Bell data centre will be “off grid”

B.C. Hydro Salary Continuance Payout spotlights executive compensation, severance, and governance at a Crown corporation after a firing, citing financial disclosure reports, Site C dam ties, and a leadership change under a new government.

Key Points

Severance-style pay for B.C. Hydro's fired CEO, via salary continuance and disclosed in public filings.

✅ $541,615 total compensation without working days

✅ Salary continuance after NDP firing; financial disclosures

✅ Later named Canada Post interim CEO amid strike

Former B.C. Hydro president and chief executive officer Jessica McDonald received a total of $541,615 in compensation during the 2017-2018 fiscal year, a figure that sits amid wider debates over executive pay at utilities such as Hydro One CEO pay at the provincial utility, without having worked a single day for the Crown corporation.

She earned this money under a compensation package after the in-coming New Democratic government of John Horgan fired her, a move comparable to Ontario's decision when the Hydro One CEO and board exit amid share declines. The previous B.C. Liberal government named her president and CEO of B.C. Hydro in 2014, and McDonald was a strong supporter of the controversial Site C dam project now going ahead following a review.

The current New Democratic government placed her on what financial disclosure documents call “salary continuance” effective July 21, 2017 — the day the government announced her departure — at a utility scrutinized in a misled regulator report that raised oversight concerns.

According to financial disclosure statements, McDonald remained on “salary continuance” until Sept. 21 of this year, and the utility has also been assessed in a deferred operating costs report released by the auditor general. During this period, she earned $272,659, a figure that includes benefits, pension and other compensation.

McDonald — who used to be the deputy minister to former premier Gordon Campbell — is now working for Canada Post, which appointed her as interim president and chief executive officer in March, while developments at Manitoba Hydro highlight broader political pressures on Crown utilities.

She started in her new role on April 2, 2018, and now finds herself in the middle of managing a postal carrier strike.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Bitcoin energy consumption is driven by mining electricity demand, with TWh-scale power use, carbon footprint concerns, and Cambridge estimates. Rising prices incentivize more hardware; efficiency gains and renewables adoption shape sustainability outcomes.

Key Points

Bitcoin energy consumption is mining's electricity use, driven by price, device efficiency, and energy mix.

✅ Cambridge tool estimates ~121 TWh annual usage

✅ Rising BTC price incentivizes more mining hardware

✅ Efficiency, renewables, and costs shape footprint

"Mining" for the cryptocurrency is power-hungry, with power curtailments reported during heat waves, involving heavy computer calculations to verify transactions.

Cambridge researchers say it consumes around 121.36 terawatt-hours (TWh) a year - and is unlikely to fall unless the value of the currency slumps, even as Americans use less electricity overall.

Critics say electric-car firm Tesla's decision to invest heavily in Bitcoin undermines its environmental image.

The currency's value hit a record $48,000 (£34,820) this week. following Tesla's announcement that it had bought about $1.5bn bitcoin and planned to accept it as payment in future.

But the rising price offers even more incentive to Bitcoin miners to run more and more machines.

And as the price increases, so does the energy consumption, according to Michel Rauchs, researcher at The Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, who co-created the online tool that generates these estimates.

“It is really by design that Bitcoin consumes that much electricity,” Mr Rauchs told BBC’s Tech Tent podcast. “This is not something that will change in the future unless the Bitcoin price is going to significantly go down."

The online tool has ranked Bitcoin’s electricity consumption above Argentina (121 TWh), the Netherlands (108.8 TWh) and the United Arab Emirates (113.20 TWh) - and it is gradually creeping up on Norway (122.20 TWh).

The energy it uses could power all kettles used in the UK, where low-carbon generation stalled in 2019, for 27 years, it said.

However, it also suggests the amount of electricity consumed every year by always-on but inactive home devices in the US alone could power the entire Bitcoin network for a year, and in Canada, B.C. power imports have helped meet demand.

Mining Bitcoin
In order to "mine" Bitcoin, computers - often specialised ones - are connected to the cryptocurrency network.

They have the job of verifying transactions made by people who send or receive Bitcoin.

This process involves solving puzzles, which, while not integral to verifying movements of the currency, provide a hurdle to ensure no-one fraudulently edits the global record of all transactions.

As a reward, miners occasionally receive small amounts of Bitcoin in what is often likened to a lottery.

To increase profits, people often connect large numbers of miners to the network - even entire warehouses full of them, as seen with a Medicine Hat bitcoin operation backed by an electricity deal.

That uses lots of electricity because the computers are more or less constantly working to complete the puzzles, prompting some utilities to consider pauses on new crypto loads in certain regions.

The University of Cambridge tool models the economic lifetime of the world's Bitcoin miners and assumes that all the Bitcoin mining machines worldwide are working with various efficiencies.

Using an average electricity price per kilowatt hour ($0.05) and the energy demands of the Bitcoin network, it is then possible to estimate how much electricity is being consumed at any one time, though in places like China's power sector data can be opaque.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

China Solar Grid Parity signals unsubsidized industrial and commercial PV, rooftop solar, and feed-in tariff guarantees competing with grid electricity and coal power prices, driven by cost declines, policy reform, and technology advances.

Key Points

Point where PV in China meets or beats grid electricity, enabling unsubsidized industrial and commercial solar.

✅ City-level analysis shows cheaper PV than grid in 344 cities.

✅ 22% can beat coal power prices without subsidies.

✅ Soft-cost, permitting, and finance reforms speed uptake.

Solar power has become cheaper than grid electricity across China, a development that could boost the prospects of industrial and commercial solar, according to a new study.

Projects in every city analysed by the researchers could be built today without subsidy, at lower prices than those supplied by the grid, and around a fifth could also compete with the nation’s coal electricity prices.

They say grid parity – the “tipping point” at which solar generation costs the same as electricity from the grid – represents a key stage in the expansion of renewable energy sources.

While previous studies of nations such as Germany, where solar-plus-storage costs are already undercutting conventional power, and the US have concluded that solar could achieve grid parity by 2020 in most developed countries, some have suggested China would have to wait decades.

However, the new paper published in Nature Energy concludes a combination of technological advances, cost declines and government support has helped make grid parity a reality in Chinese today.

Despite these results, grid parity may not drive a surge in the uptake of solar, a leading analyst tells Carbon Brief.

Competitive pricing

China’s solar industry has rapidly expanded from a small, rural program in the 1990s to the largest in the world, with record 2016 solar growth underscoring the trend. It is both the biggest generator of solar power and the biggest installer of solar panels.

The installed capacity of solar panels in China in 2018 amounted to more than a third of the global total, with the country accounting for half the world’s solar additions that year.

Since 2000, the Chinese government has unveiled over 100 policies supporting the PV industry, and technological progress has helped make solar power less expensive. This has led to the cost of electricity from solar power dropping, as demonstrated in the chart below.

In their paper, Prof Jinyue Yan of Sweden’s Royal Institute of Technology and his colleagues explain that this “stunning” performance has been accelerated by government subsidies, but has also seen China overinvesting in what some describe as a clean energy's dirty secret of “redundant construction and overcapacity”. The authors write:

“Recently, the Chinese government has been trying to lead the PV industry onto a more sustainable and efficient development track by tightening incentive policies with China’s 531 New Policy.”

The researchers say the subsidy cuts under this policy in 2018 were a signal that the government wanted to make the industry less dependent on state support and shift its focus from scale to quality.

This, they say, has “brought the industry to a crossroads”, with discussions taking place in China about when solar electricity generation could achieve grid parity.

In their analysis, Yan and his team examined the prospects for building industrial and commercial solar projects without state support in 344 cities across China, attempting to gauge where or whether grid parity could be achieved.

The team estimated the total lifetime price of solar energy systems in all of these cities, taking into account net costs and profits, including project investments, electricity output and trading prices.

Besides establishing that installations in every city tested could supply cheaper electricity than the grid, they also compared solar to the price of coal-generated power. They found that 22% of the cities could build solar systems capable of producing electricity at cheaper prices than coal.

Embracing solar

Declining costs of solar technology, particularly crystalline silicon modules, mean the trend in China is also playing out around the world, with offshore wind cost declines reinforcing the shift. In May, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) said that by the beginning of next year, grid parity could become the global norm for the solar industry, and shifting price dynamics in Northern Europe illustrate the market impact.

Kingsmill Bond, an energy strategist at Carbon Tracker, says this is the first in-depth study he has seen looking at city-level solar costs in China, and is encouraged by this indication of solar becoming ever-more competitive, as seen in Germany's recent solar boost during the energy crisis. He tells Carbon Brief:

“The conclusion that industrial and commercial solar is cheaper than grid electricity means that the workshop of the world can embrace solar. Without subsidy and its distorting impacts, and driven by commercial gain.”

On the other hand, Jenny Chase, head of solar analysis at BloombergNEF, says the findings revealed by Yan and his team are “fairly old news” as the competitive price of rooftop solar in China has been known about for at least a year.

She notes that this does not mean there has been a huge accompanying rollout of industrial and commercial solar, and says this is partly because of the long-term thinking required for investment to be seen as worthwhile.

The lifetime of a PV system tends to be around two decades, whereas the average lifespan of a Chinese company is only around eight years, according to Chase. Furthermore, there is an even simpler explanation, as she explains to Carbon Brief:

“There’s also the fact that companies just can’t be bothered a lot of the time – there are roofs all over Europe where solar could probably save money, but people are not jumping to do it.”

According to Chase, a “much more exciting” development came earlier this year, when the Chinese government developed a policy for “subsidy-free solar”.

This involved guaranteeing the current coal-fired power price to solar plants for 20 years, creating what is essentially a low feed-in tariff and leading to what she describes as “a lot of nice, low-risk projects”.

As for the beneficial effects of grid parity, based on how things have played out in countries where it has already been achieved, Chase says it does not necessarily mean a significant uptake of solar power will follow:

“Grid parity solar is never as popular as subsidised solar, and ironically you don’t generally have a rush to build grid parity solar because you may as well wait until next year and get cheaper solar.”

Policy proposals

In their paper, Yan and his team lay out policy changes they think would help provide an economic incentive, in combination with grid parity, to encourage the uptake of solar power systems.

Technology costs may have fallen for smaller solar projects of the type being deployed on the rooftops of businesses, but they note that the so-called “soft costs” – including installation and maintenance – tend to be “very impactful”.

Specifically, they say aspects such as financing, land acquisition and grid accommodation, which make up over half the total cost, could be cut down:

“Labour costs are not significant [in China] because of the relatively low wages of direct labour and related installation overhead. Customer acquisition has largely been achieved in China by the mature market, with customers’ familiarity with PV systems, and with the perception that PV systems are a reliable technology. However, policymakers should consider strengthening the targeted policies on the following soft costs.”

Among the measures they suggest are new financing schemes, an effort to “streamline” the complicated procedures and taxes involved, and more geographically targeted government policies, alongside innovations like peer-to-peer energy sharing that can improve utilization.

As their analysis showed the price of solar electricity had fallen further in some cities than others, the researchers recommend targeting future subsidies at the cities that are performing less well – keeping costs to a minimum while still providing support when it is most needed.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Ontario Gas Plant Expansion aims to boost grid reliability as nuclear refurbishments proceed, using natural gas to meet electricity demand, despite critics urging renewables, energy storage, and efficiency to reduce carbon emissions, protecting investment growth.

Key Points

Ontario plan to expand gas plants for reliability during nuclear outages, sparking debate on emissions and clean options.

✅ IESO data: gas share rose from 4% (2017) to 10.4% (2022).

✅ Government cites nuclear refurbishments and demand growth.

✅ Critics propose storage, wind, solar, and efficiency.

The Ontario government is preparing to expand gas-fired power plants in Ontario; a move critics say will make the province's electricity system dirtier and could eventually leave taxpayers on the hook.

The province is currently soliciting bids for additional gas-fired electricity generation, which means new gas plants get built, or existing gas plants get expanded. 

It's poised to be Ontario's biggest increase in the gas-fired power supply in more than a decade since the previous Liberal government scrapped two gas plants, in Mississauga and Oakville, at a cost the auditor general pegged at around $1 billion. 

Doug Ford's energy minister, Todd Smith, says Ontario needs gas plants now to help meet an expected surge in demand for electricity as the province faces a supply shortfall in the coming years and to provide power while some units of the province's nuclear stations are down for refurbishment. 

"It's really important to have natural gas as an insurance policy to keep the lights on and provide the reliability that we need," Smith said in an interview. 

"We need natural gas for the short term, especially to get us through these refurbishments."

The portion of Ontario's electricity supply that comes from natural gas matters for the environment and the province's economy. Manufacturing companies increasingly seek clean power that emits as little carbon dioxide as possible. 

The portion of Ontario's electricity supply that comes from natural gas matters for the environment and the province's economy. Manufacturing companies increasingly seek a power supply that emits as little carbon dioxide as possible. 

Increasing the amount of gas-fired generation in the electricity system puts Ontario's ability to attract such investments at risk as it complicates balancing demand and emissions across the grid, says Evan Pivnick, program manager with Clean Energy Canada, a think tank. 

"Building new natural gas (power plants) in Ontario today should be seen as an absolute last resort for meeting our energy needs," said Pivnick in an interview. 

Ontario's electricity system has among the lowest rates of CO2 emissions in North America, with roughly half of the annual supply provided by nuclear power, one-quarter from hydro dams, and one-tenth from wind turbines. 

However, Ontario's gas plants have produced a growing amount of electricity in recent years, despite an early report exploring a gas halt by the minister, and that trend will continue if new gas plants are built. 

In 2017, gas- and oil-fired generation provided just four percent of Ontario's electricity supply, according to figures from the provincial agency that manages the grid, the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO). 

By 2022, that figure reached 10.4 percent. 

Ontario doesn't need new gas plants to meet the electricity demand, says Bryan Purcell, vice president of policy and programs at The Atmospheric Fund. This agency invests in low-carbon projects in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. 

"We're quite concerned about where Ontario's electric grid is going," said Purcell. "Thankfully, there's still time to adjust course and look at other options." 

According to Purcell and Pivnick, those options to avoid gas could include power storage (in which excess generated energy is stored for later use when electricity demand rises), wind and solar projects, or energy efficiency and conservation programs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hydro One and Alectra Hamilton Grid Upgrades will modernize electricity infrastructure with new transformers, protection devices, transmission and distribution improvements, tree trimming, pole replacements, and line refurbishments to boost reliability and reduce outages across region.

Key Points

A $250M plan to modernize Hamilton transmission and distribution, reducing outages and improving reliability by 2022.

✅ New transformers and protection devices to cut outages

✅ Refurbished 1915 line powering Hamilton West Mountain

✅ Tree trimming and pole replacements across 1,260 km

Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One), Ontario's largest electricity transmission and distribution company whose delivery rates recently increased, and Alectra Utilities have announced they expect to complete approximately $250 million of work in the Hamilton area by 2022 to upgrade local electricity infrastructure and improve service reliability.

As part of these plans to strengthen the electricity grid in the Hamilton region, where utilities must adapt to climate change pressures, investments are expected to include:

installing quieter, more efficient transformers in four stations across Hamilton to assist in reducing the number of outages;
replacing protection and switching devices across the city to shorten outage restoration times, reflecting how transmission line work underpins reliability;
refurbishing a power line originally installed in 1915 that is critical to powering the Hamilton West Mountain area; and,
trimming hazardous trees across more than 1,260 km of overhead powerlines and replacing more than 270 poles.
Hydro One will be working with Alectra Utilities to replace aging infrastructure at Elgin transmission station.

"A loss of power grinds life to a halt, impacting businesses, families and productivity. That's why Hydro One is partnering with Alectra Utilities to support a growing local economy in Hamilton, while improving power reliability for its residents," said Jason Fitzsimmons, Chief Corporate Affairs and Customer Care Officer. "Replacing aging infrastructure and modernizing equipment is part of our plan to build a stronger, safer and more reliable electricity system for Ontario now and into the future." 

"Partnering with Hydro One to invest in our local community will create a safer, more resilient and reliable system for the future," said Max Cananzi, President, Alectra Utilities.  "In addition to investments in the transmission system, Alectra Utilities also plans to invest $235 million over the next five years to renew, upgrade and connect customers to the electrical distribution and supporting systems in Hamilton. Investments in the transmission and distribution systems in Hamilton will contribute to the long-term sustainability of our communities."

"I am pleased to see Hydro One and Alectra investing in modernizing local electricity infrastructure and improving reliability," said Member of Provincial Parliament, Donna Skelly.  "Safe and reliable power is essential to supporting local families, businesses and our community."

Across Ontario, First Nations call for action on urgently needed transmission lines highlight the importance of timely grid investments.

Hydro One's investments included in this announcement are captured in its previously disclosed future capital expenditures, amid proposed projects like the Meaford hydro project across Ontario.

Much of Hydro One's electricity system was built in the 1950s, and replacing aging assets is critical as delays affecting a cross-border transmission line elsewhere have shown. Its three-year, $5 billion investment plan supports safe and reliable power to communities across Ontario, and strong regulatory oversight illustrated by the ATCO Electric penalty helps maintain public trust.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D 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