Belarus and Russia to sign nuclear agreement

Philippsburg Demolition Delay: EnBW postpones controlled cooling-tower blasts amid the coronavirus pandemic, affecting decommissioning timelines in Baden-Wurttemberg and grid expansion for a transformer station to route renewable power and secure supply in southern Germany.

Key Points

EnBW's COVID-19 delay of Philippsburg cooling-tower blasts, affecting decommissioning and grid plans.

✅ Controlled detonation shifted to mid-May at earliest

✅ Demolition links to transformer station for north-south grid

✅ Supports security of supply in southern Germany

German energy company EnBW said the coronavirus outbreak has impacted plans to dismantle its Philippsburg nuclear power plant in Baden-Wurttemberg, southwest Germany, amid plans to phase out coal and nuclear nationally.

The controlled detonation of Phillipsburg's cooling towers will now take place in mid-May at the earliest, subject to coordination as Germany debates whether to reconsider its nuclear phaseout in light of supply needs.

However, EnBW said the exact demolition date depends on many factors - including the further development in the coronavirus pandemic and ongoing climate policy debates about energy choices.

Philippsburg 2, a 1402MWe pressurised water reactor unit permanently shut down on 31 December 2019, as part of Germany's broader effort to shut down its remaining reactors over time.

At the end of 2019, the Ministry of the Environment gave basic approval for decommissioning and dismantling of unit 2 of the Philippsburg nuclear power plant, inluding explosive demolition of the colling towers. Since then EnBW has worked intensively on getting all the necessary formal steps on the way and performing technical and logistical preparatory work, even as discussions about a potential nuclear resurgence continue nationwide.

“The demolition of the cooling towers is directly related to future security of supply in southern Germany. We therefore feel obliged to drive this project forward," said Jörg Michels head of the EnBW nuclear power division.

The timely removal of the cooling towers is important as the area currently occupied by nuclear plant components is needed for a transformer station for long-distance power lines, an issue underscored during the energy crisis when Germany temporarily extended nuclear power to bolster supply. These will transport electricity from renewable sources in the north to industrial centres in the south.

As of early 2020, there six nuclear reactors in operation in Germany, even as the country turned its back on nuclear in subsequent years. According to research institute Fraunhofer ISE, nuclear power provided about 14% of Germany's net electricity in 2019, less than half of the figure for 2000.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Germany Nuclear Phase-Out reflects a decisive energy policy shift, retiring reactors as firms shun new builds amid high costs, radioactive waste challenges, climate goals, insurance gaps, and debate over small modular reactors and subsidies.

Key Points

Germany's policy to end nuclear plants and block new builds, emphasizing safety, waste, climate goals, and viability.

✅ Driven by safety risks, waste storage limits, and insurance gaps

✅ High capital costs and subsidies make new reactors uneconomic

✅ Political debate persists; SMRs raise cost and proliferation concerns

A year has passed since Germany deactivated its last three nuclear power plants, marking a significant shift in its energy policy.

Nuclear fission once heralded as the future of energy in Germany during the 1960s, was initially embraced with minimal concern for the potential risks of nuclear accidents. As Heinz Smital from Greenpeace recalls, the early optimism was partly driven by national interest in nuclear weapon technology rather than energy companies' initiatives.

Jochen Flasbarth, State Secretary in the Ministry of Development, reflects on that era, noting Germany's strong, almost naive, belief in technology. Germany, particularly the Ruhr region, grappled with smog-filled skies at that time due to heavy industrialization and coal-fired power plants. Nuclear energy presented a "clean" alternative at the time.

This sentiment was also prevalent in East Germany, where the first commercial nuclear power plant came online in 1961. In total, 37 nuclear reactors were activated across Germany, reflecting a widespread confidence in nuclear technology.

However, the 1970s saw a shift in attitudes. Environmental activists protested the construction of new power plants, symbolizing a generational rift. The 1979 Three Mile Island incident in the US, followed by the catastrophic Chornobyl disaster in 1986, further eroded public trust in nuclear energy.

The Chornobyl accident, in particular, significantly dampened Germany's nuclear ambitions, according to Smital. Post-Chernobyl, plans for additional nuclear power plants in Germany, once numbering 60, drastically declined.

The emergence of the Green Party in 1980, rooted in anti-nuclear sentiment, and its subsequent rise to political prominence further influenced Germany's energy policy. The Greens, joining forces with the Social Democrats in 1998, initiated a move away from nuclear energy, facing opposition from the Christian Democrats (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU).

However, the Fukushima disaster in 2011 prompted a policy reversal from CDU and CSU under Chancellor Angela Merkel, leading to Germany's eventual nuclear phase-out in March 2023, after briefly extending nuclear power amid the energy crisis.

Recently, the CDU and CSU have revised their stance once more, signaling a potential U-turn on the nuclear phaseout, advocating for new nuclear reactors and the reactivation of the last shut-down plants, citing climate protection and rising fossil fuel costs. CDU leader Friedrich Merz has lamented the shutdown as a "black day for Germany." However, these suggestions have garnered little enthusiasm from German energy companies.

Steffi Lemke, the Federal Environment Minister, isn't surprised by the companies' reluctance, noting their longstanding opposition to nuclear power, which she argues would do little to solve the gas issue in Germany, due to its high-risk nature and the long-term challenge of radioactive waste management.

Globally, 412 reactors are operational across 32 countries, even as Europe is losing nuclear power during an energy crunch, with the total number remaining relatively stable over the years. While countries like China, France, and the UK plan new constructions, there's a growing interest in small, modern reactors, which Smital of Greenpeace views with skepticism, noting their potential military applications.

In Germany, the unresolved issue of nuclear waste storage looms large. With temporary storage facilities near power plants proving inadequate for long-term needs, the search for permanent sites faces resistance from local communities and poses financial and logistical challenges.

Environment Minister Lemke underscores the economic impracticality of nuclear energy in Germany, citing prohibitive costs and the necessity of substantial subsidies and insurance exemptions.

As things stand, the resurgence of nuclear power in Germany appears unlikely, with economic factors playing a decisive role in its future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis highlights nuclear power vs coal and natural gas, renewables and hydropower limits, carbon emissions, energy security, and baseload reliability during Russia-related supply shocks and winter demand.

Key Points

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis weighs reactor extensions vs coal revival to bolster security, curb emissions.

✅ Coal plants restarted; nuclear shutdown stays on schedule.

✅ Energy security prioritized amid Russian gas supply cuts.

✅ Emissions likely rise despite renewables expansion.

Peel away the politics and the passion, the doomsaying and the denialism, and climate change largely boils down to this: energy. To avoid the chances of catastrophic climate change while ensuring the world can continue to grow — especially for poor people who live in chronically energy-starved areas — we’ll need to produce ever more energy from sources that emit little or no greenhouse gases.

It’s that simple — and, of course, that complicated.

Zero-carbon sources of renewable energy like wind and solar have seen tremendous increases in capacity and equally impressive decreases in price in recent years, while the decades-old technology of hydropower is still what the International Energy Agency calls the “forgotten giant of low-carbon electricity.”

And then there’s nuclear power. Viewed strictly through the lens of climate change, nuclear power can claim to be a green dream, even as Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy most.

Unlike coal or natural gas, nuclear plants do not produce direct carbon dioxide emissions when they generate electricity, and over the past 50 years they’ve reduced CO2 emissions by nearly 60 gigatonnes. Unlike solar or wind, nuclear plants aren’t intermittent, and they require significantly less land area per megawatt produced. Unlike hydropower — which has reached its natural limits in many developed countries, including the US — nuclear plants don’t require environmentally intensive dams.

As accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown, when nuclear power goes wrong, it can go really wrong. But newer plant designs reduce the risk of such catastrophes, which themselves tend to garner far more attention than the steady stream of deaths from climate change and air pollution linked to the normal operation of conventional power plants.

So you might imagine that those who see climate change as an unparalleled existential threat would cheer the development of new nuclear plants and support the extension of nuclear power already in service.

In practice, however, that’s often not the case, as recent events in Germany underline.

When is a Green not green?
The Russian war in Ukraine has made a mess of global energy markets, but perhaps no country has proven more vulnerable than Germany, reigniting debate over a possible resurgence of nuclear energy in Germany among policymakers.

At the start of the year, Russian exports supplied more than half of Germany’s natural gas, along with significant portions of its oil and coal imports. Since the war began, Russia has severely curtailed the flow of gas to Germany, putting the country in a state of acute energy crisis, with fears growing as next winter looms.

With little natural gas supplies of the country’s own, and its heavily supported renewable sector unable to fully make up the shortfall, German leaders faced a dilemma. To maintain enough gas reserves to get the country through the winter, they could try to put off the closure of Germany’s last three remaining nuclear reactors temporarily, which were scheduled to shutter by the end of 2022 as part of Germany’s post-Fukushima turn against nuclear power, and even restart already closed reactors.

Or they could try to reactivate mothballed coal-fired power plants, and make up some of the electricity deficit with Germany’s still-ample coal reserves.

Based on carbon emissions alone, you’d presumably go for the nuclear option. Coal is by far the dirtiest of fossil fuels, responsible for a fifth of all global greenhouse gas emissions — more than any other single source — as well as a soup of conventional air pollutants. Nuclear power produces none of these.

German legislators saw it differently. Last week, the country’s parliament, with the backing of members of the Green Party in the coalition government, passed emergency legislation to reopen coal-powered plants, as well as further measures to boost the production of renewable energy. There would be no effort to restart closed nuclear power plants, or even consider a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout for the last active reactors.

“The gas storage tanks must be full by winter,” Robert Habeck, Germany’s economy minister and a member of the Green Party, said in June, echoing arguments that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue for the coming winter.

Partially as a result of that prioritization, Germany — which has already seen carbon emissions rise over the past two years, missing its ambitious emissions targets — will emit even more carbon in 2022.

To be fair, restarting closed nuclear power plants is a far more complex undertaking than lighting up old coal plants. Plant operators had only bought enough uranium to make it to the end of 2022, so nuclear fuel supplies are set to run out regardless.

But that’s also the point. Germany, which views itself as a global leader on climate, is grasping at the most carbon-intensive fuel source in part because it made the decision in 2011 to fully turn its back on nuclear for good at the time, enshrining what had been a planned phase-out into law.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

COVID-19 Electricity Demand Shift flattens New York's load curve, lowers peak demand, and reduces wholesale prices as NYISO operators balance the grid amid stay-at-home orders, rising residential usage, cheap natural gas, and constrained renewables.

Key Points

An industry-wide change in load patterns: flatter peaks, lower prices, and altered grid operations during lockdowns.

✅ NYISO operators sequestered to maintain reliable grid control

✅ Morning and evening peaks flatten; residential use rises mid-day

✅ Wholesale prices drop amid cheap natural gas and reduced demand

At his post 150 miles up the Hudson, Jon Sawyer watches as a stay-at-home New York City stirs itself with each new dawn in this era of covid-19.

He’s a manager in the system that dispatches electricity throughout New York state, keeping homes lit and hospitals functioning, work that is so essential that he, along with 36 colleagues, has been sequestered away from home and family for going on four weeks now, to avoid the disease, a step also considered for Ontario power staff during COVID-19 measures.

The hour between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. once saw the city bounding to life. A sharp spike would erupt on the system’s computer screens. Not now. The disease is changing the rhythms of the city, and, as this U.S. grid explainer notes, you can see it in the flows of electricity.

Kids are not going to school, restaurants are not making breakfast for commuters, offices are not turning on the lights, and thousands if not millions of people are staying in bed later, putting off the morning cup of coffee and a warm shower.

Electricity demand in a city that has been shut down is running 18 percent lower at this weekday morning hour than on a typical spring morning, according to the New York Independent System Operator, Sawyer’s employer. As the sun rises in the sky, usage picks up, but it’s a slower, flatter curve.

Though the picture is starkest in New York, it’s happening across the country. Daytime electricity demand is falling, even accounting for the mild spring weather, and early-morning spikes are deflating, with similar patterns in Ontario electricity demand as people stay home. The wholesale price of electricity is falling, too, driven by both reduced demand and the historically low cost of natural gas.

Sign up for our Coronavirus Updates newsletter to track the outbreak. All stories linked in the newsletter are free to access.

As covid-19 hits, coal companies aim to cut the tax they pay to support black-lung miners

Falling demand will hit the companies that run the “merchant generators” hardest. These are the privately owned power plants that sell electricity to the utilities and account for about 57 percent of electricity generation nationwide.

Closed businesses have resulted in falling demand. Residential usage is up — about 15 percent among customers of Con Edison, which serves New York City and Westchester County — as workers and schoolchildren stay home, while in Canada Hydro One peak rates remain unchanged for self-isolating customers, but it’s spread out through the day. Home use does not compensate for locked-up restaurants, offices and factories. Or for the subway system, which on a pre-covid-19 day used as much electricity as Buffalo.

Hospitals are a different story: They consume twice as much energy per square foot as hotels, and lead schools and office buildings by an even greater margin. And their work couldn’t be more vital as they confront the novel coronavirus.

Knowing that, Sawyer said, puts the ordinary routines of his job, which rely on utility disaster planning, the things about it he usually takes for granted, into perspective.

“Keeping the lights on: It comes to the forefront a little more when you understand, ‘I’m going to be sequestered on site to do this job, it’s so critical,’” he said, speaking by phone from his office in East Greenbush, N.Y., where he has been living in a trailer, away from his family, since March 23.

As coronavirus hospitalizations in New York began to peak in April, emergency medicine physician Howard Greller recorded his reflections. (Whitney Leaming/The Washington Post)
Sawyer, 53, is a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, so he has experience when it comes to being isolated from friends and family for long periods. Many of his colleagues in isolation, who all volunteered for the duty, also are military veterans, and they’re familiar with the drill. Life in East Greenbush has advantages over a submarine — you can go outside and throw a football or Frisbee or walk or run the trail on the company campus reserved for the operators, and every day you can use FaceTime or Skype to talk with your family.

His wife understood, he said, though “of course it’s a sacrifice.” But she grasped the obligation he felt to be there with his colleagues and keep the power on.

“It’s a new world, it’s definitely an adjustment,” said Rich Dewey, the system’s CEO, noting that America’s electricity is safe for now. “But we’re not letting a little virus slow us down.”

There are 31 operators, two managers and four cooks and cleaners all divided between East Greenbush, which handles daytime traffic, and another installation just west of Albany in Guilderland, which works at night. The operators work 12-hour shifts every other day.

Computers recalibrate generation, statewide, to equal demand, digesting tens of thousands of data points, every six seconds. Other computers forecast the needs looking ahead 2½ hours. The operators monitor the computers and handle the “contingencies” that inevitably arise.

They dispatch the electricity along transmission lines ranging from 115,000 volts to 765,000 volts, much of it going from plants and dams in western and northern New York downstate toward the city and Long Island.

They always focus on: “What is the next worse thing that can happen, and how can we respond to that?” Sawyer said.

It’s the same shift and the same work they’ve always done, and that gives this moment an oddly normal feeling, he said. “There’s a routine to it that some of the people working at home now don’t have.”

Medical workers check in with them daily to monitor their physical health and mental condition. So far, there have been no dropouts.

Cheap oil doesn’t mean much when no one’s going anywhere

Statewide, the daily demand for electricity has fallen nearly 9 percent.

The distribution system in New England is looking at a 3 to 5 percent decline; the Mid-Atlantic states at 5 to 7 percent; Washington state at 10 percent; and California by nearly as much. In Texas, demand is down 2 percent, “but even there you’re still seeing drops in the early-morning hours,” said Travis Whalen, a utility analyst with S&P Global Platts.

In the huge operating system that embraces much of the middle of the country, usage has fallen more than 8 percent — and the slow morning surge doesn’t peak until noon.

In New York, there used to be a smaller evening spike, too (though starting from a higher load level than the one in the morning). But that’s almost impossible to see anymore because everyone isn’t coming home and turning on the lights and TV and maybe throwing a load in the laundry all at once. No one goes out, either, and the lights aren’t so bright on Broadway.

California, in contrast, had a bigger spike in the evening than in the morning before covid-19 hit; maybe some of that had to do with the large number of early risers spreading out the morning demand and highlighting electricity inequality that shapes access. Both spikes have flattened but are still detectable, and the evening rise is still the larger.

Only at midnight, in New York and elsewhere, does the load resemble what it used to look like.

The wholesale price of electricity has fallen about 40 percent in the past month, according to a study by S&P Global Platts. In California it’s down about 30 percent. In a section covered by the Southwest Power Pool, the price is down 40 percent from a year ago, and in Indiana, electricity sold to utilities is cheaper than it has been in six years.

Some of the merchant generators “are going to be facing some rather large losses,” said Manan Ahuja, also an analyst with S&P Global Platts. With gas so cheap, coal has built up until stockpiles average a 90-day supply, which is unusually large. Ahuja said he believes renewable generators of electricity will be especially vulnerable because as demand slackens it’s easier for operators to fine-tune the output from traditional power plants.

Bravado, dread and denial as oil-price collapse hits the American fracking heartland

As Dewey put it, speaking of solar and wind generators, “You can dispatch them down but you can’t dispatch them up. You can’t make the wind blow or the sun shine.”

Jason Tundermann, a vice president at Level 10 Energy, which promotes renewables, argued that before the morning and evening spikes flattened they were particularly profitable for fossil fuel plants. He suggested electricity demand will certainly pick up again. But an issue for renewable projects under development is that supply chain disruptions could cause them to miss tax credit deadlines.

With demand “on pause,” as Sawyer put it, and consumption more evenly spread through the day, the control room operators in East Greenbush have a somewhat different set of challenges. The main one, he said, is to be sure not to let those high-voltage transmission lines overload. Nuclear power shows up as a steady constant on the real-time dashboard; hydropower is much more up and down, depending on the capacity of transmission lines from the far northern and western parts of the state.

Some human habits are more reliably fixed. The wastewater that moves through New York City’s sewers — at a considerably slower pace than the electricity in the nearby wires — hasn’t shown any change in rhythm since the coronavirus struck, according to Edward Timbers, a spokesman for the city’s Department of Environmental Protection. People may be sleeping a little later, but the “big flush” still arrives at the wastewater treatment plants, about three hours or so downstream from the typical home or apartment, every day in the late morning, just as it always has.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario ICI Electricity Pricing Freeze helps Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI) participants by stabilizing Global Adjustment charges, suspending peak hours curtailment, and reducing COVID-19-related electricity cost volatility to support large employers returning operations to full capacity.

Key Points

A two-year policy stabilizing GA costs and pausing peak-hour cuts to aid industrial and commercial recovery.

✅ GA cost share frozen for two years

✅ No peak-hour curtailment obligations

✅ Supports industrial and commercial restart

The Ontario government is helping large industrial and commercial companies return to full levels of operation without the fear of electricity costs spiking by providing more stable electricity pricing for two years. Effective immediately, companies that participate in the Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI) will not be required to reduce their electricity usage during peak hours or shift some load to ultra-low overnight pricing where applicable, as their proportion of Global Adjustment (GA) charges for these companies will be frozen.

"Ontario's industrial and commercial electricity consumers continue to experience unprecedented economic challenges during COVID-19, with electricity relief for households and small businesses introduced to help," said Greg Rickford, Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines. "Today's announcement will allow large industrial employers to focus on getting their operations up and running and employees back to work, instead of adjusting operations in response to peak electricity demand hours."

Due to COVID-19, electricity consumption in Ontario has been below average as fall in demand as people stayed home across the province, and the province is forecast to have a reliable supply of electricity, supported by the system operator's staffing contingency plans during the pandemic, to accommodate increased usage. Peak hours generally occur during the summer when the weather is hot and electricity demand from cooling systems is high.

"Today's action will reduce the burden of anticipating and responding to peak hours for more than 1,300 ICI participants with 2,000 primarily industrial facilities in Ontario," said Bill Walker, Associate Minister of Energy. "Now these large employers can focus on getting their operations back up and running at full tilt and explore new energy-efficiency programs to manage costs."

The government previously announced it was providing temporary relief for industrial and commercial electricity consumers that do not participate in the Regulated Price Plan (RPP) by deferring a portion of GA charges for April, May and June 2020 and by extending off-peak rates for many customers, as well as a disconnect moratorium extension for residential electricity users.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Bitcoin Energy Consumption drives debate on blockchain mining, proof-of-work, carbon footprint, and emissions, with CCAF estimates in terawatt hours highlighting electricity demand, fossil fuel reliance, and sustainability concerns for data centers and cryptocurrency networks.

Key Points

Electricity used by Bitcoin proof-of-work mining, often fossil-fueled, estimated by CCAF in terawatt hours.

✅ CCAF: 40-445 TWh, central estimate ~130 TWh

✅ ~66% of mining electricity sourced from fossil fuels

✅ Proof-of-work increases hash rate, energy, and emissions

The University of Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) studies the burgeoning business of cryptocurrencies.

It calculates that Bitcoin's total energy consumption is somewhere between 40 and 445 annualised terawatt hours (TWh), with a central estimate of about 130 terawatt hours.

The UK's electricity consumption is a little over 300 TWh a year, while Argentina uses around the same amount of power as the CCAF's best guess for Bitcoin, as countries like New Zealand's electricity future are debated to balance demand.

And the electricity the Bitcoin miners use overwhelmingly comes from polluting sources, with the U.S. grid not 100% renewable underscoring broader energy mix challenges worldwide.

The CCAF team surveys the people who manage the Bitcoin network around the world on their energy use and found that about two-thirds of it is from fossil fuels, and some regions are weighing curbs like Russia's proposed mining ban amid electricity deficits.

Huge computing power - and therefore energy use - is built into the way the blockchain technology that underpins the cryptocurrency has been designed.

It relies on a vast decentralised network of computers.

These are the so-called Bitcoin "miners" who enable new Bitcoins to be created, but also independently verify and record every transaction made in the currency.

In fact, the Bitcoins are the reward miners get for maintaining this record accurately.

It works like a lottery that runs every 10 minutes, explains Gina Pieters, an economics professor at the University of Chicago and a research fellow with the CCAF team.

Data processing centres around the world, including hotspots such as Iceland's mining strain, race to compile and submit this record of transactions in a way that is acceptable to the system.

They also have to guess a random number.

The first to submit the record and the correct number wins the prize - this becomes the next block in the blockchain.

Estimates for bitcoin's electricity consumption
At the moment, they are rewarded with six-and-a-quarter Bitcoins, valued at about $50,000 each.

As soon as one lottery is over, a new number is generated, and the whole process starts again.

The higher the price, says Prof Pieters, the more miners want to get into the game, and utilities like BC Hydro suspending new crypto connections highlight grid pressures.

"They want to get that revenue," she tells me, "and that's what's going to encourage them to introduce more and more powerful machines in order to guess this random number, and therefore you will see an increase in energy consumption," she says.

And there is another factor that drives Bitcoin's increasing energy consumption.

The software ensures it always takes 10 minutes for the puzzle to be solved, so if the number of miners is increasing, the puzzle gets harder and the more computing power needs to be thrown at it.

Bitcoin is therefore actually designed to encourage increased computing effort.

The idea is that the more computers that compete to maintain the blockchain, the safer it becomes, because anyone who might want to try and undermine the currency must control and operate at least as much computing power as the rest of the miners put together.

What this means is that, as Bitcoin gets more valuable, the computing effort expended on creating and maintaining it - and therefore the energy consumed - inevitably increases.

We can track how much effort miners are making to create the currency.

They are currently reckoned to be making 160 quintillion calculations every second - that's 160,000,000,000,000,000,000, in case you were wondering.

And this vast computational effort is the cryptocurrency's Achilles heel, says Alex de Vries, the founder of the Digiconomist website and an expert on Bitcoin.

All the millions of trillions of calculations it takes to keep the system running aren't really doing any useful work.

"They're computations that serve no other purpose," says de Vries, "they're just immediately discarded again. Right now we're using a whole lot of energy to produce those calculations, but also the majority of that is sourced from fossil energy, and clean energy's 'dirty secret' complicates substitution."

The vast effort it requires also makes Bitcoin inherently difficult to scale, he argues.

"If Bitcoin were to be adopted as a global reserve currency," he speculates, "the Bitcoin price will probably be in the millions, and those miners will have more money than the entire [US] Federal budget to spend on electricity."

"We'd have to double our global energy production," he says with a laugh, even as some argue cheap abundant electricity is getting closer to reality today. "For Bitcoin."

He says it also limits the number of transactions the system can process to about five per second.

This doesn't make for a useful currency, he argues.

Rising price of bitcoin graphic
And that view is echoed by many eminent figures in finance and economics.

The two essential features of a successful currency are that it is an effective form of exchange and a stable store of value, says Ken Rogoff, a professor of economics at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

He says Bitcoin is neither.

"The fact is, it's not really used much in the legal economy now. Yes, one rich person sells it to another, but that's not a final use. And without that it really doesn't have a long-term future."

What he is saying is that Bitcoin exists almost exclusively as a vehicle for speculation.

So, I want to know: is the bubble about to burst?

"That's my guess," says Prof Rogoff and pauses.

"But I really couldn't tell you when."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News