Fire touches off power outage across Florida

California Blackouts expose grid reliability risks as PG&E deenergizes lines during high winds. Mandated solar and wind displace dispatchable natural gas, straining ISO load balancing, transmission maintenance, and battery storage planning amid escalating wildfire liability.

Key Points

California grid shutoffs stem from wildfire risk, renewables, and deferred transmission maintenance under mandates.

✅ PG&E deenergizes lines to reduce wildfire ignition during high winds.

✅ Mandated solar and wind displace dispatchable gas, raising balancing costs.

✅ Storage, reliability pricing, and grid upgrades are needed to stabilize supply.

California is again facing widespread blackouts this season. Politicians are scrambling to assign blame to Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) a heavily regulated utility that can only do what the politically appointed regulators say it can do. In recent years this has meant building a bunch of solar and wind projects, while decommissioning reliable sources of power and scrimping on power line maintenance and upgrades.

The blackouts are connected with the legal liability from old and improperly maintained power lines being blamed for sparking fires—in hopes that deenergizing the grid during high winds reduces the likelihood of fires. 

How did the land of Silicon Valley and Hollywood come to have developing world electricity?

California’s Democratic majority, from Gov. Gavin Newsom to the solidly progressive legislature, to the regulators they appoint, have demanded huge increases in renewable energy. Renewable electricity targets have been pushed up, and policymakers are weighing a revamp of electricity rates to clean the grid, with the state expected to reach a goal of 33% of its power from renewable sources, mostly solar and wind, by next year, and 60% of its electricity from renewables by 2030.

In 2018, 31% of the electricity Californians purchased at the retail level came from approved renewables. But when rooftop solar is added to the mix, about 34% of California’s electricity came from renewables in 2018. Solar photovoltaic (PV) systems installed “behind-the-meter” (BTM) displace utility-supplied generation, but still affect the grid at large, as electricity must be generated at the moment it is consumed. PV installations in California grew 20% from 2017 to 2018, benefiting from the state’s Self-Generation Incentive Program that offers hefty rebates through 2025, as well as a 30% federal tax credit.

Increasingly large amounts of periodic, renewable power comes at a price—the more there is, the more difficult it is to keep the power grid stable and energized. Since electricity must be consumed the instant it is generated, and because wind and solar produce what they will whenever they do, the rest of the grid’s power producers—mostly natural gas plants—have to make up any differences between supply and immediate demand. This load balancing is vital, because without it, the grid will crash and widespread blackouts will ensue.

California often produces a surplus of mandated solar and wind power, generated for 5 to 8 cents per kilowatt hour. This power displaces dispatchable power from natural gas, coal and nuclear plants, resulting in reliable power plants spending less time online and driving up electricity prices as the plants operate for fewer hours of the day. Subsidized and mandated solar power, along with a law passed in California in 2006 (SB 1638) that bans the renewal of coal-fired power contracts, has placed enormous economic pressure on the Western region’s coal power plants—among them, the nation’s largest, Navajo Generating Station. As these plants go off line, the Western power grid will become increasingly unstable. Eventually, the states that share their electric power in the Western Interconnect may have to act to either subsidize dispatchable power or place a value on reliability—something that was taken for granted in the growth of the America’s electrical system and its regulatory scheme.

California law regarding electricity explicitly states that “a violation of the Public Utilities Act is a crime” and that it is “…the intent of the Legislature to provide for the evolution of the ISO (California’s Independent System Operator—the entity that manages California’s grid) into a regional organization to promote the development of regional electricity transmission markets in the western states.” In other words, California expects to dictate how the Western grid operates.

One last note as to what drives much of California’s energy policy: politics. California State Senator Kevin de León (the author served with him in the State Assembly) drafted SB 350, the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act. It became law in 2015. Sen. de León followed up with SB 100 in 2018, signed into law weeks before the 2018 election. SB 100 increased California’s renewable portfolio standard to 60% by 2030 and further requires all the state’s electricity to come from carbon-free sources by 2045, a capstone of the state’s climate policies that factor into the blackout debate.  

Sen. de León used his environmental credentials to burnish his run for the U.S. Senate against Sen. Dianne Feinstein, eventually capturing the endorsements of the California Democratic Party and billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, now running for president. Feinstein and de León advanced to the general in California’s jungle primary, where Feinstein won reelection 54.2% to 45.8%.

De León may have lost his race for the U.S. Senate, but his legacy will live on in increasingly unaffordable electricity and blackouts, not only in California, but in the rest of the Western United States—unless federal or state regulators begin to place a value on reliability. This could be done by requiring utility scale renewable power providers to guarantee dispatchable power, as policymakers try to avert a looming shortage of firm capacity, either through purchase agreements with thermal power plants or through the installation of giant and costly battery farms or other energy storage means.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nuclear Waste Corrosion accelerates as stainless steel, glass, and ceramics interact in aqueous conditions, driving localized corrosion in repositories like Yucca Mountain, according to Nature Materials research on high-level radioactive waste storage.

Key Points

Degradation of waste forms and canisters from water-driven chemistry, causing accelerated, localized corrosion in storage.

✅ Stainless steel-glass contact triggers severe localized attack

✅ Ceramics and steel co-corrosion observed under aqueous conditions

✅ Yucca Mountain-like chemistry accelerates waste form degradation

The materials the United States and other countries plan to use to store high-level nuclear waste, even as utilities expand carbon-free electricity portfolios, will likely degrade faster than anyone previously knew because of the way those materials interact, new research shows.

The findings, published today in the journal Nature Materials (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41563-019-0579-x), show that corrosion of nuclear waste storage materials accelerates because of changes in the chemistry of the nuclear waste solution, and because of the way the materials interact with one another.

"This indicates that the current models may not be sufficient to keep this waste safely stored," said Xiaolei Guo, lead author of the study and deputy director of Ohio State's Center for Performance and Design of Nuclear Waste Forms and Containers, part of the university's College of Engineering. "And it shows that we need to develop a new model for storing nuclear waste."

Beyond waste storage, options like carbon capture technologies are being explored to reduce atmospheric CO2 alongside nuclear energy.

The team's research focused on storage materials for high-level nuclear waste -- primarily defense waste, the legacy of past nuclear arms production. The waste is highly radioactive. While some types of the waste have half-lives of about 30 years, others -- for example, plutonium -- have a half-life that can be tens of thousands of years. The half-life of a radioactive element is the time needed for half of the material to decay.

The United States currently has no disposal site for that waste; according to the U.S. General Accountability Office, it is typically stored near the nuclear power plants where it is produced. A permanent site has been proposed for Yucca Mountain in Nevada, though plans have stalled. Countries around the world have debated the best way to deal with nuclear waste; only one, Finland, has started construction on a long-term repository for high-level nuclear waste.

But the long-term plan for high-level defense waste disposal and storage around the globe is largely the same, even as the U.S. works to sustain nuclear power for decarbonization efforts. It involves mixing the nuclear waste with other materials to form glass or ceramics, and then encasing those pieces of glass or ceramics -- now radioactive -- inside metallic canisters. The canisters then would be buried deep underground in a repository to isolate it.

At the generation level, regulators are advancing EPA power plant rules on carbon capture to curb emissions while nuclear waste strategies evolve.

In this study, the researchers found that when exposed to an aqueous environment, glass and ceramics interact with stainless steel to accelerate corrosion, especially of the glass and ceramic materials holding nuclear waste.

In parallel, the electrical grid's reliance on SF6 insulating gas has raised warming concerns across Europe.

The study qualitatively measured the difference between accelerated corrosion and natural corrosion of the storage materials. Guo called it "severe."

"In the real-life scenario, the glass or ceramic waste forms would be in close contact with stainless steel canisters. Under specific conditions, the corrosion of stainless steel will go crazy," he said. "It creates a super-aggressive environment that can corrode surrounding materials."

To analyze corrosion, the research team pressed glass or ceramic "waste forms" -- the shapes into which nuclear waste is encapsulated -- against stainless steel and immersed them in solutions for up to 30 days, under conditions that simulate those under Yucca Mountain, the proposed nuclear waste repository.

Those experiments showed that when glass and stainless steel were pressed against one another, stainless steel corrosion was "severe" and "localized," according to the study. The researchers also noted cracks and enhanced corrosion on the parts of the glass that had been in contact with stainless steel.

Part of the problem lies in the Periodic Table. Stainless steel is made primarily of iron mixed with other elements, including nickel and chromium. Iron has a chemical affinity for silicon, which is a key element of glass.

The experiments also showed that when ceramics -- another potential holder for nuclear waste -- were pressed against stainless steel under conditions that mimicked those beneath Yucca Mountain, both the ceramics and stainless steel corroded in a "severe localized" way.

Other Ohio State researchers involved in this study include Gopal Viswanathan, Tianshu Li and Gerald Frankel.

This work was funded in part by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science.

Meanwhile, U.S. monitoring shows potent greenhouse gas declines confirming the impact of control efforts across the energy sector.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Canada 100% Renewable Power by 2035 envisions a decentralized grid built on wind, solar, energy storage, and efficiency, delivering zero-emission, resilient, low-cost electricity while phasing out nuclear and gas to meet net-zero targets.

Key Points

Zero-emission, decentralized grid using wind, solar, and storage, plus efficiency, to retire fossil and nuclear by 2035.

✅ Scale wind and solar 18x with storage for reliability.

✅ Phase out nuclear and gas; no CCS or offsets needed.

✅ Modernize grids and codes; boost efficiency, jobs, and affordability.

A powerful derecho that left nearly a million people without power in Ontario and Quebec on May 21 was a reminder of the critical importance of electricity in our daily lives.

Canada’s electrical infrastructure could be more resilient to such events, while being carbon-emission free and provide low-cost electricity with a decentralized grid powered by 100 per cent renewable energy, according to a new study from the David Suzuki Foundation (DSF), a vision of an electric, connected and clean future if the country chooses.

This could be accomplished by 2035 by building a lot more solar and wind, despite indications that demand for solar electricity has lagged in Canada, adding energy storage, while increasing the energy efficiency in buildings, and modernizing provincial energy grids. As this happens, nuclear energy and gas power would be phased out. There would also be no need for carbon capture and storage nor carbon offsets, the modeling study concluded.

“Solar and wind are the cheapest sources of electricity generation in history,” said study co-author Stephen Thomas, a mechanical engineer and climate solutions policy analyst at the DSF.

“There are no technical barriers to reaching 100 per cent zero-emission electricity by 2035 nationwide,” Thomas told The Weather Network (TWN). However, there are considerable institutional and political barriers to be overcome, he said.

Other countries face similar barriers and many have found ways to reduce their emissions; for example, the U.S. grid's slow path to 100% renewables illustrates these challenges. There are enormous benefits including improved air quality and health, up to 75,000 new jobs annually, and lower electricity costs. Carbon emissions would be reduced by 200 million tons a year by 2050, just over one quarter of the reductions needed for Canada to meet its overall net zero target, the study stated.

Building a net-zero carbon electricity system by 2035 is a key part of Canada’s 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan. Currently over 80 per cent of the nation’s electricity comes from non-carbon sources including a 15 per cent contribution from nuclear, with solar capacity nearing a 5 GW milestone nationally. How the final 20 per cent will be emission-free is currently under discussion.

The Shifting Power study envisions an 18-fold increase in wind and solar energy, with the Prairie provinces expected to lead growth, along with a big increase in Canada’s electrical generation capacity to bridge the 20 per cent gap as well as replacing existing nuclear power.

The report does not see a future role for nuclear power due to the high costs of refurbishing existing plants, including the challenges with disposal of radioactive wastes and decommissioning plants at their end of life. As for the oft-proposed small modular nuclear reactors, their costs will likely “be much more costly than renewables,” according to the report.

There are no technical barriers to building a bigger, cleaner, and smarter electricity system, agrees Caroline Lee, co-author of the Canadian Climate Institute’s study on net-zero electricity, “The Big Switch” released in May. However, as Lee previously told TWN, there are substantial institutional and political barriers.

In many respects, the Shifting Power study is similar to Lee’s study except it phases out nuclear power, forecasts a reduction in hydro power generation, and does not require any carbon capture and storage, she told TWN. Those are replaced with a lot more wind generation and more storage capacity.

“There are strengths and weaknesses to both approaches. We can do either but need a wide debate on what kind of electricity system we want,” Lee said.

That debate has to happen immediately because there is an enormous amount of work to do. When it comes to energy infrastructure, nearly everything “we put in the ground has to be wind, solar, or storage” to meet the 2035 deadline, she said.

There is no path to net zero by 2050 without a zero-emissions electricity system well before that date. Here are some of the necessary steps the report provided:

Create a range of skills training programs for renewable energy construction and installation as well as building retrofits.

Prioritize energy efficiency and conservation across all sectors through regulations such as building codes.

Ensure communities and individuals are fully informed and can decide if they wish to benefit from hosting energy generation infrastructure.

Create a national energy poverty strategy to ensure affordable access.

Strong and clear federal and provincial rules for utilities that mandate zero-emission electricity by 2035.

For Indigenous communities, make sure ownership opportunities are available along with decision-making power.

Canada should move as fast as possible to 100 per cent renewable energy to gain the benefits of lower energy costs, less pollution, and reduced carbon emissions, says Stanford University engineer and energy expert Mark Jacobson.

“Canada has so many clean, renewable energy resources that it is one of the easier countries [that can] transition away from fossil fuels,” Jacobson told TWN.

For the past decade, Jacobson has been producing studies and technical reports on 100 per cent renewable energy, including a new one for Canada, even as Canada is often seen as a solar power laggard today. The Stanford report, A Solution to Global Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Insecurity for Canada, says a 100 per cent transition by 2035 timeline is ideal. Where it differs from DSF’s Shifting Power report is that it envisions offshore wind and rooftop solar panels which the latter did not.

“Our report is very conservative. Much more is possible,” agrees Thomas.

“We’re lagging behind. Canadians really want to get going on building solutions and getting the benefits of a zero emissions electricity system.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

European Electricity Market Trends 2020 highlight decarbonisation, rising renewables, EV adoption, shifting energy mix, COVID-19 impacts, fuel switching, hydro, wind and solar growth, gas price dynamics, and wholesale electricity price increases.

Key Points

EU power in 2020 saw lower emissions, more renewables, EV growth, demand shifts, and higher wholesale prices.

✅ Power sector CO2 down 14% on higher renewables, lower coal

✅ Renewables 39% vs fossil 36%; hydro, wind, solar expanded

✅ EV share hit 17%; wholesale prices rose with gas, ETS costs

According to the Market Observatory for Energy DG Energy report, the COVID-19 pandemic and favorable weather conditions are the two key drivers of the trends experienced within the European electricity market in 2020. However, the two drivers were exceptional or seasonal.

The key trends within Europe’s electricity market include:

1. Decrease in power sector’s carbon emissions

As a result of the increase in renewables generation and decrease in fossil-fueled power generation in 2020, the power sector was able to reduce its carbon footprint by 14% in 2020. The decrease in the sector’s carbon footprint in 2020 is similar to trends witnessed in 2019 when fuel switching was the main factor behind the decarbonisation trend.

However, most of the drivers in 2020 were exceptional or seasonal (the pandemic, warm winter, high
hydro generation). However, the opposite is expected in 2021, with the first months of 2021 having relatively cold weather, lower wind speeds and higher gas prices, with stunted hydro and nuclear output also cited, developments which suggest that the carbon emissions and intensity of the power sector could rise.

The European Union is targeting to completely decarbonise its power sector by 2050 through the introduction of supporting policies such as the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, the Renewable Energy Directive and legislation addressing air pollutant emissions from industrial installations, with expectations that low-emissions sources will cover most demand growth in the coming years.

According to the European Environment Agency, Europe halved its power sector’s carbon emissions in 2019 from 1990 levels.

2. Changes in energy consumption

EU consumption of electricity fell by -4% as majority of industries did not operate at full level during the first half of 2020. Although majority of EU residents stayed at home, meaning an increase in residential energy use, rising demand by households could not reverse falls in other sectors of the economy.

However, as countries renewed COVID-19 restrictions, energy consumption during the 4th quarter was closer to the “normal levels” than in the first three quarters of 2020. 

The increase in energy consumption in the fourth quarter of 2020 was also partly due to colder temperatures compared to 2019 and signs of surging electricity demand in global markets.

3. Increase in demand for EVs

As the electrification of the transport system intensifies, the demand for electric vehicles increased in 2020 with almost half a million new registrations in the fourth quarter of 2020. This was the highest figure on record and translated into an unprecedented 17% market share, more than two times higher than in China and six times higher than in the United States.

However, the European Environment Agency (EEA)argues that the EV registrations were lower in 2020 compared to 2019. EEA states that in 2019, electric car registrations were close to 550 000 units, having reached 300 000 units in 2018.

4. Changes in the region’s energy mix and increase in renewable energy generation

The structure of the region’s energy mix changed in 2020, according to the report.

Owing to favorable weather conditions, hydro energy generation was very high and Europe was able to expand its portfolio of renewable energy generation such that renewables (39%) exceeded the share of fossil fuels (36%) for the first time ever in the EU energy mix.

Rising renewable generation was greatly assisted by 29 GW of wind and solar capacity additions in 2020, which is comparable to 2019 levels. Despite disrupting the supply chains of wind and solar resulting in project delays, the pandemic did not significantly slow down renewables’ expansion.

In fact, coal and lignite energy generation fell by 22% (-87 TWh) and nuclear output dropped by 11% (-79 TWh). On the other hand, gas energy generation was not significantly impacted owing to favorable prices which intensified coal-to-gas and lignite-to-gas switching, even as renewables crowd out gas in parts of the market.

5. Retirement of coal energy generation intensify

 As the outlook for emission-intensive technologies worsens and carbon prices rise, more and more early coal retirements have been announced. Utilities in Europe are expected to continue transitioning from coal energy generation under efforts to meet stringent carbon emissions reduction targets and as they try to prepare themselves for future business models that they anticipate to be entirely low-carbon reliant.

6. Increase in wholesale electricity prices

In recent months, more expensive emission allowances, along with rising gas prices, have driven up wholesale electricity prices on many European markets to levels last seen at the beginning of 2019. The effect was most pronounced in countries that are dependent on coal and lignite. The wholesale electricity prices dynamic is expected to filter through to retail prices.

The rapid sales growth in the EVs sector was accompanied by expanding charging infrastructure. The number of high-power charging points per 100 km of highways rose from 12 to 20 in 2020.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Small Modular Reactors in Canada are advancing through provincial collaboration, offering nuclear energy, clean power and carbon reductions for grids, remote communities, and mines, with factory-built modules, regulatory roadmaps, and pre-licensing by the nuclear regulator.

Key Points

Compact, factory-built nuclear units for clean power, cutting carbon for grids, remote communities, and industry.

✅ Provinces: Ontario, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick collaborate

✅ Targets coal replacement, carbon cuts, clean baseload power

✅ Modular, factory-made units; 5-10 year deployment horizon

The premiers of Ontario, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick have committed to collaborate on developing nuclear reactor technology in Canada. 

Doug Ford, Scott Moe and Blaine Higgs made the announcement and signed a memorandum of understanding on Sunday in advance of a meeting of all the premiers. 

They will be working on the research, development and building of small modular reactors as a way to help their individual provinces reduce carbon emissions and move away from non-renewable energy sources like coal. 

Small modular reactors are easy to construct, are safer than large reactors and are regarded as cleaner energy than coal, the premiers say. They can be small enough to fit in a school gym. 

SMRs are actually not very close to entering operation in Canada, though Ontario broke ground on its first SMR at Darlington recently, signaling early progress. Natural Resources Canada released an "SMR roadmap" last year, with a series of recommendations about regulation readiness and waste management for SMRs.

In Canada, about a dozen companies are currently in pre-licensing with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which is reviewing their designs.

"Canadians working together, like we are here today, from coast to coast, can play an even larger role in addressing climate change in Canada and around the world," Moe said.  

Canada's Paris targets are to lower total emissions 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, and nuclear's role in climate goals has been emphasized by the federal minister in recent remarks. Moe says the reactors would help Saskatchewan reach a 70 per cent reduction by that year.

The provinces' three energy ministries will meet in the new year to discuss how to move forward and by the fall a fully-fledged strategy for the reactors is expected to be ready.

However, don't expect to see them popping up in a nearby field anytime soon. It's estimated it will take five to 10 years before they're built. 

Ford lauds economic possibilities
The provincial leaders said it could be an opportunity for economic growth, estimating the Canadian market for this energy at $10 billion and the global market at $150 billion.

Ford called it an "opportunity for Canada to be a true leader." At a time when Ottawa and the provinces are at odds, Higgs said it's the perfect time to show unity. 

"It's showing how provinces come together on issues of the future." 

P.E.I. premier predicts unity at Toronto premiers' meeting
No other premiers have signed on to the deal at this point, but Ford said all are welcome and "the more, the merrier."

But developing new energy technologies is a daunting task. Higgs admitted the project will need national support of some kind, though he didn't specify what. The agreement signed by the premiers is also not binding. 

About 8.6 per cent of Canada's electricity comes from coal-fired generation. In New Brunswick that figure is much higher — 15.8 per cent — and New Brunswick's small-nuclear debate has intensified as New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs has said he worries about his province's energy producers being hit by the federal carbon tax.

Ontario has no coal-fired power plants, and OPG's SMR commitment aligns with its clean electricity strategy today. In Saskatchewan, burning coal generates 46.6 per cent of the province's electricity.

How would it work?
The federal government describes small modular reactors (SMRs) as the "next wave of innovation" in nuclear energy technology, and collaborations like the OPG and TVA partnership are advancing development efforts, and an "important technology opportunity for Canada."

Traditional nuclear reactors used in Canada typically generate about 800 megawatts of electricity, and Ontario is exploring new large-scale nuclear plants alongside SMRs, or enough to power about 600,000 homes at once (assuming that 1 megawatt can power about 750 homes).

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN organization for nuclear co-operation, considers a nuclear reactor to be "small" if it generates under 300 megawatts.

Designs for small reactors ranging from just 3 megawatts to 300 megawatts have been submitted to Canada's nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, for review as part of a pre-licensing process, while plans for four SMRs at Darlington outline a potential build-out pathway that regulators will assess.

Ford rallying premiers to call for large increase in federal health transfers
Such reactors are considered "modular" because they're designed to work either independently or as modules in a bigger complex (as is already the case with traditional, larger reactors at most Canadian nuclear power plants). A power plant could be expanded incrementally by adding additional modules.

Modules are generally designed to be small enough to make in a factory and be transported easily — for example, via a standard shipping container.

In Canada, there are three main areas where SMRs could be used:

Traditional, on-grid power generation, especially in provinces looking for zero-emissions replacements for CO2-emitting coal plants.
Remote communities that currently rely on polluting diesel generation.
Resource extraction sites, such as mining and oil and gas.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News