Frustrated carbon traders try other commodities

Hydrogen Energy Transition accelerates green hydrogen, electrolyzers, renewables, and fuel cells, as the EU and US scale decarbonization, NextEra tests hydrogen-to-power, and DOE funds pilots to replace natural gas and cut CO2.

Key Points

A shift to deploy green hydrogen tech to decarbonize power, industry, and transport across EU and US energy systems.

✅ EU targets 40 GW electrolyzers plus 40 GW imports by 2030

✅ DOE funds pilots; NextEra trials hydrogen-to-power at Okeechobee

✅ Aims to replace natural gas, enable fuel cells, cut CO2

Last month, the European Union set out a comprehensive hydrogen strategy as part of its goal to achieve carbon neutrality for all its industries by 2050. The EU has an ambitious target to build out at least 40 gigawatts of electrolyzers within its borders by 2030 and also support the development of another 40 gigawatts of green hydrogen in nearby countries that can export to the region by the same date. The announcement came as little surprise, given that Europe is regarded as being far ahead of the United States in the shift to renewable energy, even as it looks to catch up on fuel cells with Asian leaders today.

But the hydrogen bug has finally arrived stateside: The U.S. Department of Energy has unveiled the H2@Scale initiative whereby a handful of companies including Cummins Inc. (NYSE: CMI), Caterpillar Inc.(NYSE: CAT), 3M Company (NYSE: MMM), Plug Power Inc.(NASDAQ: PLUG) and EV startup Nikola Corp.(NASDAQ: NKLA), even as the industry faces threats to the EV boom that investors are watching, will receive $64 million in government funding for hydrogen research projects.

Hot on the heels of the DoE initiative: American electric utility and renewable energy giant, NextEra Energy Inc.(NYSE: NEE), has unveiled an equally ambitious plan to start replacing its natural gas-powered plants with hydrogen.

During its latest earnings call, NextEra’s CFO Rebecca Kujawa said the company is “…particularly excited about the long-term potential of hydrogen” and discussed plans to start a pilot hydrogen project at one of its generating stations at Okeechobee Clean Energy Center owned by its subsidiary, Florida Power & Light (FPL). NextEra reported Q2 revenue of $4.2B (-15.5% Y/Y), which fell short of Wall Street’s consensus by $1.12B while GAAP EPS of $2.59 (+1.1% Y/Y) beat estimates by $0.09. The company attributed the big revenue slump to the effects of Covid-19.

Renewable energy and hydrogen stocks have lately become hot property as EV adoption hits an inflection point worldwide, with NEE up 16% in the year-to-date; PLUG +144%, Bloom Energy Corp. (NYSE: BE) +62.8% while Ballard Power Systems (NASDAQ: BLDP) has gained 98.2% over the timeframe.

NextEra’s usual modus operandi involves conducting small experiments with new technologies to establish their cost-effectiveness, a pragmatic approach informed by how electricity changed in 2021 across the grid, before going big if the trials are successful.

CFO Kujawa told analysts:
“Based on our ongoing analysis of the long-term potential of low-cost renewables, we remain confident as ever that wind, solar, and battery storage will be hugely disruptive to the country’s existing generation fleet, while reducing cost for customers and helping to achieve future CO2 emissions reductions. However, to achieve an emissions-free future, we believe that other technologies will be necessary, and we are particularly excited about the long-term potential of hydrogen.”

NextEra plans to test the electricity-to-hydrogen-to-electricity model at its natural gas-powered Okeechobee Clean Energy Center that came online in 2019. Okeechobee is already regarded as one of the cleanest thermal energy facilities anywhere on the globe. However, replacing natural gas with zero emissions hydrogen would be a significant step in helping the company achieve its goal to become 100% emissions-free by 2050.

Kujawa said the company plans to continue evaluating other potential hydrogen opportunities to accelerate the decarbonization of transportation fuel, amid the debate over the future of vehicles between electricity and hydrogen, and industrial feedstock and also support future demand for low-cost renewables.

Another critical milestone: NextEra finished the quarter with a renewables backlog of approximately 14,400 megawatts, its largest in its 20-year development history. To put that backlog into context, NextEra revealed that it is larger than the operating wind and solar portfolios of all but two companies in the world.

Hydrogen Bubble?
That said, not everybody is buying the hydrogen hype.

Barron’s Bill Apton says Wall Street has discovered hydrogen this year and that hydrogen stocks are a bubble, even as hybrid vehicles gain momentum in the U.S. market according to recent reports. Apton says the huge runup by Plug Power, Ballard Energy, and Bloom Energy has left them trading at more than 50x future cash flow, making it hard for them to grow into their steep valuations. He notes that smaller hydrogen companies are up against big players and deep-pocketed manufacturers, including government-backed rivals in China and the likes of Cummins.

According to Apton, it could take a decade or more before environmentally-friendly hydrogen can become competitive with natural gas on a cost-basis, while new ideas like flow battery cars also vie for attention, making hydrogen stocks better long-term picks than the cult stocks they have become.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Vogtle Units 3 and 4 are Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactors under construction in Waynesboro, Georgia, led by Southern Nuclear, Georgia Power, and Bechtel, adding 2,234 MWe of carbon-free baseload power with DOE loan guarantees.

Key Points

Vogtle Units 3 and 4 are AP1000 reactors in Georgia delivering 2,234 MWe of low-carbon baseload electricity.

✅ Each unit: Westinghouse AP1000, 1,117 MWe capacity.

✅ Managed by Southern Nuclear, built by Bechtel.

✅ DOE loan guarantees support financing and risk.

Construction is ongoing for two new nuclear reactors, Units 3 and 4, at Georgia Power's Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Waynesboro, Ga. the first new nuclear reactors to be constructed in the United Stated in 30 years, mirroring a new U.S. reactor startup that will provide electricity to more than 500,000 homes and businesses once operational.

Construction on Unit 3 started in March 2013 with an expected completion date of November 2021. For Unit 4, work began in November 2013 with a targeted delivery date of November 2022. Each unit houses a Westinghouse AP1000 (Advanced Passive) nuclear reactor that can generate about 1,117 megawatts (MWe). The reactor pressure vessels and steam generators are from Doosan, a South Korean firm.

The pouring of concrete was delayed to 2013 due to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission issuing a license amendment which permitted the use of higher-strength concrete for the foundations of the reactors, eliminating the need to make additional modifications to reinforcing steel bar.

The work is occurring in the middle of an operational nuclear facility, and the construction area contains many cranes and storage areas for the prefabricated parts being installed. Space also is needed for various trucks making deliveries, especially concrete.

The reactor buildings, circular in shape, are several hundred feet apart from one another and each one has an annex building and a turbine island structure. The estimated total price for the project is expected in the $18.7 billion range. Bechtel Corporation, which built Units 1 and 2, was brought in January 2017 to take over the construction that is being overseen by Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNOC), which operates the plant.

The project will require the equivalent of 3,375 miles of sidewalk; the towers for Units 3 and 4 are 60 stories high and have two million pound CA modules; the office space for both units is 300,000 sq. ft.; and there are more than 8,000 construction workers over 30 percent being military veterans. The new reactors will create 800 permanent jobs.

Southern Nuclear and Georgia Power took over management of the construction project in 2017 after Westinghouse's Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The plant, built in the late 1980s with Unit 1 becoming operational in 1987 and Unit 2 in 1989, is jointly owned by Georgia Power (45.7 percent), Oglethorpe Power Corporation (30 percent), Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (22.7 percent) and Dalton Utilities (1.6 percent).

"Significant progress has been made on the construction of Vogtle 3 and 4 since the transition to Southern Nuclear following the Westinghouse bankruptcy," said Paul Bowers, Chairman, President and CEO of Georgia Power. "While there will always be challenges in building the first new nuclear units in this country in more than 30 years, we remain focused on reducing project risk and maintaining the current project momentum in order to provide our customers with a new carbon-free energy source that will put downward pressure on rates for 60 to 80 years."

The Vogtle and Hatch nuclear plants currently provide more than 20 percent of Georgia's annual electricity needs. Vogtle will be the only four-unit nuclear facility in the country. The energy is needed to meet the rising demand for electricity as the state expects to have more than four million new residents by 2030.

The plant's expansion is the largest ongoing construction project in Georgia and one of the largest in the state's history, while comparable refurbishments such as the Bruce reactor overhaul progress in Canada. Last March an agreement was signed to secure approximately $1.67 billion in additional Department of Energy loan guarantees. Georgia Power previously secured loan guarantees of $3.46 billion.

The signing highlighted the placement of the top of the containment vessel for Unit 3, echoing the Hinkley Point C roof lift seen in the U.K., which signified that all modules and large components had been placed inside it. The containment vessel is a high-integrity steel structure that houses critical plant components. The top head is 130 ft. in diameter, 37 ft. tall, and weighs nearly 1.5 million lbs. It is comprised of 58 large plates, welded together with each more than 1.5 in. thick.

"From the very beginning, public and private partners have stood with us," said Southern Company Chairman, President and CEO Tom Fanning. "Everyone involved in the project remains focused on sustaining our momentum."

Bechtel has completed more than 80 percent of the project, and the major milestones for 2019 have been met, aligning with global nuclear milestones reported across the industry, including setting the Unit 4 pressurizer inside the containment vessel last February, which will provide pressure control inside the reactor coolant system. More specialized construction workers, including craft labor, have been hired via the addition of approximately 300 pipefitters and 350 electricians since November 2018. Another 500 to 1,000 craft workers have been more recently brought in.

A key accomplishment occurred last December when 1,300 cu. yds. of concrete were poured inside the Unit 4 containment vessel during a 21-hour operation that involved more than 100 workers and more than 120 truckloads of concrete. In 2018 alone, more than 23,000 cu. yds. of concrete were poured part of the nearly 600,000 cu. yds. placed since construction started, and the installation of more than 16,200 yds. of piping.

Progress also has been solid for Unit 3. Last January the integrated head package (IHP) was set inside the containment vessel. The IHP, weighing 475,000 lbs. and standing 48 ft. tall, combines several separate components in one assembly and allows the rapid removal of the reactor vessel head during a refueling outage. One month earlier, the placement of the third and final ring for containment vessel, and the placement of the fourth and final reactor coolant pump (RCP, 375,000 lbs.), were executed.

"Weighing just under 2 million pounds, approximately 38 feet high and with a diameter of 130 feet, the ring is the fourth of five sections that make up the containment vessel," stated a Georgia Power press release. "The RCPs are mounted to the steam generator and serve a critical part of the reactor coolant system, circulating water from the steam generator to the reactor vessel, allowing sufficient heat transfer for safe plant operation. In the same month, the Unit 3 shield building with additional double-decker panels, was placed.

According to a construction update from Georgia Power, a total of eight six-panel sections have been placed, with each one measuring 20 ft. tall and 114 ft. wide, weighing up to 300,000 lbs. To date, more than half of the shield building panels have been placed for Unit 3. The shield building panels, fabricated in Newport News, Va., provide structural support to the containment cooling water supply and protect the containment vessel, which houses the reactor vessel.

Building the reactors is challenging due to the design, reflecting lessons from advanced reactors now being deployed. Unit 3 will have 157 fuel assemblies, with each being a little over 14 ft. long. They are crucial to fuelling the reactor, and once the initial fueling is completed, nearly one-third of the fuel assemblies will be replaced for each re-fuelling operation. In addition to the Unit 3 containment top, placement crews installed three low-pressure turbine rotors and the generator rotor inside the unit's turbine building.

Last November, major systems testing got underway at Unit 3 as the site continues to transition from construction toward system operations. The Open Vessel Testing will demonstrate how water flows from the key safety systems into the reactor vessel ensuring the paths are not blocked or constricted.

"This is a significant step on our path towards operations," said Glen Chick, Vogtle 3 & 4 construction executive vice president. "[This] will prepare the unit for cold hydro testing and hot functional testing next year both critical tests required ahead of initial fuel load."

It also confirms that the pumps, motors, valves, pipes and other components function as designed, a reminder of how issues like the South Carolina plant leak can disrupt operations when systems falter.

"It follows the Integrated Flush process, which began in August, to push water through system piping and mechanical components that feed into the Unit 3 reactor vessel and reactor coolant loops for the first time," stated a press release. "Significant progress continues ... including the placement of the final reinforced concrete portion of the Unit 4 shield building. The 148-cubic yard placement took eight hours to complete and, once cured, allows for the placement of the first course of double-decker panels. Also, the upper inner casing for the Unit 3 high-pressure turbine has been placed, signifying the completion of the centerline alignment, which will mean minimal vibration and less stress on the rotors during operations, resulting in more efficient power generation."

The turbine rotors, each weighing approximately 200 tons and rotating at 1,800 revolutions per-minute, pass steam through the turbine blades to power the generator.

The placement of the middle containment vessel ring for Unit 4 was completed in early July. This required several cranes to work in tandem as the 51-ft. tall ring weighed 2.4 million lbs. and had dozens of individual steel plates that were fabricated on site.

A key part of the construction progress was made in late July with the order of the first nuclear fuel load for Unit 3, which consists of 157 fuel assemblies with each measuring 14 ft. tall.

On May 7, Unit 3 was energized (permanently powered), which was essential to perform the testing for the unit. Prior to this, the plant equipment had been running on temporary construction power.

"[This] is a major first step in transitioning the project from construction toward system operations," Chick said.

Construction of the north side of the Unit 3 Auxiliary Building (AB) has progressed with both the floor and roof modules being set. Substantial work also occurred on the steel and concrete that forms the remaining walls and the north AB roof at elevation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Alberta Rate of Last Resort streamlines electricity regulations to stabilize the default rate, curb price volatility, and protect rural communities, low-income households, and seniors while preserving competition in the province's energy market.

Key Points

Alberta's Rate of Last Resort sets biennial default electricity prices, curbing volatility and protecting customers.

✅ Biennial default rate to limit price spikes

✅ Focus on rural, senior, and low-income customers

✅ Encourages competitive contracts and market stability

The Alberta government is overhauling its electricity regulations as part of a market overhaul aimed at reducing spikes in electricity prices for consumers and businesses. The new rules, set to be introduced this spring, are intended to stabilize the default electricity rate paid by many Albertans.

Background on the Rate of Last Resort

Albertans currently have the option to sign up for competitive contracts with electricity providers. These contracts can sometimes offer lower rates than the default electricity rate, officially known as the Regulated Rate Option (RRO). However, these competitive rates can fluctuate significantly. Currently, those unable to secure these contracts or those who are on the default rate are experiencing rising electricity prices and high levels of price volatility.

To address this, the Alberta government is renaming the default rate as the Rate of Last Resort designation (RoLR) under the new framework. This aims to reduce the sense of security that some consumers might associate with the current name, which the government feels is misleading.

Key Changes Under New Regulations

The new regulations, which include proposed market changes that affect pricing, focus on:

• Price Stabilization: Default electricity rates will be set every two years for each utility provider, providing greater predictability by enabling a consumer price cap and reducing the potential for extreme price swings.
• Rural and Underserved Communities: The changes are intended to particularly benefit rural Albertans and those on the default rate, including low-income individuals and seniors. These groups often lack access to the competitive rates offered by some providers and have been disproportionately affected by recent price increases.
• Promoting Economic Stability: The goal is to lower the cost of utilities for all Albertans, leading to overall lower costs of living and doing business. The government anticipates these changes will create a more attractive environment for investment and job creation.

Opposition Views

Critics argue that limiting the flexibility of prices for the default electricity rate could interfere with market dynamics and stifle market competition among providers. Some worry it could ultimately lead to higher prices in the long term. Others advocate directly subsidizing low-income households rather than introducing broad price controls.

Balancing Affordability and the Market

The Alberta government maintains that the proposed changes will strike a balance between ensuring affordable electricity for vulnerable Albertans and preserving a competitive energy market. Provincial officials emphasize that the new regulations should not deter consumers from seeking out competitive rates if they choose to.

The Path Ahead

The new electricity regulations are part of the Alberta government's broader Affordable Utilities Program, alongside electricity policy changes across the province. The legislation is expected to be introduced and debated in the provincial legislature this spring with the potential of coming into effect later in the year. Experts expect these changes will significantly impact the Alberta electricity market and ignite further discussion about how best to manage rising utility costs for consumers and businesses.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

UK Future System Operator to replace National Grid as ESO, enabling smart grid reform, impartial system planning, vehicle-to-grid, long duration storage, and data-driven oversight to meet net zero and cut consumer energy costs.

Key Points

The UK Future System Operator is an independent ESO and planner, steering net zero with impartial data and smart grid coordination.

✅ Replaces National Grid ESO with independent system operator

✅ Enables smart grid, vehicle-to-grid, and long-duration storage

✅ Supports net zero, lower bills, and impartial system planning

The government plans to strip National Grid of its role keeping Great Britain’s lights on as part of a proposed “revolution’” in the electricity network driven by smart digital grid technologies.

The FTSE 100 company has played a role in managing the energy system of England, Scotland and Wales, including efforts such as a subsea power link that brings renewable power from Scotland to England (Northern Ireland has its own network). It is the electricity system operator, balancing supply and demand to ensure the electricity supply. But it will lose its place at the heart of the industry after government officials put forward plans to replace it with an independent “future system operator”.

The new system controller would help steer the country towards its climate targets, at the lowest cost to energy bill payers, by providing impartial data and advice after an overhaul of the rules governing the energy system to make it “fit for the future”.

The plans are part of a string of new proposals to help connect millions of electric cars, smart appliances and other green technologies to the energy system, and to fast-track grid connections nationwide, which government officials believe could help to save £10bn a year by 2050, and create up to 10,000 jobs for electricians, data scientists and engineers.

The new regulations aim to make it easier for electric cars to export electricity from their batteries back on to the power grid or to homes when needed. They could also help large-scale and long-duration batteries play a role in storing renewable energy, supported by infrastructure such as a 2GW substation helping integrate supply, so that it is available when solar and wind power generation levels are low.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan, the energy and climate change minister, said the rules would allow households to “take control of their energy use and save money” while helping to make sure there is clean electricity available “when and where it’s needed”.

She added: “We need to ensure our energy system can cope with the demands of the future. Smart technologies will help us to tackle climate change while making sure that the lights stay on and bills stay low.”

The energy regulator, Ofgem, raised concerns earlier this year that National Grid would face a “conflict of interest” in providing advice on the future electricity system because it also owns energy networks that stand to benefit financially from future investment plans. It called for a new independent operator to take its place.

Jonathan Brearley, Ofgem’s chief executive, said the UK requires a “revolution” in how and when it uses electricity, including demand shifts during self-isolation to help meet its climate targets and added that the government’s plans for a new digital energy system were “essential” to meeting this goal “while keeping energy bills affordable for everyone”.

A National Grid spokesperson said the company would “work closely” with the government and Ofgem on the role of a future system operator, as well as “the most appropriate ownership model and any future related sale”.

The division has earned National Grid, which has addressed cybersecurity fears in supplier choices, an average of £199m a year over the last five years, or 1.3% of the group’s total revenues, which are split between the UK – where it operates high-voltage transmission lines in England and Wales, and the country’s gas system – and its growing energy supply business in the US, aligned with investment in a smarter electricity infrastructure in the US to modernize grids.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

U.S. Tariffs on Chinese EVs and Solar Cells target trade imbalances, subsidies, and intellectual property risks, bolstering domestic manufacturing, supply chains, and national security across clean energy, automotive technology, and renewable markets.

Key Points

Policy measures raising duties on Chinese EVs and solar cells to protect U.S. industry, IP, and national security.

✅ Raises duties to counter subsidies and IP risks

✅ Supports domestic EV and solar manufacturing jobs

✅ May reshape supply chains, prices, and trade flows

In a significant move aimed at bolstering domestic industries and addressing trade imbalances, the Biden administration has announced higher tariffs on Chinese-made electric cars and solar cells. This decision marks a strategic shift in U.S. trade policy, with market observers noting EV tariffs alongside industrial and financial implications across sectors today.

Tariffs on Electric Cars

The imposition of tariffs on Chinese electric cars comes amidst growing competition in the global electric vehicle (EV) market. U.S. automakers and policymakers have raised concerns about unfair trade practices, subsidies, and market access barriers faced by American EV manufacturers in China amid escalating trade tensions with key partners. The tariffs aim to level the playing field and protect U.S. interests in the burgeoning electric vehicle sector.

Impact on Solar Cells

Similarly, higher tariffs on Chinese solar cells address concerns regarding intellectual property theft, subsidies, and market distortions in the solar energy industry, where tariff threats have influenced investment signals across North American markets.

The U.S. solar sector, a key player in renewable energy development, has called for measures to safeguard fair competition and promote domestic manufacturing of solar technologies.

Economic and Political Implications

The tariff hikes underscore broader economic tensions between the United States and China, spanning trade, technology, and geopolitical issues. While aimed at protecting American industries, these tariffs could lead to retaliatory measures from China and impact global supply chains, particularly in renewable energy and automotive sectors, as North American electricity exports at risk add to uncertainty across markets.

Industry and Market Responses

Industry stakeholders have responded with mixed reactions to the tariff announcements. U.S. automakers and solar manufacturers supportive of the tariffs argue they will help level the playing field and encourage domestic production. However, critics warn of potential energy price spikes for consumers, supply chain disruptions, and unintended consequences for global clean energy goals.

Strategic Considerations

The Biden administration's tariff policy reflects a broader strategy to promote economic resilience, innovation, and national security in critical industries, even as cross-border electricity exports become flashpoints in trade policy debates today.

Efforts to strengthen domestic supply chains, invest in renewable energy infrastructure, and foster international partnerships remain central to U.S. economic competitiveness and climate objectives.

Future Outlook

Looking ahead, navigating U.S.-China trade relations will continue to be a complex challenge for policymakers. Balancing economic interests, diplomatic engagements, and environmental priorities, alongside regional public support for tariffs, will shape future trade policy decisions affecting electric vehicles, renewable energy, and technology sectors globally.

Conclusion

The Biden administration's decision to impose higher tariffs on Chinese electric cars and solar cells represents a strategic response to economic and geopolitical dynamics reshaping global markets. While aimed at protecting American industries and promoting fair trade practices, the tariffs signal a commitment to fostering competitiveness, innovation, and sustainability in critical sectors of the economy. As these measures unfold, stakeholders will monitor their impact on industry dynamics, supply chain resilience, and international trade relations in the evolving landscape of global commerce.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News