Solar Thermal Plant in Nevada Hits a Milestone, So Does U.S. Solar Industry

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

PJM and MISO Electricity-Market Reforms promise consumer savings by enabling renewables, wind, solar, and storage participation in wholesale markets, enhancing grid flexibility, reliability services, and real-time pricing across the Midwest, Great Lakes, and Mid-Atlantic.

Key Points

Market rule updates enabling renewables and storage, improving reliability and lowering consumer costs.

✅ Removes barriers to renewables, storage, demand response

✅ Improves intermarket links and real-time price signals

✅ Rewards flexible resources and reliability services

Electricity-market reforms to enable more renewables generation and storage in the Midwest, Great Lakes, and Mid-Atlantic could save consumers in the US and Canada more than $6.9 billion a year, according to a new report.

The findings may have major implications for consumer groups, large industrial companies, businesses, and homeowners in those regions, said the Wind-Solar Alliance, (WSA), which commissioned the Customer Focused and Clean report.

The WSA is a non-profit organisation supporting the growth of renewables. American Wind Energy Association CEO Tom Kiernan is listed as WSA secretary, amid ongoing debates about the US wind market today.

"Consumers are looking for clean energy, affordable and reliable energy that will keep their monthly electricity bills low," said Kristin Munsch, president of the Board of the Consumer Advocates of the PJM States, which represents over 65 million consumers in 13 states.

"There is great potential to achieve those goals with the cost-effective integration of wind, solar and battery storage plants into our wholesale power markets."

The report found the average residential customer in the PJM and Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) regions, covering 29 US states and the Canadian province of Manitoba, could each save up to $48 a year as lower wholesale electricity prices materialize with significantly more wind, solar and storage on the grid.

The average annual home electricity, for example in New Jersey, in the PJM region, was just over $106 in 2018, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

The latest report quantifies the findings of a previous one for the WSA, published in November 2018, which found that outdated wholesale market rules in the US were preventing full participation by renewable energy, including wind power.

Outdated rules

"The existing wholesale power market rules were largely developed for slower-to-react conventional generators, such as coal and nuclear plants," said Michael Milligan, president of Milligan Grid Solutions and co-author of the new report.

"This report demonstrates the benefits of updating the rules to better accommodate the characteristics and potential contributions of wind and solar and other newer sources of low-cost generation."

With more renewables generation on the grid, customers would benefit the most from increasing power-system flexibility through market structures, the new report concluded. It called for the removal of artificial barriers preventing renewables, storage and demand response from participating in markets.

The report also advocated improving the connections between markets, thereby lowering transaction costs of imports and exports between neighbouring systems.

"There are currently artificial barriers that are preventing the full participation of renewables, storage and other new technologies in the PJM and MISO markets," said Michael Goggin, vice president of Grid Strategies and co-author of the report.

"Providing consumers with a real-time price signal that allows them to adjust their demand, rewarding flexible resources for their capabilities through improved market design, and allowing renewable and storage resources to participate in reliability-services markets would yield the greatest consumer benefits," he said.

PJM and MISO, which incorporate some of the windiest areas of the country, are currently reviewing their market designs as part of a broader grid overhaul underway.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Home Energy Independence reduces electricity costs and outage risks with solar panels, EV charging, battery storage, net metering, and smart inverters, helping homeowners offset tiered rates and improve grid resilience and reliability.

Key Points

Home Energy Independence pairs solar, batteries, and smart EV charging to lower bills and keep power on during outages.

✅ Offset rising electricity rates via solar and net metering

✅ Add battery storage for backup power and peak shaving

✅ Optimize EV charging to avoid tiered rate penalties

The Department of Energy recently warned that two-thirds of the U.S. is at risk of losing power this summer. It’s an increasingly common refrain: Homeowners want to be less reliant on the aging power grid and don’t want to be at the mercy of electric utilities due to rising energy costs and dwindling faith in the power grid’s reliability.

And it makes sense. While the inflated price of eggs and butter made headlines earlier this year, electricity prices quietly increased at twice the rate of overall inflation in 2022, even as studies indicate renewables aren’t making power more expensive overall, and homeowners have taken notice. In fact, according to Aurora Solar’s Industry Snapshot, 62% expect energy prices will continue to rise.

Homeowners aren’t just frustrated that electricity is pricey when they need it, they’re also worried it won’t be available at all when they feel the most vulnerable. Nearly half (48%) of homeowners are concerned about power outages stemming from weather events, or grid imbalances from excess solar in some regions, followed closely by outages due to cyberattacks on the power grid.

These concerns around reliability and cost are creating a deep lack of confidence in the power grid. Yet, despite these growing concerns, homeowners are increasingly using electricity to displace other fuel sources.

The electrification of everything
From electric heat pumps to electric stoves and clothes dryers, homeowners are accelerating the electrification of their homes. Perhaps the most exciting example is electric vehicle (EV) adoption and the need for home charging. With major vehicle makers committing to ambitious electric vehicle targets and even going all-electric in the future, EVs are primed to make an even bigger splash in the years to come.

The by-product of this electrification movement is, of course, higher electric bills because of increased consumption. Homeowners also risk paying more for every unit of energy they use if they’re part of a tiered pricing utility structure, where energy-insecure households often pay 27% more on electricity because customers are charged different rates based on the total amount of energy they use. Many new electric vehicle owners don’t realize this until they are deep into purchasing their new vehicle, or even when they open that first electric bill after the car is in their driveway.

Sure, this electrification movement can feel counterintuitive given the power grid concerns. But it’s actually the first step toward energy independence, and emerging models like peer-to-peer energy sharing could amplify that over time.

Balancing conflicting movements
The fact is that electrification is moving forward quickly, even among homeowners who are concerned about electricity prices and power grid reliability, and about why the grid isn’t yet 100% renewable in the U.S. This has the potential to lead to even more discontent with electric utilities and growing anxiety over access to electricity in extreme situations. There is a third trend, though, that can help reconcile these two conflicting movements: the growth of solar.

The popularity of solar is likely higher than you think: Nearly 77% of homeowners either have solar panels on their homes or are interested in purchasing solar. The Aurora Solar Industry Snapshot report also showed a nearly 40% year-over-year increase in residential solar projects across the U.S. in 2022, as the country moves toward 30% power from wind and solar overall, aligning with the Solar Energy Industries Association’s (SEIA) Solar Market Insight Report, which found, “Residential solar had a record year [in 2022] with nearly 6 GWdc of installations, representing 40% growth over 2021.”

It makes sense that finding ways to tamp down—even eliminate—growing bills caused by the electrification of homes is accelerating interest in solar, as more households weigh whether residential solar is worth it for their budgets, and residential solar installers are seeing this firsthand. The link between EVs and solar is a great proof point: Almost 80% of solar professionals said EV adoption often drives new interest in solar. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

US Electricity Demand Outlook examines EIA forecasts, GDP decoupling, energy efficiency, electrification, electric vehicles, grid load growth, and weather variability to frame long term demand trends and utility planning scenarios.

Key Points

An analysis of EIA projections showing demand decoupling from GDP, with EV adoption and efficiency shaping future grid load.

✅ EIA lowers load growth; demand decouples from GDP.

✅ Efficiency and sector shifts depress kWh sales.

✅ EV adoption could revive load and capacity needs.

Electricity producers and distributors are in an unusual business. The product they provide is available to all customers instantaneously, literally at the flip of a switch. But the large amount of equipment, both hardware and software to do this takes years to design, site and install.

From a long range planning perspective, just as important as a good engineering design is an accurate sales projections. For the US electric utility industry the most authoritative electricity demand projec-tions come from the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA). EIA's compre-hensive reports combine econometric analysis with judgment calls on social and economic trends like the adoption rate of new technologies that could affect future electricity demand, things like LED light-ing and battery powered cars, and the rise of renewables overtaking coal in generation.

Before the Great Recession almost a decade ago, the EIA projected annual growth in US electricity production at roughly 1.5 percent per year. After the Great Recession began, the EIA lowered its projections of US electricity consumption growth to below 1 percent. Actual growth has been closer to zero. While the EIA did not antici-pate the last recession or its aftermath, we cannot fault them on that.

After the event, though, the EIA also trimmed its estimates of economic growth. For the 2015-2030 period it now predicts 2.1 percent economic and 0.3 percent electricity growth, down from previously projections of 2.7 percent and 1.3 percent respectively. (See Figures 1 and 2.)

Table 1. EIA electric generation projections by year of forecast (kWh billions)

Table 2. EIA forecast of GDP by year of forecast (billion 2009 $)

Back in 2007, the EIA figured that every one percent increase in economic activity required a 0.48 percent in-crease in electric generation to support it. By 2017, the EIA calculated that a 1 percent growth in economic activity now only required a 0.14 percent increase in electric output. What accounts for such a downgrade or disconnect between electricity usage and economic growth? And what factors might turn the numbers 
around?

First, the US economy lost energy intensive heavy industry like smelting, steel mills and refineries; patterns in China's electricity sector highlight how industrial shifts can reshape power demand. A more service oriented economy (think health care) relies more heavily on the movement of data or information and uses far less power than a manufacturing-oriented economy.

A small volcano in Argentina is about to fuel the next tech boom – and a little known company is going to be right at the center. Early investors stand to gain incredible profits and you can too. Read the report.

Second, internet shopping has hurt so-called "brick and mortar" retailers. Despite the departure of heavy industry, in years past a burgeoning US commercial sector increased its demand and usage of electricity to offset the industrial decline. But not anymore. Energy efficiency measures as well as per-haps greater concern about global warming and greenhouse gas emissions and have cut into electricity sales. “Do more with less” has the right ring to it.

But there may be other components to the ongoing decline in electricity usage. Academic studies show that electricity usage seems to increase with income along an S curve, and flattens out after a certain income level. That is, if you earn $1 billion per year you do not (or cannot) use ten times a much electricity as someone earning only $100 million.

But people at typical, middle income levels increase or decrease electricity usage when incomes rise or fall. The squeeze on middle income families was discussed often in the late presidential campaign. In recent decades an increasing percentage of income has gone to a small percentage of the population at the top of the income scale. This trend probably accounts for some weakness in residential sales. This suggests that government policy addressing income inequality would also boost electricity sales.

Population growth affects demand for electricity as well as the economy as a whole. The EIA has made few changes in its projections, showing 0.7 percent per year population growth in 2015- 2030 in both the 2007 and 2017 forecasts. Recent studies, however, have shown a drop in the birth rate to record lows. More troubling, from a national health perspective is that the average age of death may have stopped rising. Those two factors point to lower population growth, especially if the government also restricts immi-gration. Thus, the US may be approaching a period of rather modest population growth.

All of the above factors point to minimal sales growth for electricity producers in the US--perhaps even lower than the seemingly conservative EIA estimates. But the cloud on the horizon has a silver lining in the shape of an electric car. Both the United Kingdom and France have set dates to end of production of automobiles with internal combustion engines. Several European car makers have declared that 20 percent of their output will be electric vehicles by the early 2020s. If we adopt automobiles powered by electricity and not gasoline or diesel, electricity sales would increase by one third. For the power indus-try, electric vehicles represent the next big thing.

We don’t pretend to know how electric car sales will progress. But assume vehicle turnover rates re-main at the current 7 percent per year and electric cars account for 5 percent of sales in the first five years (as op-posed to 1 percent now), 20 percent in the next five years and 50 percent in the third five year period. Wildly optimistic assumptions? Maybe. By 2030, electric cars would constitute 28 percent of the vehicle fleet. They would add about 10 percent to kilowatt hour sales by that date, assuming that battery efficiencies do not improved by then. Those added sales would require increased electric generation output, with low-emissions sources expected to cover almost all the growth globally. They would also raise long term growth rates for 2015-2030 from the present 0.3 percent to 1.0 percent. The slow upturn in demand should give the electric companies time to gear up so to speak.

In the meantime, weather will continue to play a big role in electricity consumption. Record heat-induced demand peaks are being set here in the US even as surging global demand puts power systems under strain worldwide.

Can we discern a pattern in weather conditions 15 years out? Maybe we can, but that is one topic we don’t expect a government agency to tackle in public right now. Meantime, weather will affect sales more than anything else and we cannot predict the weather. Or can we?

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Shenao Power Plant Controversy intensifies as the EPA, Taipower, and New Taipei officials clash over EIA findings, a marine conservation area, fisheries, public health risks, and protests against a coal-fired plant in Rueifang.

Key Points

Dispute over coal plant EIA, marine overlap, and health risks, pitting EPA and Taipower against New Taipei and residents.

✅ EPA approved EIA changes; city cites marine conservation conflict

✅ Rueifang residents protest; 400+ signatures, wardens oppose

✅ Debate centers on fisheries, public health, and coal plant impacts

The controversy over the Shenao Power Plant heated up yesterday as Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) and New Taipei City Government officials quibbled over the project’s potential impact on a fisheries conservation area and other issues, mirroring New Hampshire hydropower clashes seen elsewhere.

State-run Taiwan Power Co (Taipower) wants to build a coal-fired plant on the site of the old Shenao plant, which was near Rueifang District’s (瑞芳) Shenao Harbor.

The company’s original plan to build a new plant on the site passed an environmental impact assessment (EIA) in 2006, similar to how NEPA rules function in the US, and the EPA on March 14 approved the firm’s environmental impact difference analysis report covering proposed changes to the project.

#google#

That decision triggered widespread controversy and protests by local residents, environmental groups and lawmakers, echoing enforcement disputes such as renewable energy pollution cases reported in Maryland.

The controversy reached a new peak after New Taipei City Mayor Eric Chu on Tuesday last week posted on Facebook that construction of wave breakers for the project would overlap with a marine conservation area that was established in November 2014.

The EPA and Taipower chose to ignore the demarcation lines of the conservation area, Chu wrote.

Dozens of residents from Rueifang and other New Taipei City districts yesterday launched a protest at 9am in front of the Legislative Yuan in Taipei, amid debates similar to the Maine power line proposal in the US, where the Health, Environment and Labor Committee was scheduled to review government reports on the project.

More than 400 Rueifang residents have signed a petition against the project, including 17 of the district’s 34 borough wardens, Anti-Shenao Plant Self-Help Group director Chen Chih-chiang said.

Ruifang residents have limited access to information, and many only became aware of the construction project after the EPA’s March 14 decision attracted widespread media coverage, Chen said,

Most residents do not support the project, despite Taipower’s claims to the contrary, Chen said.

New Power Party Executive Chairman Huang Kuo-chang, who represents Rueifang and adjacent districts, said the EPA has shown an “arrogance of power” by neglecting the potential impact on public health and the local ecology of a new coal-fired power plant, even as it moves to revise coal wastewater limits elsewhere.

Huang urged residents in Taipei, Keelung, Taoyaun and Yilan County to reject the project.

If the New Taipei City Government was really concerned about the marine conservation area, it should have spoken up at earlier EIA meetings, rather than criticizing the EIA decision after it was passed, Environmental Protection Administration Deputy Minister Chan Shun-kuei told lawmakers at yesterday’s meeting.

Chan said he wondered if Chu was using the Shenao project for political gain.

However, New Taipei City Environmental Protection Department specialist Sun Chung-wei  told lawmakers that the Fisheries Agency and other experts voiced concerns about the conservation area during the first EIA committee meeting on the proposed changes to the Shenao project on June 15 last year.

Sun was invited to speak to the legislative committee by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Arthur Chen.

While the New Taipei City Fisheries and Fishing Port Affairs Management Office did not present a “new” opinion during later EIA committee meetings, that did not mean it agreed to the project, Sun said.

However, Chan said that Sun was using a fallacious argument and trying to evade responsibility, as the conservation area had been demarcated by the city government.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

UK Nuclear Energy Ten Point Plan outlines support for large reactors, SMRs, and AMRs, funding Sizewell C, hydrogen production, and industrial heat to reach net zero, decarbonize transport and heating, and expand clean electricity capacity.

Key Points

A UK plan backing large, small, and advanced reactors to drive net zero via clean power, hydrogen, and industrial heat.

✅ Funds large plants (e.g., Sizewell C) under value-for-money models

✅ Invests in SMRs for factory-built, modular, lower-cost deployment

✅ Backs AMRs for high-temperature heat, hydrogen, and industry

The UK government has just announced its “Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution”, in which it lays out a vision for the future of energy, transport and nature in the UK. As researchers into nuclear energy, my colleagues and I were pleased to see the plan is rather favourable to new nuclear power.

It follows the advice from the UK’s Nuclear Innovation and Research Advisory Board, pledging to pursue large power plants based on current technology, and following that up with financial support for two further waves of reactor technology (“small” and “advanced” modular reactors).

This support is an important part of the plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, as in the years to come nuclear power will be crucial to decarbonising not just the electricity supply but the whole of society.

This chart helps illustrate the extent of the challenge faced:

Electricity generation is only responsible for a small percentage of UK emissions. William Bodel. Data: UK Climate Change Committee

Efforts to reduce emissions have so far only partially decarbonised the electricity generation sector. Reaching net zero will require immense effort to also decarbonise heating, transport, as well as shipping and aviation. The plan proposes investment in hydrogen production and electric vehicles to address these three areas – which will require, as advocates of nuclear beyond electricity argue, a lot more energy generation.

Nuclear is well-placed to provide a proportion of this energy. Reaching net zero will be a huge challenge, and industry leaders warn it may be unachievable without nuclear energy. So here’s what the announcement means for the three “waves” of nuclear power.

Who will pay for it?
But first a word on financing. To understand the strategy, it is important to realise that the reason there has been so little new activity in the UK’s nuclear sector since the 1990s is due to difficulty in financing. Nuclear plants are cheap to fuel and operate and last for a long time. In theory, this offsets the enormous upfront capital cost, and results in competitively priced electricity overall.

But ever since the electricity sector was privatised, governments have been averse to spending public money on power plants. This, combined with resulting higher borrowing costs and cheaper alternatives (gas power), has meant that in practice nuclear has been sidelined for two decades. While climate change offers an opportunity for a revival, these financial concerns remain.

Large nuclear
Hinkley Point C is a large nuclear station currently under construction in Somerset, England. The project is well-advanced, with its first reactor installed and due to come online in the middle of this decade. While the plant will provide around 7% of current UK electricity demand, its agreed electricity price is relatively expensive.

Under construction: Hinkley Point C. Ben Birchall/PA

The government’s new plan states: “We are pursuing large-scale new nuclear projects, subject to value-for-money.” This is likely a reference to the proposed Sizewell C in Suffolk, on which a final decision is expected soon. Sizewell C would be a copy of the Hinkley plant – building follow-up identical reactors achieves capital cost reductions, and setbacks at Hinkley Point C have sharpened delivery focus as an alternative funding model will likely be implemented to reduce financing costs.

Other potential nuclear sites such as Wylfa and Moorside (shelved in 2018 and 2019 respectively for financial reasons) are also not mentioned, their futures presumably also covered by the “subject to value-for-money” clause.

Small nuclear
The next generation of nuclear technology, with various designs under development worldwide are smaller, cheaper, safer Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), such as the Rolls Royce “UK SMR”.

Reactors small enough to be manufactured in factories and delivered as modules can be assembled on site in much shorter times than larger designs, which in contrast are constructed mostly on site. In so doing, the capital costs per unit (and therefore borrowing costs) could be significantly lower than current new-builds.

The plan states “up to £215 million” will be made available for SMRs, Phase 2 of which will begin next year, with anticipated delivery of units around a decade from now.

Advanced nuclear
The third proposed wave of nuclear will be the Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs). These are truly innovative technologies, with a wide range of benefits over present designs and, like the small reactors, they are modular to keep prices down.

Crucially, advanced reactors operate at much higher temperatures – some promise in excess of 750°C compared to around 300°C in current reactors. This is important as that heat can be used in industrial processes which require high temperatures, such as ceramics, which they currently get through electrical heating or by directly burning fossil fuels. If those ceramics factories could instead use heat from AMRs placed nearby, it would reduce CO₂ emissions from industry (see chart above).

High temperatures can also be used to generate hydrogen, which the government’s plan recognises has the potential to replace natural gas in heating and eventually also in pioneering zero-emission vehicles, ships and aircraft. Most hydrogen is produced from natural gas, with the downside of generating CO₂ in the process. A carbon-free alternative involves splitting water using electricity (electrolysis), though this is rather inefficient. More efficient methods which require high temperatures are yet to achieve commercialisation, however if realised, this would make high temperature nuclear particularly useful.

The government is committing “up to £170 million” for AMR research, and specifies a target for a demonstrator plant by the early 2030s. The most promising candidate is likely a High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor which is possible, if ambitious, over this timescale. The Chinese currently lead the way with this technology, and their version of this reactor concept is expected soon.

In summary, the plan is welcome news for the nuclear sector, even as Europe loses nuclear capacity across the continent. While it lacks some specifics, these may be detailed in the government’s upcoming Energy White Paper. The advice to government has been acknowledged, and the sums of money mentioned throughout are significant enough to really get started on the necessary research and development.

Achieving net zero is a vast undertaking, and recognising that nuclear can make a substantial contribution if properly supported is an important step towards hitting that target.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News