Finavera, GE to partner on wind farm

Paris E-Scooter Ban: Voters back ending rental scooters after a public consultation, citing road safety, pedestrian clutter, and urban mobility concerns; impacts Lime, Dott, and Tier operations across the capital.

Key Points

A citywide prohibition on rental e-scooters, approved by voters, to improve safety, order, and walkability.

✅ Non-binding vote shows about 90% support citywide.

✅ About 15,000 rental scooters from Lime, Dott, Tier affected.

✅ Cites 2022 injuries, fatalities, and sidewalk clutter.

Parisians have voted to rid the streets of the French capital of rental electric scooters, with an overwhelming 90% of votes cast supporting a ban, official results show, amid a wider debate over the limits of the electric-car revolution and its real-world impact.

Paris was a pioneer when it introduced e-scooters, or trottinettes, in 2018 as the city’s authorities sought to promote non-polluting forms of urban transport, amid record EV adoption in France across the country.

But as the two-wheeled vehicles grew in popularity, especially among young people, and, with similar safety concerns prompting the TTC winter ban on lithium-ion e-bikes and scooters in Toronto, so did the number of accidents: in 2022, three people died and 459 were injured in e-scooter accidents in Paris.

In what was billed as a “public consultation” voters were asked: “For or against self-service scooters?”

Twenty-one polling stations were set up across the city and were open until 7pm local time. Although 1.6 million people are eligible to vote, turnout is expected to be low.

The ban won between 85.77% and 91.77% of the votes in the 20 Paris districts that published results, according to the City of Paris website on what was billed as a rare “public consultation” and prompted long queues at ballot boxes around the city. The vote was non-binding but city authorities have vowed to follow the result, echoing Britain's transport rethink that questions simple fixes.

Paris’s socialist mayor, Anne Hidalgo, has promoted cycling and bike-sharing but supported a ban on e-scooters, as France rolls out new EV incentive rules affecting Chinese manufacturers.

In an interview with Agence France-Presses last week, Hidalgo said “self-service scooters are the source of tension and worry” for Parisians and that a ban would “reduce nuisance” in public spaces, with broader benefits for air quality noted in EV use linked to fewer asthma ER visits in recent studies as well.

Paris has almost 15,000 e-scooters across its streets, operated by companies including Lime, Dott and Tier. Detractors argue that e-scooter users disrespect the rules of the road and regularly flout a ban on riding on pavements, even as France moves to discourage Chinese EV purchases to shape the broader mobility market. The vehicles are also often haphazardly parked or thrown into the River Seine.

In June 2021, a 31-year-old Italian woman was killed after being hit by an e-scooter with two passengers onboard while walking along the Seine.

“Scooters have become my biggest enemy. I’m scared of them,” Suzon Lambert, a 50-year-old teacher from Paris, told AFP. “Paris has become a sort of anarchy. There’s no space any more for pedestrians.”

Another Parisian told BFMTV: “It’s dangerous, and people use them badly. I’m fed up.”

Julian Sezgin, aged 15, said he often saw groups of two or three teenagers on e-scooters zooming past cars on busy roads. “I avoid going on e-scooters and prefer e-bikes as, in my opinion, they are safer and more efficient,” he told the Guardian.

Bianca Sclavi, an Italian who has lived in Paris for years, said the scooters go “too fast” and should be mechanically limited so they go slower. “They are dangerous because they zip in and out of traffic,” she said. “However, it is not as bad as when they first arrived … the most dangerous are the drunk tourists!”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Hydro One CEO Pay Cap sets executive compensation at $1.5 million under Ontario's provincial directive, linking incentives to transmission and distribution cost reductions, governance improvements, and board pay limits at the electricity utility.

Key Points

The Hydro One CEO Pay Cap limits pay to $1.5M, linking incentives to cost reductions and defined targets.

✅ Base salary set at $500,000 per year.

✅ Incentives capped at $1,000,000, tied to cost cuts.

✅ Board pay capped: chair $120,000; members $80,000.

Hydro One has agreed to cap the annual compensation of its chief executive at $1.5 million, the provincial utility said Friday, acquiescing to the demands of the Progressive Conservative government.

The CEO's base salary will be set at $500,000 per year, while short-term and long-term incentives are limited to $1 million. Performance targets under the pay plan will include the CEO's contributions to reductions in transmission and distribution costs, even as Hydro One has pursued a bill redesign to clarify charges for customers.

The framework represents a notable political victory for Premier Doug Ford, who vowed to fire Hydro One's CEO and board during the campaign and promised to reduce the annual earnings of Hydro One's board members.

In February, the province issued a directive to the board, ordering it to pay the utility's CEO no more than the $1.5 million figure it has now agreed to, as part of a broader push to lower electricity rates across Ontario.

Hydro One and the government had been at loggerheads over executive compensation, with the company refusing repeated requests to slash the CEO pay below $2,775,000. The board argued it would have difficulty recruiting suitable leaders for anything less, even as customers contend with a recovery rate that could raise hydro bills.

Further, the company agreed to pay the board chair no more than $120,000 annually and board members no more than $80,000 — figures Energy Minister Greg Rickford had outlined in his directive last month, amid calls for cleaning up Ontario's hydro mess from policy commentators.

"Hydro One's compliance with this directive allows us to move forward as a province. It sets the company on the right course for the future, proving that it can operate as a top-class electricity utility while reining in executive compensation and increasing public transparency," Rickford said in a statement issued Friday morning.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Amazon Renewable Energy Projects advance net zero goals with a Scotland wind farm PPA and US solar farms in North Carolina and Virginia, delivering clean power, added capacity, and lower carbon emissions across cloud operations.

Key Points

Amazon initiatives adding wind and solar capacity in the UK and US to cut carbon and power cloud operations.

✅ Largest UK corporate wind PPA on Scotland Kintyre Peninsula

✅ Two US solar farms in North Carolina and Virginia

✅ 265 MW added capacity, 668,997 MWh clean power annually

Amazon is launching three renewable energy projects in the United States and the United Kingdom that support Amazon’s commitment to using net zero carbon energy by 2040.

The U.K. project is a wind farm on the Kintyre Peninsula in Scotland, aligned with a 10 GW renewables contract boosting the U.K. grid. It will generate 168,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of clean energy each year, enough to power 46,000 U.K. homes. It will be the largest corporate wind power purchase agreement (PPA) in the U.K.

Offshore wind energy in the UK is powering up rapidly, complementing onshore developments.

The other two are solar projects – one in Warren County, N.C, and the other in Prince George County, Va, reflecting broader US solar and wind growth trends nationwide. Together, they are expected to generate 500,997 MWh of energy annually. It is Amazon’s second renewable energy project in North Carolina, following the Amazon Wind Farm US East operated by Avangrid Renewables, and eighth in Virginia.

The three new Amazon wind and solar projects – which are expected to be in operation in 2012 — will provide 265 MW of additional renewable capacity, and align with U.K. wind power lessons for the U.S. market nationwide.

“In addition to the environmental benefits inherently associated with running applications in the cloud, Amazon is committed to minimizing our carbon emissions and reaching 80% renewable energy use across the company by 2024. We’ve announced eight projects this year and have more projects on the horizon – and we’re committed to investing in renewable energy as a critical step toward addressing our carbon footprint globally,” Kara Hurst, director of sustainability at Amazon, said. “With nearly 70 renewable energy projects around the globe – including 54 solar rooftops – we are making significant progress towards reaching Amazon’s company-wide commitment to reach 100% renewable energy by 2030.”

Amazon has launched 18 utility-scale wind and solar renewable energy projects to date, and in parallel, Duke Energy Renewables has acquired three California solar projects, underscoring sector momentum. They will generate over 1,600 MW of renewable capacity and deliver more than 4.6 million MWh of clean energy annually. Amazon has also installed more than 50 solar rooftops on fulfillment centers and sort centers around the world. They generate 98 MW of renewable capacity and deliver 130,000 MWh of clean energy annually.

“Today’s announcement by Amazon is another important step for North Carolina’s clean energy plan that will increase our reliance on renewables and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions,” North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper said. “Not only is this the right thing to do for our planet, it’s the right thing to do for our economy. More clean energy jobs means better jobs for North Carolina families.”

Amazon reports on its sustainability commitments, initiatives, and performance on a new web site the company recently launched. It includes information on Amazon’s carbon footprint and other metrics and updates the company’s progress towards reaching The Climate Pledge. 

“It’s wonderful to see the announcement of these new projects, helping bring more clean energy to the Commonwealth of Virginia where Amazon is already recognized as a leader in bringing renewable energy projects online,” Virginia Governor Ralph Northam said. “These solar farms help reaffirm the Commonwealth’s role as a leading producer of clean energy in the U.S., helping take the nation forward in responding to climate change.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Britain Coal-Free Week signals a historic shift to clean energy, with zero coal power, increased natural gas and renewables, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and ambitious UK energy policy targeting a 2025 coal phase-out and decarbonization.

Key Points

A seven-day period with no coal power in the UK, signaling cleaner energy and progress on emission reductions.

✅ Seven days of zero coal generation in the UK

✅ Natural gas and renewables dominated the electricity mix

✅ Coal phase-out targeted by 2025; emissions cuts planned

For the first time in a century, Britain weaned itself off of coal consumption for an entire week, a coal-free power record for the country.

Reuters reported that Britain went seven days without relying on any power generated by coal-powered stations as the share of coal in the grid continued to hit record lows.

The accomplishment is symbolic of a shift to more clean energy sources, with wind surpassing coal in 2016 and the UK leading the G20 in wind share as of recent years; Britain was home to the first coal-powered plant back in the 1880s.

Today, Britain has some aggressive plans in place to completely eliminate its coal power generation permanently by 2025, with a plan to end coal power underway. In addition, Britain aims to cut its total greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels within the next 30 years.

Natural gas was the largest source of power for Britain in 2018, providing 39 percent of the nation's total electricity, as the Great Britain generation dashboard shows. Coal contributed only about 5 percent, though low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 according to reports. Burning natural gas also produces greenhouse gases, but it is much more efficient and greener than coal.

In the U.S., 63.5 percent of electricity generated in 2018 came from fossil fuels. About 35.1 percent was produced from natural gas and 27.4 percent came from coal. In addition, 19.3 percent of electricity came from nuclear power and 17.1 percent came from renewable energy sources, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Nuclear decarbonization leverages low-carbon electricity, process heat, and hydrogen from advanced reactors and SMRs to electrify industry, buildings, and transport, supporting net-zero strategies and grid flexibility alongside renewables with dispatchable baseload capacity.

Key Points

Nuclear decarbonization uses reactors to supply low-carbon power, heat, and hydrogen, cutting emissions across industry.

✅ Advanced reactors and SMRs enable high-temperature process heat

✅ Nuclear-powered electrolysis and HTSE produce low-carbon hydrogen

✅ District heating from reactors reduces pollution and coal use

By Dr Henri Paillere, Head of the Planning and Economics Studies Section of the IAEA

Decarbonising the power sector will not be sufficient to achieving net-zero emissions, with assessments indicating nuclear may be essential across sectors. We also need to decarbonise the non-power sectors - transport, buildings and industry - which represent 60% of emissions from the energy sector today. The way to do that is: electrification with low-carbon electricity as much as possible; using low-carbon heat sources; and using low-carbon fuels, including hydrogen, produced from clean electricity.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) says that: 'Almost half of the emissions reductions needed to reach net zero by 2050 will need to come from technologies that have not reached the market today.' So there is a need to innovate and push the research, development and deployment of technologies. That includes nuclear beyond electricity.

Today, most of the scenario projections see nuclear's role ONLY in the power sector, despite ongoing debates over whether nuclear power is in decline globally, but increased electrification will require more low-carbon electricity, so potentially more nuclear. Nuclear energy is also a source of low-carbon heat, and could also be used to produce low-carbon fuels such as hydrogen. This is a virtually untapped potential.

There is an opportunity for the nuclear energy sector - from advanced reactors, next-gen nuclear small modular reactors, and non-power applications - but it requires a level playing field, not only in terms of financing today's technologies, but also in terms of promoting innovation and supporting research up to market deployment. And of course technology readiness and economics will be key to their success.

On process heat and district heating, I would draw attention to the fact there have been decades of experience in nuclear district heating. Not well spread, but experience nonetheless, in Russia, Hungary and Switzerland. Last year, we had two new projects. One floating nuclear power plant in Russia (Akademik Lomonosov), which provides not only electricity but district heating to the region of Pevek where it is connected. And in China, the Haiyang nuclear power plant (AP1000 technology) has started delivering commercial district heating. In China, there is an additional motivation to reducing emissions, namely to cut air pollution because in northern China a lot of the heating in winter is provided by coal-fired boilers. By going nuclear with district heating they are therefore cutting down on this pollution and helping with reducing carbon emissions as well. And Poland is looking at high-temperature reactors to replace its fleet of coal-fired boilers and so that's a technology that could also be a game-changer on the industry side.

There have also been decades of research into the production of hydrogen using nuclear energy, but no real deployment. Now, from a climate point of view, there is a clear drive to find substitute fuels for the hydrocarbon fuels that we use today, and multiple new nuclear stations are seen by industry leaders as necessary to meet net-zero targets. In the near term, we will be able to produce hydrogen with electrolysis using low-carbon electricity, from renewables and nuclear. But the cheapest source of low-carbon power is from the long-term operation of existing nuclear power plants which, combined with their high capacity factors, can give the cheapest low-carbon hydrogen of all.

In the mid to long term, there is research on-going with processes that are more efficient than low-temperature electrolysis, which is high temperature steam electrolysis or thermal splitting of water. These may offer higher efficiencies and effectiveness but they also require advanced reactors that are still under development. Demonstration projects are being considered in several countries and we at the IAEA are developing a publication that looks into the business opportunities for nuclear production of hydrogen from existing reactors. In some countries, there is a need to boost the economics of the existing fleet, especially in the electricity systems where you have low or even negative market prices for electricity. So, we are looking at other products that have higher values to improve the competitiveness of existing nuclear power plants.

The future means not only looking at electricity, but also at industry and transport, and so integrated energy systems. Electricity will be the main workhorse of our global decarbonisation effort, but through heat and hydrogen. How you model this is the object of a lot of research work being done by different institutes and we at the IAEA are developing some modelling capabilities with the objective of optimising low-carbon emissions and overall costs.

This is just a picture of what the future might look like: a low-carbon power system with nuclear lightwater reactors (large reactors, small modular reactors and fast reactors) drawing on the green industrial revolution reactor waves in planning; solar, wind, anything that produces low-carbon electricity that can be used to electrify industry, transport, and the heating and cooling of buildings. But we know there is a need for high-temperature process steam that electricity cannot bring but which can be delivered directly by high-temperature reactors. And there are a number of ways of producing low-carbon hydrogen. The beauty of hydrogen is that it can be stored and it could possibly be injected into gas networks that could be run in the future on 100% hydrogen, and this could be converted back into electricity.

So, for decarbonising power, there are many options - nuclear, hydro, variable renewables, with renewables poised to surpass coal in global generation, and fossil with carbon capture and storage - and it's up to countries and industries to invest in the ones they prefer. We find that nuclear can actually reduce the overall cost of systems due to its dispatchability and the fact that variable renewables have a cost because of their intermittency. There is a need for appropriate market designs and the role of governments to encourage investments in nuclear.

Decarbonising other sectors will be as important as decarbonising electricity, from ways to produce low-carbon heat and low-carbon hydrogen. It's not so obvious who will be the clear winners, but I would say that since nuclear can produce all three low-carbon vectors - electricity, heat and hydrogen - it should have the advantage.
We at the IAEA will be organising a webinar next month with the IEA looking at long-term nuclear projections in a net-zero world, building on IAEA analysis on COVID-19 and low-carbon electricity insights. That will be our contribution from the point of view of nuclear to the IEA's special report on roadmaps to net zero that it will publish in May.

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