Nuclear receives key senate support

US Climate Alliance 100% Renewables 2035 accelerates clean energy, electrification, and decarbonization, replacing coal and gas with wind, solar, and storage to cut air pollution, lower energy bills, create jobs, and advance environmental justice.

Key Points

A state-level target for alliance members to meet all electricity demand with renewable energy by 2035.

✅ 100% RES can meet rising demand from electrification

✅ Major health gains from reduced SO2, NOx, and particulates

✅ Jobs grow, energy burdens fall, climate resilience improves

The Union of Concerned Scientists joined with COPAL (Minnesota), GreenRoots (Massachusetts), and the Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition, to better understand the feasibility and implications of leadership states meeting 100 percent of their electricity needs with renewable energy by 2035, a target reflected in federal clean electricity goals under discussion today.

We focused on 24 member states of the United States Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of governors committed to the goals of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. We analyzed two main scenarios: business as usual versus 100 percent renewable electricity standards, in line with many state clean energy targets now in place.

Our analysis shows that:

Climate Alliance states can meet 100 percent of their electricity consumption with renewable energy by 2035, as independent assessments of zero-emissions feasibility suggest. This holds true even with strong increases in demand due to the electrification of transportation and heating.

A transition to renewables yields strong benefits in terms of health, climate, economies, and energy affordability.

To ensure an equitable transition, states should broaden access to clean energy technologies and decision making to include environmental justice and fossil fuel-dependent communitieswhile directly phasing out coal and gas plants.

Demands for climate action surround us. Every day brings news of devastating "this is not normal" extreme weather: record-breaking heat waves, precipitation, flooding, wildfires. To build resilience and mitigate the worst impacts of the climate crisis requires immediate action to reduce heat-trapping emissions and transition to renewable energy, including practical decarbonization strategies adopted by states.

On the Road to 100 Percent Renewables explores actions at one critical level: how leadership states can address climate change by reducing heat-trapping emissions in key sectors of the economy as well as by considering the impacts of our energy choices. A collaboration of the Union of Concerned Scientists and local environmental justice groups COPAL (Minnesota), GreenRoots (Massachusetts), and the Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition, with contributions from the national Initiative for Energy Justice, assessed the potential to accelerate the use of renewable energy dramatically through state-level renewable electricity standards (RESs), major drivers of clean energy in recent decades. In addition, the partners worked with Greenlink Analytics, an energy research organization, to assess how RESs most directly affect people's lives, such as changes in public health, jobs, and energy bills for households.

Focusing on 24 members of the United States Climate Alliance (USCA), the study assesses the implications of meeting 100 percent of electricity consumption in these states, including examples like Rhode Island's 100% by 2030 plan that inform policy design, with renewable energy in the near term. The alliance is a bipartisan coalition of governors committed to reducing heat-trapping emissions consistent with the goals of the 2015 Paris climate agreement.[1]

On the Road to 100 Percent Renewables looks at three types of results from a transition to 100 percent RES policies: improvements in public health from decreasing the use of coal and gas2 power plants; net job creation from switching to more labor-oriented clean energy; and reduced household energy bills from using cleaner sources of energy. The study assumes a strong push to electrify transportation and heating to address harmful emissions from the current use of fossil fuels in these sectors. Our core policy scenario does not focus on electricity generation itself, nor does it mandate retiring coal, gas, and nuclear power plants or assess new policies to drive renewable energy in non-USCA states.

Our analysis shows that:

USCA states can meet 100 percent of their electricity consumption with renewable energy by 2035 even with strong increases in demand due to electrifying transportation and heating.

A transition to renewables yields strong benefits in terms of health, climate, economies, and energy affordability.

Renewable electricity standards must be paired with policies that address not only electricity consumption but also electricity generation, including modern grid infrastructure upgrades that enable higher renewable shares, both to transition away from fossil fuels more quickly and to ensure an equitable transition in which all communities experience the benefits of a clean energy economy.

Currently, the states in this analysis meet their electricity needs with differing mixes of electricity sourcesfossil fuels, nuclear, and renewables. Yet across the states, the study shows significant declines in fossil fuel use from transitioning to clean electricity; the use of solar and wind powerthe dominant renewablesgrows substantially:

In the study's "No New Policy" scenario"business as usual"coal and gas generation stay largely at current levels over the next two decades. Electricity generation from wind and solar grows due to both current policies and lowest costs.

In a "100% RES" scenario, each USCA state puts in place a 100 percent renewable electricity standard. Gas generation falls, although some continues for export to non-USCA states. Coal generation essentially disappears by 2040. Wind and solar generation combined grow to seven times current levels, and three times as much as in the No New Policy scenario.

A focus on meeting in-state electricity consumption in the 100% RES scenario yields important outcomes. Reductions in electricity from coal and gas plants in the USCA states reduce power plant pollution, including emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. By 2040, this leads to 6,000 to 13,000 fewer premature deaths than in the No New Policy scenario, as well as 140,000 fewer cases of asthma exacerbation and 700,000 fewer lost workdays. The value of the additional public health benefits in the USCA states totals almost $280 billion over the two decades. In a more detailed analysis of three USCA statesMassachusetts, Michigan, and Minnesotathe 100% RES scenario leads to almost 200,000 more added jobs in building and installing new electric generation capacity than the No New Policy scenario.

The 100% RES scenario also reduces average energy burdens, the portion of household income spent on energy. Even considering household costs solely for electricity and gas, energy burdens in the 100% RES scenario are at or below those in the No New Policy scenario in each USCA state in most or all years. The average energy burden across those states declines from 3.7 percent of income in 2020 to 3.0 percent in 2040 in the 100% RES scenario, compared with 3.3 percent in 2040 in the No New Policy scenario.

Decreasing the use of fossil fuels through increasing the use of renewables and accelerating electrification reduces emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), with implications for climate, public health, and economies. Annual CO2 emissions from power plants in USCA states decrease 58 percent from 2020 to 2040 in the 100% RES scenario compared with 12 percent in the No New Policy scenario.

The study also reveals gaps to be filled beyond eliminating fossil fuel pollution from communities, such as the persistence of gas generation to sell power to neighboring states, reflecting barriers to a fully renewable grid that policy must address. Further, it stresses the importance of policies targeting just and equitable outcomes in the move to renewable energy.

Moving away from fossil fuels in communities most affected by harmful air pollution should be a top priority in comprehensive energy policies. Many communities continue to bear far too large a share of the negative impacts from decades of siting the infrastructure for the nation's fossil fuel power sector in or near marginalized neighborhoods. This pattern will likely persist if the issue is not acknowledged and addressed. State policies should mandate a priority on reducing emissions in communities overburdened by pollution and avoiding investments inconsistent with the need to remove heat-trapping emissions and air pollution at an accelerated rate. And communities must be centrally involved in decisionmaking around any policies and rules that affect them directly, including proposals to change electricity generation, both to retire fossil fuel plants and to build the renewable energy infrastructure.

Key recommendations in On the Road to 100 Percent Renewables address moving away from fossil fuels, increasing investment in renewable energy, and reducing CO2 emissions. They aim to ensure that communities most affected by a history of environmental racism and pollution share in the benefits of the transition: cleaner air, equitable access to good-paying jobs and entrepreneurship alternatives, affordable energy, and the resilience that renewable energy, electrification, energy efficiency, and energy storage can provide. While many communities can benefit from the transition, strong justice and equity policies will avoid perpetuating inequities in the electricity system. State support to historically underserved communities for investing in solar, energy efficiency, energy storage, and electrification will encourage local investment, community wealth-building, and the resilience benefits the transition to renewable energy can provide.

A national clean electricity standard and strong pollution standards should complement state action to drive swift decarbonization and pollution reduction across the United States. Even so, states are well positioned to simultaneously address climate change and decades of inequities in the power system. While it does not substitute for much-needed national and international leadership, strong state action is crucial to achieving an equitable clean energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Duke Energy Carolinas Solar RFP draws 3.9 GW of utility-scale bids, oversubscribed in DEP and DEC, below avoided cost rates, minimal battery storage, strict PPA terms, and interconnection challenges across North and South Carolina.

Key Points

Utility-scale solar procurement in DEC and DEP, evaluated against avoided cost, with few storage bids and PPA terms.

✅ 3.9 GW bids for 680 MW; DEP most oversubscribed

✅ Most projects 7-80 MWac; few include battery storage

✅ Bids must price below 20-year avoided cost estimate

Last week the independent administrator for Duke’s 680 MW solar solicitation revealed data about the projects which have bid in response to the offer, showing a massive amount of interest in the opportunity.

Overall, 18 individuals submitted bids for projects in Duke Energy Carolinas (DEC) territory and 10 in Duke Energy Progress (DEP), with a total of more than 3.9 GW of proposals – more nearly 6x the available volume. DEP was relatively more over-subscribed, with 1.2 GWac of projects vying for only 80 MW of available capacity.

This is despite a requirement that such projects come in below the estimate of Duke’s avoided cost for the next 20 years, and amid changes in solar compensation that could affect project economics. Individual projects varied in capacity from 7-80 MWac, with most coming within the upper portion of that range.

These bids will be evaluated in the spring of 2019, and as Duke Energy Renewables continues to expand its portfolio, Duke Energy Communications Manager Randy Wheeless says he expects the plants to come online in a year or two.

Lack of storage

Despite recent trends in affordable batteries, of the 78 bids that came in only four included integrated battery storage. Tyler Norris, Cypress Creek Renewables’ market lead for North Carolina, says that this reflects that the methodology used is not properly valuing storage.

“The lack of storage in these bids is a missed opportunity for the state, and it reflects a poorly designed avoided cost rate structure that improperly values storage resources, commercially unreasonable PPA provisions, and unfavorable interconnection treatment toward independent storage,” Norris told pv magazine.

“We’re hopeful that these issues will be addressed in the second RFP tranche and in the current regulatory proceedings on avoided cost and state interconnection standards and grid upgrades across the region.”

Limited volume for North Carolina?

Another curious feature of the bids is that nearly the same volume of solar has been proposed for South Carolina as North Carolina – despite this solicitation being in response to a North Carolina law and ongoing legal disputes such as a church solar case that challenged the state’s monopoly model.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Japan Offshore Wind Investment signals Japanese utilities entering UK offshore wind, as J-Power and Kansai Electric buy into Innogy's Triton Knoll, leveraging North Sea expertise, 9.5MW turbines, and 15-year fixed-rate contracts.

Key Points

Japanese utilities buying UK offshore wind stakes to import expertise, as J-Power and Kansai join Innogy's Triton Knoll.

✅ $900M deal: J-Power 25%, Kansai Electric ~16% in Innogy unit

✅ Triton Knoll: 860MW, up to 90 9.5MW turbines, 15-year fixed PPA

✅ Goal: Transfer North Sea expertise to develop Japan offshore wind

Two of Japan's biggest power companies will buy around 40% of a German-owned developer of offshore wind farms in the U.K., seeking to learn from Britain's lead in this sector, as highlighted by a UK offshore wind milestone this week, and bring the know-how back home.

Tokyo-based Electric Power Development, better known as J-Power, will join Osaka regional utility Kansai Electric Power in investing in a unit of Germany's Innogy.

The deal, estimated to be worth around $900 million, will give J-Power a 25% stake and Kansai Electric a roughly 16% share. It will mark the first investment in an offshore wind project by Japanese power companies, as other markets shift strategies, with Poland backing wind over nuclear signaling broader momentum.

Innogy plans to start up the 860-megawatt Triton Knoll offshore wind project -- one of the biggest of its kind in the world -- in the North Sea in 2021. The vast installation will have up to 90 9.5MW turbines and sell its output to local utilities under a 15-year fixed-rate contract.

J-Power, which supplies mainly fossil-fuel-based electricity to Japanese regional utilities, will set up a subsidiary backed by the government-run Development Bank of Japan to participate in the Innogy project. Engineers will study firsthand construction and maintenance methods.

While land-based wind turbines are proliferating worldwide, offshore wind farms have progressed mainly in Europe, though U.S. offshore wind competitiveness is improving in key markets. Installed capacity totaled more than 18,000MW at the end of 2017, which at maximum capacity can produce as much power as 18 nuclear reactors.

Japan has hardly any offshore wind farms in commercial operation, and has little in the way of engineering know-how in this field or infrastructure for linking such installations to the land power grid, with a recent Japan grid blackout analysis underscoring these challenges. But there are plans for a total of 4,000MW of offshore wind power capacity, including projects under feasibility studies.

J-Power set up a renewable energy division in June to look for opportunities to expand into wind and geothermal energy in Japan, and efforts like a Japan hydrogen energy system are emerging to support decarbonization. Kansai Electric also seeks know-how for increasing its reliance on renewable energy, even as it hurries to restart idled nuclear reactors.

They are not the only Japanese investors is in this field. In Asia, trading house Marubeni will invest in a Taiwanese venture with plans for a 600MW offshore wind farm.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Affordable Clean Energy Rule Lawsuit pits EPA and coal industry allies against health groups over Clean Power Plan repeal, greenhouse gas emissions standards, climate change, public health, and state authority before the D.C. Circuit.

Key Points

A legal fight over EPA's ACE rule and CPP repeal, weighing emissions policy, state authority, climate, and public health.

✅ Challenges repeal of Clean Power Plan and adoption of ACE.

✅ EPA backed by coal, utilities; health groups seek stricter limits.

✅ D.C. Circuit to review emissions authority and state roles.

The largest trade association representing coal interests in the country has joined other business and electric utility groups in siding with the EPA in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's repeal of the Clean Power Plan.

The suit -- filed by the American Lung Association and the American Public Health Association -- seeks to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to drop a new rule-making process that critics claim would allow higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions, further contributing to the climate crisis and negatively impacting public health.

The new rule, which the Trump administration calls the "Affordable Clean Energy rule" (ACE), "would replace the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which EPA has proposed to repeal because it exceeded EPA's authority. The Clean Power Plan was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court and has never gone into effect," according to an EPA statement.

EPA has also moved to rewrite wastewater limits for coal power plants, signaling a broader rollback of related environmental requirements.

America's Power -- formerly the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity -- the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association have filed motions seeking to join the lawsuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has not yet responded to the motion.

Separately, energy groups warned that President Trump and Energy Secretary Rick Perry were rushing major changes to electricity pricing that could disrupt markets.

"In this rule, the EPA has accomplished what eluded the prior administration: providing a clear, legal pathway to reduce emissions while preserving states' authority over their own grids," Hal Quinn, president and chief executive officer of the mining association, said when the new rule was released last month. "ACE replaces a proposal that was so extreme that the Supreme Court issued an unprecedented stay of the proposal, having recognized the economic havoc the mere suggestion of such overreach was causing in the nation's power grid."

Around the same time, a coal industry CEO blasted a federal agency's decision on the power grid as harmful to reliability.

The trade and business groups have argued that the Clean Power Plan, set by the Obama administration, was an overreach of federal power. Finalized in 2015, the plan was President Obama's signature policy on climate change, rooted in compliance with the Paris Climate Treaty. It would have set state limits on emissions from existing power plants but gave wide latitude for meeting goals, such as allowing plant operators to switch from coal to other electric generating sources to meet targets.

Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt argued that the rule exceeded federal statutory limits by imposing "outside the fence" regulations on coal-fired plants instead of regulating "inside the fence" operations that can improve efficiency.

The Clean Power Plan set a goal of reducing carbon emissions from power generators by 32 percent by the year 2030. An analysis from the Rhodium Group found that had states taken full advantage of the CPP's flexibility, emissions would have been reduced by as much as 72 million metric tons per year on average. Still, even absent federal mandates, the group noted that states are taking it upon themselves to enact emission-reducing plans based on market forces.

In its motion, America's Power argues the EPA "acknowledged that the [Best System of Emission Reduction] for a source category must be 'limited to measures that can be implemented ... by the sources themselves.'" If plants couldn't take action, compliance with the new rule would require the owners or operators to buy emission rate credits that would increase investment in electricity from gas-fired or renewable sources. The increase in operating costs plus federal efforts to shift power generation to other sources of energy, thereby increasing costs, would eventually force the coal-fired plants out of business.

In related proceedings, renewable energy advocates told FERC that a DOE proposal to subsidize coal and nuclear plants was unsupported by the record, highlighting concerns about market distortions.

"While we are confident that EPA will prevail in the courts, we also want to help EPA defend the new rule against others who prefer extreme regulation," said Michelle Bloodworth, president and CEO of America's Power.

"Extreme regulation" to one group is environmental and health protections to another, though.

Howard A. Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center of the Midwest, defended the Clean Power Plan in an opinion piece published in June.

"The Midwest still produces more electricity from coal plants than any other region of the country, and Midwesterners bear the full range of pollution harms to public health, the Great Lakes, and overall environmental quality," Learner wrote. "The new [Affordable Clean Energy] Rule is a misguided policy, moves our nation backward in solving climate change problems, and misses opportunities for economic growth and innovation in the global shift to renewable energy. If not reversed by the courts, as it should be, the next administration will have the challenge of doing the right thing for public health, the climate and our clean energy future."

When it initially filed its lawsuit against the Trump administration's Affordable Clean Energy Rule, the American Lung Association accused the EPA of "abdicat[ing] its legal duties and obligations to protect public health." It also referred to the new rule as "dangerous."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

New Zealand Renewable Energy Strategy examines decarbonisation, GHG emissions, and net energy as electrification accelerates, expanding hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar PV while weighing intermittency, storage, materials, and energy security for a resilient power system.

Key Points

A plan to expand electricity generation, balancing decarbonisation, net energy limits, and energy security.

✅ Distinguishes decarbonisation targets from renewable capacity growth

✅ Highlights net energy limits, intermittency, and storage needs

✅ Addresses materials, GHG build-out costs, and energy security

The Electricity Authority has released a document outlining a plan to achieve the Government’s goal of more than doubling the amount of electricity generated in New Zealand over the next few decades.

This goal is seen as a way of both reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions overall, as everything becomes electrified, and ensuring we have a 100 percent renewable energy system at our disposal. Often these two goals are seen as being the same – to decarbonise we must transition to more renewable energy to power our society.

But they are quite different goals and should be clearly differentiated. GHG emissions could be controlled very effectively by rationing the use of a fossil fuel lockdown approach, with declining rations being available over a few years. Such a direct method of controlling emissions would ensure we do our bit to remain within a safe carbon budget.

If we took this dramatic step we could stop fretting about how to reduce emissions (that would be guaranteed by the rationing), and instead focus on how to adapt our lives to the absence of fossil fuels.

Again, these may seem like the same task, but they are not. Decarbonising is generally thought of in terms of replacing fossil fuels with some other energy source, signalling that a green recovery must address more than just wind capacity. Adapting our lives to the absence of fossil fuels pushes us to ask more fundamental questions about how much energy we actually need, what we need energy for, and the impact of that energy on our environment.

MBIE data indicate that between 1990 and 2020, New Zealand almost doubled the total amount of energy it produced from renewable energy sources - hydro, geothermal and some solar PV and wind turbines.

Over this same time period our GHG emissions increased by about 25 percent. The increase in renewables didn’t result in less GHG emissions because we increased our total energy use by almost 50 percent, mostly by using fossil fuels. The largest fossil fuel increases were used in transport, agriculture, forestry and fisheries (approximately 60 percent increases for each).

These data clearly demonstrate that increasing renewable energy sources do not necessarily result in reduced GHG emissions.

The same MBIE data indicate that over this same time period, the amount of Losses and Own Use category for energy use more than doubled. As of 2020 almost 30 percent of all energy consumed in New Zealand fell into this category.

These data indicate that more renewable energy sources are historically associated with less energy actually being available to do work in society.

While the category Losses and Own Use is not a net energy analysis, the large increase in this category makes the call for a system-wide net energy analysis all the more urgent.

Net energy is the amount of energy available after the energy inputs to produce and deliver the energy is subtracted. There is considerable data available indicating that solar PV and wind turbines have a much lower net energy surplus than fossil fuels.

And there is further evidence that when the intermittency and storage requirements are engineered into a total renewable energy system, the net energy of the entire system declines sharply. Could the Losses and Other Uses increase over this 30-year period be an indication of things to come?

Despite the importance of net energy analysis in designing a national energy system which is intended to provide energy security and resilience, there is not a single mention of net energy surplus in the EA reference document.

So over the last 30 years, New Zealand has doubled its renewable energy capacity, and at the same time increased its GHG emissions and reduced the overall efficiency of the national energy system.

And we are now planning to more than double our renewable energy system yet again over the next 30 years, even as zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is being debated elsewhere. We need to ask if this is a good idea.

How can we expand New Zealand’s solar PV and wind turbines without using fossil fuels? We can’t.

How could we expand our solar PV and wind turbines without mining rare minerals and the hidden costs of clean energy they entail, further contributing to ecological destruction and often increasing social injustices? We can't.

Even if we could construct, deliver, install and maintain solar PV and wind turbines without generating more GHG emissions and destroying ecosystems and poor communities, this “renewable” infrastructure would have to be replaced in a few decades. But there are at least two major problems with this assumed scenario.

The rare earth minerals required for this replacement will already be exhausted by the initial build out. Recycling will only provide a limited amount of replacements.

The other challenge is that a mostly “renewable” energy system will likely have a considerably lower net energy surplus. So where, in 2060, will the energy come from to either mine or recycle the raw materials, and to rebuild, reinstall and maintain the next iteration of a renewable energy system?

There is currently no plan for this replacement. It is a serious misnomer to call these energy technologies “renewable”. They are not as they rely on considerable raw material inputs and fossil energy for their production and never ending replacement.

New Zealand is, of course, blessed with an unusually high level of hydro electric and geothermal power. New Zealand currently uses over 170 GJ of total energy per capita, 40 percent of which is “renewable”. This provides approximately 70 GJ of “renewable” energy per capita with our current population.

This is the average global per capita energy level from all sources across all nations, as calls for 100% renewable energy globally emphasize. Several nations operate with roughly this amount of total energy per capita that New Zealand can generate just from “renewables”.

It is worth reflecting on the 170 GJ of total energy use we currently consume. Different studies give very different results regarding what levels are necessary for a good life.

For a complex industrial society such as ours, 100 GJ pc is said to be necessary for a high levels of wellbeing, determined both subjectively (life satisfaction/ happiness measures), and objectively (e.g. infant mortality levels, female morbidity as an index of population health, access to nutritious food and educational and health resources, etc). These studies do not take into account the large amount of energy that is wasted either through inefficient technologies, or frivolous use, which effective decarbonization strategies seek to reduce.

Other studies that consider the minimal energy needed for wellbeing suggest a much lower level of per capita energy consumption is required. These studies take a different approach and focus on ensuring basic wellbeing is maintained, but not necessarily with all the trappings of a complex industrial society. Their results indicate a level of approximately 20 GJ per capita is adequate.

In either case, we in New Zealand are wasting a lot of energy, both in terms of the efficiency of our technologies (see the Losses and Own Use info above), and also in our uses which do not contribute to wellbeing (think of the private vehicle travel that could be done by active or public transport – if we had good infrastructure in place).

We in New Zealand need a national dialogue about our future. And energy availability is only one aspect. We need to discuss what our carrying capacity is, what level of consumption is sustainable for our population, and whether we wish to make adjustments in either our per capita consumption or our population. Both together determine whether we are on the sustainable side of carrying capacity. Currently we are on the unsustainable side, meaning our way of life cannot endure. Not a good look for being a good ancestor.

The current trajectory of the Government and Electricity Authority appears to be grossly unsustainable. At the very least they should be able to answer the questions posed here about the GHG emissions from implementing a totally renewable energy system, the net energy of such a system, and the related environmental and social consequences.

Public dialogue is critical to collectively working out our future. Allowing the current profit-driven trajectory to unfold is a recipe for disasters for our children and grandchildren.

Being silent on these issues amounts to complicity in allowing short-term financial interests and an addiction to convenience jeopardise a genuinely secure and resilient future. Let’s get some answers from the Government and Electricity Authority to critical questions about energy security.

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