Southland site pick for wind farm

Tesla Solar and Powerwall Discount offers a ~10% installation price cut amid PG&E blackouts, helping California homeowners with solar panels, battery storage, and backup power, while supporting renewable energy and resilient Supercharger infrastructure.

Key Points

A ~10% installation discount on Tesla solar panels and Powerwall batteries to boost backup power during PG&E blackouts.

✅ ~10% off installation for solar plus Powerwall

✅ Helps during PG&E shutoffs and wildfire mitigation

✅ Supports resilience, backup power, and EV charging

Pacific Gas & Electric’s (PG&E) shutoff of electric supply to residents in California’s Bay Area has caught the attention of Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who, while highlighting a huge future for Tesla Energy in coming years, has announced that he would be offering a price reduction of approximately 10% for a solar panel and Tesla Powerwall battery installation. The discount will be available to anyone interested in powering their homes with solar energy, not just the 800,000 affected homes in the Bay Area.

After initially tweeting a link to Tesla’s Solar page on Tesla.com, Musk added that he would be offering a “~10% price reduction” in installation price for solar panels and Powerwall batteries for anyone, as California explores EVs for grid stability during emergencies, including those who have lost power in response to PG&E’s power shutoff. The blackout induced by the California-based power company is a part of an effort to reduce the possibility of wildfires. PG&E lines were the cause of multiple fires in the past, so the company is taking every necessary precaution to reduce the probability of its lines causing another fire in the future.

Tesla Solar recently offered a subscription program that would allow homeowners to lease panels for a fraction of the cost. The service is available to both residential and commercial customers, and costs as little as $45 a month in some states, particularly appealing in California where EV sales top 20% recently. The option to lease solar panels carries no long-term contracts that would tie down customers to a lengthy commitment.

Wildfires have always been an issue in California. Currently, fires are ripping through Los Angeles county, presumably caused by the winds of the Autumn season. The effort to reduce the environmental impact of forest fires in the state has been increasingly more prevalent over the years. But 2019 is a different story, underscoring that California may need a much bigger grid to support electrification, considering the previous year was noted as the deadliest wildfire season in California’s history. Over 8,500 fires destroyed over 1.89 million acres of land burned due to fires, causing the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to spend $432 million through the end of August 2018, according to the Associated Press.

In reaction to the news of the power shutoffs, Tesla added words of advice to vehicle affected owners on its app. The company posted a message encouraging drivers to keep their vehicles charged to 100% and highlighted that EVs can power homes for up to three days during outages, in order to prevent interruptions in driving. Those who are driving ICE vehicles are feeling the effects of the blackout too, as gas stations in California’s affected region have begun to shut down. Musk also tweeted that he would be installing Tesla Powerpacks at all Supercharger stations in the affected region, a move that can help ease strain on state power grids during outages, in order to allow owners to charge their vehicles.

In addition to the efforts that Tesla has already put into place, Musk plans to transition all Supercharger stations to solar power as soon as possible. But the sunny climate of California offers residents a great opportunity to move from gas and electric, even as some warn of a looming green car wreck in the state, to a more eco-friendly, sun-powered option. Tesla solar will completely eliminate power blackouts that are used to control wildfires in California.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Churchill Falls NL-Quebec Agreement boosts hydropower revenues, revises power purchase pricing, expands transmission lines, and integrates Indigenous rights, enabling renewable energy growth, domestic supply, exports, and interprovincial collaboration on infrastructure and utility modernization.

Key Points

A renegotiated hydropower deal reallocating power and advancing projects with Indigenous benefits in NL and Quebec.

✅ Raises Hydro-Quebec price for Churchill Falls electricity

✅ Increases NL power share for domestic use and exports

✅ Commits joint projects and Indigenous participation safeguards

St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador - In a historic development, Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) and Quebec have reached a tentative agreement over the controversial Churchill Falls hydroelectric project, amid Quebec's electricity ambitions and longstanding regional sensitivities, potentially unlocking hundreds of billions of dollars for the Atlantic province. The deal, announced jointly by Premier Andrew Furey and Quebec Premier François Legault, aims to rectify the decades-long imbalance in the original 1969 contract, which saw NL receive significantly less revenue than Quebec for the province's vast hydropower resources.

The core of the new agreement involves a substantial increase in the price that Hydro-Québec pays for electricity generated at Churchill Falls. This price hike, retroactive to January 1, 2025, is expected to generate billions in additional revenue for NL over the next several decades. The deal also includes provisions for:

• Increased power allocation for NL: The province will gain a larger share of the electricity generated at Churchill Falls, allowing for increased domestic consumption and potential export opportunities through the sale and trade of power across regional markets.
• Joint infrastructure development: Both provinces will collaborate on new energy projects, in line with Hydro-Québec's $185-billion plan to reduce fossil fuel reliance, including potential expansions to the Churchill Falls generating station and the development of new transmission lines.
• Indigenous involvement: The agreement acknowledges the importance of Indigenous rights and seeks to ensure that Indigenous communities in both provinces benefit from the project.

This landmark deal represents a significant victory for NL, which has long argued that the original 1969 contract was grossly unfair. The province has been seeking to renegotiate the terms of the agreement for decades, citing the low price paid for electricity and the significant economic benefits that have accrued to Quebec.

Key Implications:

• Economic Transformation: The influx of revenue from the new Churchill Falls agreement has the potential to significantly transform the economy of NL, though the legacy of Muskrat Falls costs tempers expectations before plans are finalized. The province can invest in critical infrastructure projects, such as healthcare, education, and transportation, as well as support economic diversification initiatives.
• Energy Independence: The increased access to electricity will enhance NL's energy security and reduce its reliance on fossil fuels. This shift towards renewable energy aligns with the province's climate change goals, and in the context of Quebec's no-nuclear stance could attract new investment in sustainable industries.
• Interprovincial Relations: The successful negotiation of this complex agreement demonstrates the potential for constructive collaboration between provinces on major infrastructure projects, as seen in recent NB Power-Hydro-Québec agreements to import more electricity. It sets a precedent for future interprovincial partnerships on issues of shared interest.

Challenges and Considerations:

• Implementation: The successful implementation of the agreement will require careful planning and coordination between the two provinces.
• Environmental Impact: The expansion of hydroelectric generation at Churchill Falls must be carefully assessed for its potential environmental impacts, including the effects on local ecosystems and Indigenous communities.
• Public Consultation: It is crucial that the governments of NL and Quebec engage in meaningful public consultation throughout the implementation process to ensure that the benefits of the agreement are shared equitably across both provinces.

The Churchill Falls agreement marks a turning point in the history of energy development in Canada. It demonstrates the potential for provinces to work together to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes, even as Nova Scotia shifts toward wind and solar after stepping back from the Atlantic Loop, while also addressing historical inequities and ensuring a more equitable distribution of the benefits of natural resources.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

U.S. Hybrid Vehicle Sales Outlook highlights rising hybrid demand as an EV bridge, driven by emissions rules, range anxiety, charging infrastructure gaps, and automaker strategies from Ford, Toyota, and Stellantis across U.S. markets.

Key Points

Forecast of U.S. hybrid sales shaped by EV adoption, emissions rules, charging access, and automaker strategies.

✅ S&P sees hybrids at 24% of U.S. sales by 2028

✅ Bridges ICE to EV amid range and charging concerns

✅ Ford, Toyota, Stellantis expand U.S. hybrid lineups

Hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles may not be dying as fast as some predicted in the auto sector’s rush to develop all-electric models.

Ford Motor is the latest of several top automakers, including Toyota and Stellantis, planning to build and sell hundreds of thousands of hybrid vehicles in the U.S. over the next five years, industry forecasters told Reuters.

The companies are pitching hybrids as an alternative for retail and commercial customers who are seeking more sustainable transportation, but may not be ready to make the leap to a full electric vehicle.

"Hybrids really serve a lot of America," said Tim Ghriskey, senior portfolio strategist at New York-based investment manager Ingalls & Snyder. "Hybrid is a great alternative to a pure electric vehicle (and) it's an easier sell to a lot of customers."

Interest in hybrids is rebounding as consumer demand for pure electrics has not accelerated as quickly as expected, with EV market share dipping in Q1 2024 according to some analyses. Surveys cite a variety of reasons for tepid EV demand, from high initial cost and concerns about range to lengthy charging times and a shortage of public charging infrastructure in many regions.

“With the tightening of emissions requirements, hybrids provide a cleaner fleet without requiring buyers to take the leap into pure electrics,” said Sam Fiorani, vice president at AutoForecast Solutions.

S&P Global Mobility estimates hybrids will more than triple over the next five years, accounting for 24% of U.S. new vehicle sales in 2028. Sales of pure electrics will claim about 37%, supported by strong U.S. EV sales into 2024 momentum, leaving combustion vehicles — including so-called “mild” hybrids — with a nearly 40% share.

S&P estimates hybrids will account for just 7% of U.S. sales this year, and pure electrics 9%, underscoring that EV sales still lag gas cars as internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles take more than 80%.

Historically, hybrids have accounted for less than 10% of total U.S. sales, with Toyota’s long-running Prius among the most popular models. The Japanese automaker has consistently said hybrids will play a key role in the company's long-range electrification plans as it slowly ramps up investment in pure EVs.

Ford is the latest to roll out more aggressive hybrid plans. On its second-quarter earnings call in late July, Chief Executive Jim Farley surprised analysts, saying Ford expects to quadruple its hybrid sales over the next five years after earlier promising an aggressive push into all-electric vehicles.

“This transition to EVs will be dynamic,” Farley told analysts. “We expect the EV market to remain volatile until the winners and losers shake out.”

Among Ford’s competitors, General Motors appears to have little interest in hybrids in the U.S., while Stellantis will follow Toyota and Ford’s hedge by offering U.S. buyers a choice of different powertrains, including hybrids, until sales of pure electric vehicles start to take off after mid-decade, a potential EV inflection point according to forecaster GlobalData.

In a statement, GM said it, echoing leadership's view that EVs won't go mainstream until key issues are addressed, "continues to be committed to its all-electric future ... While we will have hybrid vehicles in our global fleet, our focus remains on transitioning our portfolio to electric by 2030.”

Stellantis said hybrids now account for 36% of Jeep Wrangler sales and 19% of Chrysler Pacifica sales. In addition to new pure electric models coming soon, "we are very bullish on hybrids going forward," a spokesperson said.

This year, manufacturers are marketing more than 60 hybrids in the U.S. Toyota and its premium Lexus brand are selling at least 18 different hybrid models, enabling the Japanese automaker to maintain its stranglehold on the sector.

Hyundai and sister brand Kia offer seven hybrid models, with Ford and Lincoln six. Stellantis offers just three, and GM’s sole entry, due out later this year, is a hybrid version of the Chevrolet Corvette sports car.

But hybrids remain in short supply at many U.S. dealerships.

Andrew DiFeo, dealer principal at Hyundai of St. Augustine, south of Jacksonville, FL, doesn't see EV adoption hitting the levels the Biden administration wants until EV charging networks are as ubiquitous as gas stations.

"Hybrids are a great bridge to whatever the future holds,” said DiFeo, adding, “I've got zero in stock (and) I've got customers that want all of them."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Massachusetts Energy Code Updates align DOER regulations with BBRS standards, advancing Stretch Code and Specialized Code beyond the Base Energy Code to accelerate net-zero construction, electrification, and high-efficiency building performance across municipal opt-in communities.

Key Points

They are DOER-led changes to Base, Stretch, and Specialized Codes to drive net-zero, electrified, efficient buildings.

✅ Updates apply Base, Stretch, or opt-in Specialized Code.

✅ Targets net-zero by 2050 with electrification-first design.

✅ Municipalities choose code path via City Council or Town Meeting.

Massachusetts will soon see significant updates to the energy codes that govern the construction and alteration of buildings throughout the Commonwealth.

As required by the 2021 climate bill, the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) has recently finalized regulations updating the current Stretch Energy Code, previously promulgated by the state's Board of Building Regulations and Standards (BBRS), and establishing a new Specialized Code geared toward achieving net-zero building energy performance.

The final code has been submitted to the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy for review as required under state law, amid ongoing Connecticut market overhaul discussions that could influence regional dynamics.

Under the new regulations, each municipality must apply one of the following:

Base Energy Code - The current Base Energy Code is being updated by the BBRS as part of its routine updates to the full set of building codes. This base code is the default if a municipality has not opted in to an alternative energy code.

Stretch Code - The updated Stretch Code creates stricter guidelines on energy-efficiency for almost all new constructions and alterations in municipalities that have adopted the previous Stretch Code, paralleling 100% carbon-free target in Minnesota and elsewhere to support building decarbonization. The updated Stretch Code will automatically become the applicable code in any municipality that previously opted-in to the Stretch Code.

Specialized Code - The newly created Specialized Code includes additional requirements above and beyond the Stretch Code, designed to get to ensure that new construction is consistent with a net-zero economy by 2050, similar to Canada's clean electricity regulations that set a 2050 decarbonization pathway. Municipalities must opt-in to adopt the Specialized Code by vote of City Council or Town Meeting.

The new codes are much too detailed to summarize in a blog post. You can read more here. Without going into those details here, it is worth noting a few significant policy implications of the new regulations:

With roughly 90% of Massachusetts municipalities having already adopted the prior version of the Stretch Code, the Commonwealth will effectively soon have a new base code that, even if it does not mandate zero-energy buildings, is nonetheless very aggressive in pushing new construction to be as energy-efficient as possible, as jurisdictions such as Ontario clean electricity regulations continue to reshape the power mix.

Although some concerns have been raised about the cost of compliance, particularly in a period of high inflation, and amid solar demand charge debates in Massachusetts, our understanding is that many developers have indicated that they can work with the new regulations without significant adverse impacts.

Of course, the success of the new codes depends on the success of the Commonwealth's efforts to transition quickly to a zero-carbon electrical grid, supported by initiatives like the state's energy storage solicitation to bolster reliability. If the cost of doing so is higher than expected, there could well be public resistance. If new transmission doesn't get built out sufficiently quickly or other problems occur, such that the power is not available to electrify all new construction, that would be a much more significant problem - for many reasons!

In short, the new regulations unquestionably set the Commonwealth on a course to electrify new construction and squeeze carbon emissions out of new buildings. However, as with the rest of our climate goals, there are a lot of moving pieces, including proposals for a clean electricity standard shaping the power sector that are going to have to come together to make the zero-carbon economy a reality.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Drax Biomass Conversion accelerates renewable energy by replacing coal with wood pellets, sustainable forestry feedstock, and piloting carbon capture and storage, supporting the UK grid, emissions cuts, and a net-zero pathway.

Key Points

Drax Biomass Conversion is Drax's shift from coal to biomass with CCS pilots to cut emissions and aid UK's net-zero.

✅ Coal units converted to biomass wood pellets

✅ Sourced from sustainable forestry residues

✅ CCS pilots target lifecycle emissions cuts

A power station that used to be the biggest polluter in western Europe has made a near-complete switch to renewable energy, mirroring broader shifts as Denmark's largest energy company plans to end coal by 2023.

The Drax Power Station in Yorkshire, England, used to spew out millions of tons of carbon dioxide a year by burning coal. But over the past eight years, it has overhauled its operations by converting four of its six coal-fired units to biomass. The plant's owners say it now generates 15% of the country's renewable power, as Britain recently went a full week without coal power for the first time.

The change means that just 6% of the utility's power now comes from coal, as the wider UK coal share hits record lows across the national electricity system. The ultimate goal is to stop using coal altogether.

"We've probably reduced our emissions more than any other utility in the world by transforming the way we generate power," Will Gardner, CEO of the Drax Group, told CNN Business.

Subsidies have helped finance the switch to biomass, which consists of plant and agricultural matter and is viewed as a promising substitute for coal, and utilities such as Nova Scotia Power are also increasing biomass use. Last year, Drax received £789 million ($1 billion) in government support.

Is biomass good for the environment?

While scientists disagree over the extent to which biomass as a fuel is environmentally friendly, and some environmentalists urge reducing biomass use amid concerns about lifecycle emissions, Drax highlights that its supplies come from from sustainably managed and growing forests.

Most of the biomass used by Drax consists of low-grade wood, sawmill residue and trees with little commercial value from the United States. The material is compressed into sawdust pellets.

Gardner says that by purchasing bits of wood not used for construction or furniture, Drax makes it more financially viable for forests to be replanted. And planting new trees helps offset biomass emissions.

Forests "absorb carbon as they're growing, once they reach maturity, they stop absorbing carbon," said Raphael Slade, a senior research fellow at Imperial College London.

But John Sterman, a professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management, says that in the short term burning wood pellets adds more carbon to the atmosphere than burning coal.

That carbon can be absorbed by new trees, but Sterman says the process can take decades.

"If you're looking at five years, [biomass is] not very good ... If you're looking at a century-long time scale, which is the sort of time scale that many foresters plan, then [biomass] can be a lot more beneficial," says Slade.

Carbon capture

Enter carbon capture and storage technology, which seeks to prevent CO2 emissions from entering the atmosphere and has been touted as a possible solution to the climate crisis.

Drax, for example, is developing a system to capture the carbon it produces from burning biomass. But that could be 10 years away.

The Coal King is racing to avoid bankruptcy

The power station is currently capturing just 1 metric ton of CO2 emissions per day. Gardner says it hopes to increase this to 10,000 metric tons per day by the mid to late 2020s.

"The technology works but scaling it up and rolling it out, and financing it, are going to be significant challenges," says Slade.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shares this view. The group said in a 2018 report that while the potential for CO2 capture and storage was considerable, its importance in the fight against climate change would depend on financial incentives for deployment, and whether the risks of storage could be successfully managed. These include a potential CO2 pipeline break.

In the United Kingdom, the government believes that carbon capture and storage will be crucial to reaching its goal of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, even as low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 according to industry analysis.

It has committed to consulting on a market-based industrial carbon capture framework and in June awarded £26 million ($33 million) in funding for nine carbon capture, usage and storage projects, amid record coal-free generation on the British grid.

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