrastructure critical to achieving a renewable future,” Snowy Hydro said.

AEMO itself argued it was important storage providers were not “disincentivised from connecting to the transmission network, as they generally provide a net benefit to the power system by charging at periods of low demand”.

Australia’s electricity grid faces economic and engineering challenges, similar to Ontario's storage push as it adjusts to the arrival of lower cost and also lower carbon alternatives to fossil fuels.

While rule changes are necessary to account for operators that can both draw from and supply power, how they are implemented can have long-lasting effects on the technologies that get encouraged or repelled, including control of EV charging issues, independent experts say.

“It doesn’t have to be this way,” said Bruce Mountain, director of the Victoria Energy Policy Centre. “In Britain, where the UK grid transformation is underway, the regulator dealing with the same issues has said that storage devices don’t pay the system charges when they withdraw electricity from the grid,” he said.

The prospect that storage operators will have to pay transmission charges could “drastically” affect their profitability since their business models rely on the difference between the price their pay for power and how much they can sell it for. Gas generators and network monopolies would benefit from the change, Mountain said.

Sign up to receive an email with the top stories from Guardian Australia every morning

An AEMC spokesperson said the commission had consulted widely, including from those who objected to the payment for transmission access.

“The market is moving towards a future that will be increasingly reliant on energy storage to firm up the growing volume of renewable energy and deliver on the increasing need for critical system security services, with examples such as EVs supporting grid stability in California as the ageing fleet of thermal generators retire,” the spokesperson said, declining to elaborate on the final ruling before it is published.

“The regulatory framework needs to facilitate this transition as the energy sector continues to decarbonise,” the official said.

AusNet, which operates the Victorian energy transmission grid, said that while “technological neutrality is paramount for battery and hybrid unit connections to both the distribution and transmission networks,” it did not back charging storage access to networks in all cases.

“[Ausnet] supports a clear exemptions framework for energy storage providers,” a spokesperson said. “We recommend that batteries and other hybrid facilities should have transmission use of system charges waived if they provide a net benefit to network customers.”

We are not aware of anyone that supports the charging storage access to networks in all circumstances.

“Batteries and hybrid facilities that consume energy from the network should be provided no preferential treatment relative to other customers and generators.”

Jonathan Upson, a principal at Strategic Renewable Consulting, though, said the AEMC wants electricity flowing through batteries to be taxed twice to pay network charges – once when the electricity charges the battery and then again when the same electricity is sent out by the battery an hour or two later but this time with customers paying.

“The AEMC’s draft decision has the identical rationale for eliminating franking credits on all dividends, resulting in double taxing of company profits,” he said.

Christiaan Zuur, director of energy transformation at the Clean Energy Council, said that while much of AEMC’s draft proposal was constructive, “those benefits are either nullified or maybe even outweighed” by uncertainty over charges.

“Risk perception” will be important since potential newcomers won’t be sure of what charges they will pay to connect to the grid and existing operators could have their connection agreements reopened, Zuur said.

“Investors focus on the potential risk. It does factor through to the integral costs for projects,” he said.

The outcome of new charges may prompt more people to put batteries on their premises and draw power from their own solar panels, Mountain said, with rising EV adoption introducing new grid challenges, cutting their reliance on a centralised network.

“Ironically, it encourages customers to depend less and less on the grid,” he said. “It’s almost like the capture of the dominant interests playing out over time at their own expense.”

Separately, the latest edition of the Clean Energy Council Confidence Index shows leadership by state governments is helping to shore up investor appetite for investing in renewable energy amid 2021 electricity lessons even with higher 2030 emissions reduction goals from the federal government.

Overall, investor confidence increased by a point in the last six months – from 6.3 to 7.3 out of 10 – following strong commitments and policy development from state governments, particularly on the east coast, the council said.

“The results of this latest survey illustrate the economic value in policy that lowers the emissions footprint of our electricity generation, supporting regional centres and creating jobs. Investors recognise the opportunities created by limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees,” said council chief executive Kane Thornton.

Among the states, NSW, Victoria and Queensland led in terms of positive investor sentiment.

Correction: this article was amended on 30 November. An earlier version stated Ausnet supported charging storage for network access. A spokesperson said it backed a waiver on charges if certain conditions are met.        

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Hinkley Point C dome lift marks a nuclear reactor milestone in Somerset, as EDF used Big Carl crane to place a 245-tonne steel roof, enabling 2027 startup amid costs, delays, and precision indoor welding.

Key Points

A 245-tonne dome lifted onto Hinkley Point C's first reactor, finishing the roof and enabling fit-out for a 2027 startup.

✅ 245-tonne steel dome lifted by Big Carl onto 44m-high reactor

✅ Indoor welding avoided weather defects seen at Flamanville

✅ Cost now £33bn; first power targeted by end of 2027

Engineers have lifted a steel roof onto a building which will house the first of two nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset.

Hundreds of people helped with the delicate operation to get the 245-tonne steel dome into position.

It means the first reactor can be installed next year, ready to be switched on in June 2027.

Engineers at EDF said the "challenging job" was completed in just over an hour.

They first broke the ground on the new nuclear station in March 2017. Now, some 10,000 people work on what is Europe's largest building site.

Yet many analysts note that Europe is losing nuclear power even as demand for reliable energy grows.

They have faced delays from Covid restrictions and other recent setbacks, and the budget has doubled to £33bn, so getting the roof on the first of the two reactor buildings is a big deal.

EDF's nuclear island director Simon Parsons said it was a "fantastic night".

"Lifting the dome into place is a celebration of all the work done by a fantastic team. The smiles on people's faces this morning were something else.

"Now we can get on with the fitting of equipment, pipes and cables, including the first reactor which is on site and ready to be installed next year."

Nuclear minister Andrew Bowie hailed the "major milestone" in the building project, citing its role in the UK's green industrial revolution ambitions.

He said: "This is a key part of the UK Government's plans to revitalise nuclear."

But many still question whether Hinkley Point C will be worth all the money, especially after Hitachi's project freeze in Britain, with Roy Pumfrey of the Stop Hinkley campaign describing the project as "shockingly bad value".

Why lift the roof on?

The steel dome is bigger than the one on St Paul's Cathedral in London.

To lift it onto the 44-metre-high reactor building, they needed the world's largest land-based crane, dubbed Big Carl by engineers.

So why not just build the roof on top of the building?

The answer lies in a remote corner of Normandy in France, near a village called Flamanville.

EDF has been building a nuclear reactor there since 2007, ten years before they started in west Somerset.

The project is now a decade behind schedule and has still not been approved by French regulators.

Why? Because of cracks found in the precision welding on the roof of the reactor building.

In nuclear-powered France, they built the roof in situ, out in the open. 

Engineers have decided welding outside, exposed to wind and rain, compromised the high standards needed for a nuclear reactor.

So in Somerset they built a temporary workshop, which looks like a fair sized building itself. All the welding has been done inside, and then the completed roof was lifted into place.

Is it on time or on budget?

No, neither. When Hinkley C was first approved a decade ago, EDF said it would cost £14bn.

Four years later, in 2017, they finally started construction. By now the cost had risen to £19.5bn, and EDF said the plant would be finished by the end of 2025.

Today, the cost has risen to £33bn, and it is now hoped Hinkley C will produce electricity by the end of 2027.

"Nobody believes it will be done by 2027," said campaigner Roy Pumfrey.

"The costs keep rising, and the price of Hinkley's electricity will only get dearer," they added.

On the other hand, the increase in costs is not a problem for British energy bill payers, or the UK government.

EDF agreed to pay the full cost of construction, including any increases.

When I met Grant Shapps, then the UK Energy Secretary, at the site in April, he shrugged off the cost increases.

He said: "I think we should all be rather pleased it is not the British tax payer - it is France and EDF who are paying."

In return, the UK government agreed a set rate for Hinkley's power, called the Strike Price, back in 2013. The idea was this would guarantee the income from Hinkley Point for 35 years, allowing investors to get their money back.

Will it be worth the money?

Back in 2013, the Strike Price was set at £92.50 for each megawatt hour of power. At the time, the wholesale price of electricity was around £50/MWh, so Hinkley C looked expensive.

But since then, global shocks like the war in Ukraine have increased the cost of power substantially, and advocates argue next-gen nuclear could deliver smaller, cheaper, safer designs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Clean Grid Plan outlines emissions-free electricity growth, renewable energy procurement, nuclear expansion at Bruce and Darlington, reduced natural gas, grid reliability, and net-zero alignment to meet IESO demand forecasts and EV manufacturing loads.

Key Points

A plan to expand emissions-free power via renewables and nuclear, cut natural gas use, and meet growing demand.

✅ Targets renewables, hydro, and nuclear capacity growth

✅ Aims to reduce reliance on gas for grid reliability

✅ Aligns with IESO demand forecasts and EV manufacturing loads

Ontario is working toward filling all of the province’s quickly growing electricity needs with emissions-free sources, including a plan to secure new renewable generation and clean power options, but isn’t quite ready to commit to a moratorium on natural gas.

Energy Minister Todd Smith announced Monday a plan to address growing energy needs for 2030 to 2050 — the Independent Electricity System Operator projects Ontario’s electricity demand could double by mid-century — and next steps involve looking for new wind, solar and hydroelectric power.

“While we may not need to start building today, government and those in the energy sector need to start planning immediately, so we have new clean, zero-emissions projects ready to go when we need them,” Smith said in Windsor, Ont.

The strategy also includes two nuclear projects announced last week — a new large-scale nuclear plant at Bruce Power on the shore of Lake Huron and three new small modular reactors at the site of the Darlington nuclear plant east of Toronto.

Those projects, enough to power six million homes, will help Ontario end its reliance on natural gas to generate electricity, said Smith, but committing to a natural gas moratorium in 2027 and eliminating natural gas by 2050 is contingent on the federal government helping to speed up the new nuclear facilities.

“Today’s report, the Powering Ontario’s Growth plan, commits us to working towards a 100 per cent clean grid,” Smith said in an interview.

“Hopefully the federal government can get on board with our intentions to build this clean generation as quickly as possible … That will put us in a much better position to use our natural gas facilities less in the future, if we can get those new projects online.”

The IESO has said that natural gas is required to ensure supply and stability in the short to medium term, as Ontario works on balancing demand and emissions across the grid, but that it will also increase greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector.

The province is expected to face increased demand for electricity from expanded electric vehicle use and manufacturing in the coming years, even as a $400-billion cost estimate for greening the grid is debated.

Keith Brooks, programs director for Environmental Defence, said the provincial plan could have been much more robust, containing firm timelines and commitments.

“This plan does not commit to getting emissions out of the system,” he said.

“It doesn’t commit to net zero, doesn’t set a timeline for a net zero goal or have any projection around emissions from Ontario’s electricity sector going forward. In fact, it’s not really a plan. It doesn’t set out any real goals and it doesn’t it doesn’t project what Ontario’s supply mix might look like.”

The Canadian Climate Institute applauded the plan’s focus on reducing reliance on gas-fired generation and emphasizing non-emitting generation, but also said there are still some question marks.

“The plan is silent on whether the province intends to construct new gas-fired generation facilities,” even as new gas plant expansions are proposed, senior research director Jason Dion wrote in a statement.

“The province should avoid building new gas plants since cost-effective alternatives are available, and such facilities are likely to end up as stranded assets. The province’s timeline for reaching net zero generation is also unclear. Canada and other G7 countries have set a target for 2035, something Ontario will need to address if it wants to remain competitive.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Solid-State AC Switching reimagines electrification with silicon-based, firmware-driven controls, smart outlets, programmable circuit breakers, AC-DC conversion, and embedded sensors for IoT, energy monitoring, surge protection, and safer, globally compatible devices.

Key Points

Solid-state AC switching replaces mechanical switches with silicon chips for intelligent, programmable power control.

✅ Programmable breakers trip faster and add surge and GFCI protection

✅ Shrinks AC-DC conversion, boosting efficiency and device longevity

✅ Enables sensor-rich, IoT-ready outlets with energy monitoring

Electricity is a paradox. On the one hand, it powers our most modern clean cars and miracles of computing like your phone and laptop. On the other hand, it’s one of the least updated, despite efforts to build a smarter electricity infrastructure nationwide, and most ready-for-disruption parts of our homes, offices, and factories.

A startup in Silicon Valley plans to change all that, in California’s energy transition where reliability is top of mind, and has just signed deals with leading global electronics manufacturers to make it happen.

“The end point of the electrification infrastructure of every building out there right now is based on old technology,” Thar Casey, CEO of Amber Solutions, told me recently on the TechFirst podcast. “Basically some was invented ... last century and some came in a little bit later on in the fifties and sixties.”

Ultimately, it’s an almost 18th century part of modern homes.

Even smart homes, with add-ons like the Tesla Powerwall, still rely on legacy switching.

The fuses, breakers, light switches, and electrical outlets in your home are ancient technology that would easily understood by Thomas Edison, who was born in 1847. When you flip a switch and instantly flood your room with light, it feels like a modern right. But you are simply pushing a piece of plastic which physically moves one wire to touch another wire. That completes a circuit, electricity flows, and ... let there be light.

Casey wants to change all that. To transform our hard-wired electrical worlds and make them, in a sense, soft wired. And the addressable market is literally tens of billions of devices.

The core innovation is a transition to solid-state switches.

“Take your table, which is a solid piece of wood,” Casey says. “If you can mimic what an electromechanical switch does, opening and closing, inside that table without any actual moving parts, that means you are now solid state AC switching.”

And solid-state is exactly what Silicon Valley is all about.

“Solid state it means it can be silicon,” Casey says. “It can be a chip, it can be smaller, it can be intelligent, you can have firmware, you can add software ... now you have a mini computer.”

That’s a significant innovation with a huge number of implications. It means that the AC to DC converters attached to every appliance you plug into the wall — the big “bricks” that are part of your power cord, for instance — can now be a tiny fraction of the size. Appliance run on DC, direct current, and the electricity in your walls is AC, alternating current; similar principles underpin advanced smart inverters in solar systems, and it needs to be converted before it’s usable, and that chunk of hardware, with electrolytics, magnetics, transformers and more, can now be replaced, saving space in thermostats, CO2 sensors, coffee machines, hair dryers, smoke detectors ... any small electric device.

(Since those components generally fail before the device does, replacing them is a double win.)

Going solid state also means that you can have dynamic input range: 45 volts all the way up to 600 volts.

So you can standardize one component across many different electric devices, and it’ll work in the U.S., it’ll work in Europe, it’ll work in Japan, and it will work whether it’s getting 100 or 120 or 220 volts.

Building it small and building it solid state has other benefits as well, Casey says, including a much better circuit breaker for power spikes as the U.S. grid faces climate change impacts today.

“This circuit breaker is programmable, it has intelligence, it has WiFi, it has Bluetooth, it has energy monitoring metering, it has surge protection, it has GFCI, and here’s the best part: we trip 3000 times faster than a mechanical circuit breaker.”

What that means is much more ambient intelligence that can be applied all throughout your home. Rather than one CO2 sensor in one location, every power outlet is now a CO2 sensor that can feed virtual power plant programs, too. And a particulate matter sensor and temperature sensor and dampness sensor and ... you name it.

Amber’s next-generation system-on-chip complete replacement for smart outlets
Amber’s next-generation system-on-chip complete replacement for smart outlets JOHN KOETSIER
“We put as many as fifteen functions ... in one single gang box in a wall,” Casey told me.

Solid state is the gift that keeps giving, because now every outlet can be surge-protected. Every outlet can have GFCI — ground fault circuit interruption — not just the ones in your bathroom. And every outlet and light switch in your home can participate in the sensor network that powers your home security system. Oh, and, if you want, Alexa or Siri or the Google Assistant too. Plus energy-efficient dimmers for all lighting appliances that don’t buzz.

So when can you buy Amber switches and outlets?

In a sense, never.

Casey says Amber isn’t trying to be a consumer-facing company and won’t bring these innovations to market themselves. This July, Amber announced a letter of intent with a global manufacturer that includes revenue, plus MOUs with six other major electronics manufacturers. Letters of intent can be a dime a dozen, as can memoranda of understanding, but attaching revenue makes it more serious and significant.

The company has only raised $6.7 million, according to Craft, and has a number of competitors, such as Blixt, which has funding from the European Union, and Atom Power, which is already shipping technology. But since Amber is not trying to be a consumer product and take its innovations to market itself, it needs much less cash to build a brand and a market. You’ll be able to buy Amber’s technology at some point; just not under the Amber name.

“We have over 25 companies that we’re in discussions with,” Casey says. “We’re going to give them a complete solution and back them up and support them toward success. Their success will be our success at the end of the day.”

Ultimately, of course, cost will be a big part of the discussion.

There are literally tens of billions of switches and outlets on the planet, and modernizing all of them won’t happen overnight. And if it’s expensive, it won’t happen quickly either, even as California turns to grid-scale batteries to ease strain.

Casey is a big cagey with costs — there are still a lot of variables, after all. But it seems it won’t cost that much more than current technology.

“This can’t be $1.50 to manufacture, at least not right now, maybe down the road,” he told me. “We’re very competitive, we feel very good. We’re talking to these partners. They recognize that what we’re bringing, it’s a cost that is cost effective.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies 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

BC Autonomous Vehicle Ban freezes new driverless testing and deployment as BC develops a regulatory framework, prioritizing safety, liability clarity, and road sharing with pedestrians and cyclists while existing pilot projects continue.

Key Points

A moratorium pausing new driverless testing until a safety-first regulatory framework and clear liability rules exist.

✅ Freezes new AV testing and deployment provincewide

✅ Current pilot shuttles continue under existing approvals

✅ Focus on safety, liability, and road-user integration

British Columbia has halted the expansion of fully autonomous vehicles on its roads. The province has announced it will not approve any new applications for testing or deployment of vehicles that operate without a human driver until it develops a new regulatory framework, even as it expands EV charging across the province.

Safety Concerns and Public Questions

The decision follows concerns about the safety of self-driving vehicles and questions about who would be liable in the event of an accident. The BC government emphasizes the need for robust regulations to ensure that self-driving cars and trucks can safely share the road with traditional vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists, and to plan for infrastructure and power supply challenges associated with electrified fleets.

"We want to make sure that British Columbians are safe on our roads, and that means putting the proper safety guidelines in place," said Rob Fleming, Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. "As technology evolves, we're committed to developing a comprehensive framework to address the issues surrounding self-driving technology."

What Does the Ban Mean?

The ban does not affect current pilot projects involving self-driving vehicles that already operate in BC, such as limited shuttle services and segments of the province's Electric Highway that support charging and operations.

Industry Reaction

The response from industry players working on autonomous vehicle technology has been mixed, amid warnings of a potential EV demand bottleneck as adoption ramps up. While some acknowledge the need for clear regulations, others express concern that the ban could stifle innovation in the province.

"We understand the government's desire to ensure safety, but a blanket ban risks putting British Columbia behind in the development of this important technology," says a spokesperson for a self-driving vehicle start-up.

Debate Over Self-Driving Technology

The BC ban highlights a larger debate about the future of autonomous vehicles. While proponents point to potential benefits such as improved safety, reduced traffic congestion, and increased accessibility, and national policies like Canada's EV goals aim to accelerate adoption, critics raise concerns about liability, potential job losses in the transportation sector, and the ability of self-driving technology to handle complex driving situations.

BC Not Alone

British Columbia is not the only jurisdiction grappling with the regulation of self-driving vehicles. Several other provinces and states in both Canada and the U.S. are also working to develop clear legal and regulatory frameworks for this rapidly evolving technology, even as studies suggest B.C. may need to double its power output to fully electrify road transport.

The Road Ahead

The path forward for fully autonomous vehicles in BC depends on the government's ability to create a regulatory framework that balances safety considerations with fostering innovation, and align with clean-fuel investments like the province's hydrogen project to support zero-emission mobility.  When and how that framework will materialize remains unclear, leaving the future of self-driving cars in the province temporarily uncertain.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News