Power plant to be fueled by wood waste

Texas PUC Spanish Power to Choose mandates bilingual parity in deregulated electricity markets, ensuring equal access to plans, transparent pricing, consumer protection, and provider listings for Spanish speakers, mirroring the English site offerings statewide.

Key Points

PUC mandate requiring identical Spanish and English plan listings for fair access in the deregulated power market.

✅ Orders parity across English and Spanish plan listings

✅ Increases transparency in a deregulated electricity market

✅ Deadline set for providers to post on both sites

The state’s Public Utility Commission has ordered that the Spanish-language version of the Power to Choose website provide the same options available on the English version of the site, a move that comes as shopping for electricity is getting cheaper statewide.

Texas is one of a handful of states with a deregulated electricity market, with ongoing market reforms under consideration to avoid blackouts. The idea is to give consumers the option to pick power plans that they think best fit their needs. Customers can find available plans on the state’s Power To Choose website, or its Spanish-language counterpart, Poder de Escoger. In theory, those two sites should have the exact same offerings, so no one is disadvantaged. But the Texas Public Utility Commission found that wasn’t the case.

Houston Chronicle business reporter Lynn Sixel has been covering this story. She says the Power to Choose website is important for consumers facing the difficult task of choosing an electric provider in a deregulated state, where electricity complaints have recently reached a three-year high for Texans.

“There are about 57 providers listed on the [English] Power to Choose website, and news about retailers like Griddy underscores how varied the offerings can be across providers. [Last week] there were only 23 plans on the Spanish Power to Choose site,” Sixel says. “If you speak Spanish and you’re looking for a low-cost plan, as of last week, it would have been difficult to find some of the really great offers.”

Mustafa Tameez, managing director of Outreach Strategists, a Houston firm that consults with companies and nonprofits on diversity, described this issue as a type of redlining.

“He’s referring to a practice that banks would use to circle areas on maps in which the bank decided they did not want to lend money or would charge higher rates,” Sixel says. “Typically it was poor minority neighborhoods. Those folks would not get the same great deals that their Anglo neighbors would get.”

DeAnn Walker, chairman of the Public Utility Commission, said she was not at all happy about the plans listings in a meeting Friday, against a backdrop where Texas utilities have recently backed out of a plan to create smart home electricity networks.

“She gave a deadline of 8 a.m. Monday morning for any providers who wanted to put their plans on the Power to Choose website, must put them on both the Spanish language and the English language versions,” Sixel says. “All the folks that I talked to really had no idea that there were different plans on both sites and I think that there was sort of an assumption.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

NB Power eCharge Network expands EV charging in New Brunswick with fast chargers, level 2 stations, Trans-Canada Highway coverage, and green infrastructure, enabling worry-free electric vehicle travel and lower emissions across the province.

Key Points

NB Power eCharge Network is a provincewide EV charging system with fast and level 2 stations for reliable travel.

✅ 15 fast-charging sites on Trans-Canada and northern New Brunswick

✅ Level 2 stations at highways, municipalities, and businesses

✅ 20-30 minute DC fast charging; cut emissions ~80% and fuel ~75%

NB Power announced Friday the eCharge Network, the province’s first electric vehicle charging network aimed at giving drivers worry-free travel everywhere in the province.

The network includes 15 locations along the province’s busiest highways where both fast-chargers and level-2 chargers will be available. In addition, nine level-2 chargers are already located at participating municipalities and businesses throughout the province. The new locations will be installed by the end of 2017.

NB Power is working with public and private partners to add to the network to enable electric vehicle owners to drive with confidence and to encourage others to make the switch from gas to electric vehicles, supported by a provincial rebate program now available.

“We are incredibly proud to offer our customers and visitors to New Brunswick convenient charging with the launch of our eCharge Network,” said Gaëtan Thomas, president and CEO of NB Power. “Our goal is to make it easy for owners of electric vehicles to drive wherever they choose in New Brunswick, and to encourage more drivers to consider an electric vehicle for their next purchase.”

An electric vehicle owner in New Brunswick can shrink their vehicle carbon footprint by about 80 per cent while reducing their fuel-related costs by about 75 per cent, according to NB Power, and broader grid benefits are being explored through Nova Scotia's vehicle-to-grid pilot across the region.

In addition to the network of standard charging stations, the eCharge network will also include 400 volt fast-charging stations along the Trans-Canada Highway and in the northern parts of New Brunswick. The first of their kind in New Brunswick, these 15 fast-charging stations, similar to Newfoundland and Labrador's newly completed fast-charging network connecting communities, will enable all-electric vehicles to recharge in as little as 20 to 30 minutes. Fast-charge sites will include standard level-2 stations for both battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids.

NB Power will install fast-charge and level-2 sites at five locations throughout northern New Brunswick, addressing northern coverage challenges seen elsewhere, such as Labrador's infrastructure gaps today, which will be cost-shared with government. Locations include the areas of Saint-Quentin/Kedgwick, Campbellton, Bathurst, Tracadie, and Miramichi.

“Our government understands that embracing the green economy and reducing our carbon footprint is a priority for New Brunswickers,” said Environment and Local Government Minister Serge Rousselle. “Our climate change action plan calls for a collaborative approach to creating the strategic infrastructure to support electric vehicles throughout all regions in the province, and we are pleased to see this important step underway. New Brunswickers will now have the necessary network to adopt new methods of transportation and contribute to our provincial plan to increase the number of electric vehicles on the road and will help meet emission reduction targets as we work to combat climate change.”

An investment of $500,000 from Natural Resources Canada will go towards purchasing and installing the charging stations for the 10 fast-charging stations along the Trans-Canada Highway.

“The eCharge Network will make it easier for Canadians to choose cleaner options and helps put New Brunswick’s transportation system on a path to a lower-carbon future,” said Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe MP Ginette Petitpas Taylor. “The Government of Canada continues to support green infrastructure in the transportation sector that will advance Canada’s efforts to build a clean economy, create well-paying jobs, and achieve our climate change goals.”

Petitpas Taylor attended for federal Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr.

Fast chargers are being installed at the following locations along the Trans-Canada Highway across New Brunswick:

– Irving Big Stop, Aulac

– Edmundston Truck Stop

– Irving Big Stop, Saint-André

– Johnson Guardian, Perth-Andover

– Murray’s Irving, Woodstock

– Petro-Canada / Acorn Restaurant, Prince William

– Irving Big Stop, Waasis

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Rising Electricity Prices are driven by inflation, climate change, and the clean energy transition, affecting energy bills, grid resilience, and supply. Renewables, storage, and infrastructure upgrades shape costs, volatility, and long-term sustainability.

Key Points

Rising electricity prices stem from inflation, climate risk, and costs of integrating clean energy and storage into modern grids.

✅ Inflation raises fuel, materials, and labor costs for utilities

✅ Extreme weather damages infrastructure and strains peak demand

✅ Clean energy rollout needs storage, backup, and grid upgrades

In recent months, consumers have been grappling with a concerning trend: rising electricity prices across the country. This increase is not merely a fluctuation but a complex issue shaped by a confluence of factors including inflation, climate change, and the transition to clean energy. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for navigating the current energy landscape and preparing for its future.

Inflation and Its Impact on Energy Costs

Inflation, the economic phenomenon of rising prices across various sectors, has significantly impacted the cost of living, including electricity and natural gas prices for households. As the price of goods and services increases, so too does the cost of producing and delivering electricity. Energy production relies heavily on raw materials, such as metals and fuels, whose prices have surged in recent years. For instance, the costs associated with mining, transporting, and refining these materials have risen, thereby increasing the operational expenses for power plants.

Moreover, inflation affects labor costs, as wages often need to keep pace with the rising cost of living. As utility companies face higher expenses for both materials and labor, these costs are inevitably passed on to consumers in the form of higher electricity bills.

Climate Change and Energy Supply Disruptions

Climate change also plays a significant role in driving up electricity prices. Extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, heatwaves, and floods, have become more frequent and severe due to climate change. These events disrupt energy production and distribution by damaging infrastructure, impeding transportation, and affecting the availability of resources.

For example, hurricanes can knock out power plants and damage transmission lines, leading to shortages and higher costs. During periods of extreme summer heat across many regions, heatwaves can strain the power grid as increased demand for air conditioning pushes the system to its limits. Such disruptions not only lead to higher immediate costs but also necessitate costly repairs and infrastructure upgrades.

Additionally, the increasing frequency of natural disasters forces utilities to invest in more resilient infrastructure, as many utilities spend more on delivery to harden grids and reduce outages, which adds to overall costs. These investments, while necessary for long-term reliability, contribute to short-term price increases for consumers.

The Transition to Clean Energy

The shift towards clean energy is another pivotal factor influencing electricity prices. While renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and hydro power are crucial for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating climate change, their integration into the existing grid presents challenges.

Renewable energy infrastructure requires substantial initial investment. The construction of wind farms, solar panels, and the associated grid improvements involve significant capital expenditure. These upfront costs are often reflected in electricity prices. Moreover, renewable energy sources can be intermittent, meaning they do not always produce electricity at times of high demand. This intermittency necessitates the development of energy storage solutions and backup systems, which further adds to the costs.

Utilities are also transitioning from fossil fuel-based energy production to cleaner alternatives, a process that involves both technological and operational shifts and intersects with the broader energy crisis impacts on electricity, gas, and EVs nationwide. These changes can temporarily increase costs as utilities phase out old systems and implement new ones. While the long-term benefits of cleaner energy include environmental sustainability and potentially lower operating costs, the transition period can be financially burdensome for consumers.

The Path Forward

Addressing rising electricity prices requires a multifaceted approach. Policymakers must balance the need for immediate relief, as California regulators face calls for action amid soaring bills, with the long-term goals of sustainability and resilience. Investments in energy efficiency can help reduce overall demand and ease pressure on the grid. Expanding and modernizing energy infrastructure to accommodate renewable sources can also mitigate price volatility.

Additionally, efforts to mitigate climate change through improved resilience and adaptive measures can reduce the frequency and impact of extreme weather events, thereby stabilizing energy costs.

Consumer education is vital in this process. Understanding the factors driving electricity prices can empower individuals to make informed decisions about energy consumption and conservation. Furthermore, exploring energy-efficient appliances and practices can help manage costs in the face of rising prices.

In summary, the rising cost of electricity is a multifaceted issue influenced by inflation, climate change, and the transition to clean energy, and recent developments show Germany's rising energy costs in the coming year. While these factors pose significant challenges, they also offer opportunities for innovation and improvement in how we produce, distribute, and consume energy. By addressing these issues with a balanced approach, it is possible to navigate the complexities of rising electricity prices while working towards a more sustainable and resilient energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

European Power Demand During Second Lockdowns remains resilient as winter heating offsets commercial losses; electricity consumption tracks seasonal norms, with weather sensitivity, industrial activity, natural gas shielding, and coal decline shaping dynamics under COVID-19 restrictions.

Key Points

It is expected to remain near seasonal norms, driven by heating, industry activity, and weather sensitive consumption.

✅ Winter heating offsets retail and hospitality closures

✅ Demand sensitivity rises with colder weather in France

✅ Gas generation shielded; coal likely to curtail first

European power demand is likely to hold up in the second round of national lockdown restrictions, with fluctuations most likely driven by changes in the weather.

Traders and analysts expect normal consumption this time around as home heating during the chilly season replaces commercial demand.

Last week electricity consumption in France, Germany and the U.K. was close to business-as-usual levels for the time of year, according to BloombergNEF data. By contrast, power demand had dropped 16% in the first seven days of the springtime lockdown, as reflected by the U.K.’s 10% daily decline reported then.

How power demand performs has significance outside the sector. It’s often seen as a proxy for economic growth and during lockdowns earlier this year, electricity use slumped along with GDP, and stunted hydro and nuclear output could further hobble recovery. For Western Europe, annual demand is expected to be 5% lower than the previous year, a bigger decline than after the global financial crisis in 2008, according to S&P Global Platts.

The Covid-19 limits are lighter than those from earlier in the year “with an explicit drive to preserve economic activity, particularly at the more energy-intensive industrial end of the spectrum,” said Glenn Rickson, head of European power analysis at S&P Global Platts.

Higher levels of working from home will offset some of the losses from shop and hospitality closures, “but also increase the temperature sensitivity of overall gas and power demand, as heat-driven demand records have shown in recent summers,” he said.

The latest wave of national lockdowns began in France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Britain, with Spain having seen April demand plummet earlier in the year, as coronavirus cases surged and officials struggled to keep the spread of the virus under control.

Much of the manufacturing industry remains working for now despite additional restrictions to contain the coronavirus. With the peak of the second wave yet to be reached, “it seems almost inevitable that the fourth quarter will prove economically challenging,” analysts at Alfa Energy said.

There will initially be significantly less of an impact on demand compared with this spring when global daily demand dipped about 15% and electricity consumption in Europe was down 30%, Johan Sigvardsson, power price analyst at Swedish utility Bixia AB said.

The prevalence of electric heating systems in France means that power demand is particularly sensitive to cold weather. A cold spell would significantly boost demand and drive record electricity prices in tight markets.

Similar to the last round of shutdowns, it’s use of coal that will probably be hit first if power demand sags, as transition-focused responses gather pace, leaving natural gas mostly shielded from fluctuations in the market.

“We expect that another drop in power demand would again impact coal-fired generation and shield gas power to some extent,” said Carlos Torres Diaz, an analyst at Rystad Energy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Nation Rise Wind Farm Ruling overturns Ontario cancellation, as Superior Court finds the minister's decision unreasonable; EDP Renewables restarts 100-megawatt project near Cornwall, citing jobs, clean energy, and procedural fairness over bat habitat concerns.

Key Points

Ontario court quashes cancellation, letting EDP Renewables finish 100 MW Nation Rise project and resume clean energy.

✅ Judges call minister's decision unreasonable, unfair

✅ EDP Renewables to restart construction near Cornwall

✅ 100 MW, 29 turbines; costs awarded, appeal considered

Construction of a wind farm in eastern Ontario, as wind power makes gains nationwide, will move ahead after a court quashed a provincial government decision to cancel the project.

In a ruling released Wednesday, a panel of Ontario Superior Court judges said the province's decision to scrap the Nation Rise Wind Farm in December 2019 did not meet the proper requirements.

At the time, Environment Minister Jeff Yurek revoked the approvals of the project near Cornwall, Ont., citing the risk to three bat species.

That decision came despite a ruling from the province's Environmental Review Tribunal that determined the risk the project posed to the bat population was negligible.

The judges said the minister's decision was "unreasonable" and "procedurally unfair."

"The decision does not meet requirements of transparency, justification, and intelligibility, as the Minister has failed to adequately explain his decision," the judges wrote in their decision.

The company behind the project, EDP Renewables, said the 29-turbine wind farm was almost complete when its approval was revoked in December, even as Alberta saw TransAlta scrap a wind farm in a separate development.

The company said Thursday it plans to restart construction on the 100-megawatt wind farm.

"EDPR is eager to recommence construction of the Nation Rise Wind Farm, which will bring much-needed jobs and investment to the community," the company said in a statement. "This delay has resulted in unnecessary expenditures to-date, at a time when governments and businesses should be focused on reducing costs and restarting the economy."

A spokesman for Yurek said the government is disappointed with the outcome of the case but did not comment on a possible appeal.

"At this time, we are reviewing the decision and are carefully considering our next steps," Andrew Buttigieg said in a statement.

NDP climate change critic Peter Tabuns said the court decision is an embarrassment for the minister and the government. He urged the government not to pursue an appeal.

Yurek "was found to have ignored the evidence and the facts," he said. "They didn't just lose, their case collapsed. They had nothing to stand on. Taking this to appeal would be a complete and total waste of money."

Green party Leader Mike Schreiner said the ruling proves the government was acting based on ideology over evidence when it revoked the project's approval.

"As we shift towards a post-COVID recovery, we need the Ford government to give up the irrational crusade against affordable and reliable clean energy," Schreiner said in a statement.

Last year, the NDP revealed the province had spent $231 million to cancel more than 750 renewable energy contracts, a move Ford said he was proud of, shortly after winning the 2018 election.

The Progressive Conservatives have blamed the previous Liberal government, as leadership candidates debate how to fix power, for signing the bad energy deals while the province had an oversupply of electricity.

The Ford government, amid a new stance on wind power, has also said that by cancelling the contracts it would ultimately save ratepayers $790 million -- a figure industry officials have disputed.

At the time of the wind farm cancellation, the government also said it would introduce legislation that would protect consumers from any costs incurred, though a developer warned cancellations could exceed $100M at the time.

It has since acknowledged it will have to pay some companies to cancel the deals and set aside $231 million to reach agreements with those firms, and more recently has moved to reintroduce renewable projects in some cases.

On Wednesday, the judges awarded Nation Rise $126,500 in costs, which the government will have to pay.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy 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