SaskPower receives additional smart meter testing results

U.S.-Canada Energy and Minerals Partnership strengthens energy security, critical minerals supply chains, and climate objectives with clean oil and gas, EV batteries, methane reductions, cross-border grid reliability, and allied trade, countering Russia and China dependencies.

Key Points

A North American alliance to secure energy, refine critical minerals, cut emissions, and fortify supply chains.

✅ Integrates oil, gas, and electricity trade for reliability

✅ Builds EV battery and critical minerals processing capacity

✅ Reduces methane, diversifies away from Russia and China

Today, U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, delivered the following remarks during a full committee hearing to examine ways to strengthen the energy and mineral partnership between the U.S. and Canada to address energy security and climate objectives.

The hearing also featured testimony from the Honorable Jason Kenney (Premier, Alberta, Canada), the Honorable Nathalie Camden (Associate Deputy Minister of Mines, Ministry of Energy and Natural Resource, Québec, Canada), the Honorable Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister, Natural Resources Canada) and Mr. Francis Bradley (President and CEO, Electricity Canada). Click here to read their testimony.

Chairman Manchin’s remarks can be viewed as prepared here or read below:

Today we’re welcoming our friends from the North, from Canada, to continue this committee’s very important conversation about how we pursue two critical goals – ensuring energy security and addressing climate change.

These two goals aren’t mutually exclusive, and it’s imperative that we address both.

We all agree that Putin has used Russia’s oil and gas resources as a weapon to inflict terrible pain on the Ukrainian people and on Europe.

And other energy-rich autocracies are taking note. We’d be fools to think Xi Jinping won’t consider using a similar playbook, leveraging China’s control over global critical minerals supply chains.

But Putin’s aggression is bringing the free world closer together, setting the stage for a new alliance around energy, minerals, and climate.
Building this alliance should start here in North America. And that’s why I’m excited to hear today about how we can strengthen the energy and minerals partnership between the U.S. and Canada.

I recently had the privilege of being hosted in Alberta by Premier Kenney, where I spent two days getting a better understanding of our energy, minerals, and manufacturing partnership through meetings with representatives from Alberta, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories, the federal government, and tribal and industry partners.

Canadians and Americans share a deep history and are natural partners, sharing the longest land border on the planet.

Our people fought side-by-side in two world wars. In fact, some of the uranium used by the Manhattan Project and broader nuclear innovation was mined in Canada’s Northwest Territories and refined in Ontario.

We have cultivated a strong manufacturing partnership, particularly in the automotive industry, with Canada today being our biggest export market for vehicles. Cars assembled in Canada contain, on average, more than 50% of U.S. value and parts.

Today we also trade over 58 terawatt hours of electricity, including green power from Canada across the border, 2.4 billion barrels of petroleum products, and 3.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas each year.

In fact, energy alone represents $120 billion of the annual trade between our countries. Across all sectors the U.S. and Canada trade more than $2 billion per day.
There is no better symbol of our energy relationship than our interconnected power grid and evolving clean grids that are seamless and integral for the reliable and affordable electricity citizens and industries in both our countries depend on.

And we’re here for each other during times of need. Electricity workers from both the U.S. and Canada regularly cross the border after extreme weather events to help get the power back on.

Canada has ramped up oil exports to the U.S. to offset Russian crude after members of our committee led legislation to cut off the energy purchases fueling Putin’s war machine.

Canada is also a leading supplier of uranium and critical minerals to the U.S., including those used in advanced batteries—such as cobalt, graphite, and nickel.
The U.S-Canada energy partnership is strong, but also not without its challenges, including tariff threats that affect projects on both sides. I’ve not been shy in expressing my frustration that the Biden administration cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline.

In light of Putin’s war in Ukraine and the global energy price surge, I think a lot of us wish that project had moved forward.

But to be clear, I’m not holding this hearing to re-litigate the past. We are here to advance a stronger and cleaner U.S.-Canada energy partnership for the future.
Our allies and trading partners in Europe are begging for North American oil and gas to offset their reliance on Russia.

There is no reason whatsoever we shouldn’t be able to fill that void, and do it cleaner than the alternatives.

That’s because American oil and gas is cleaner than what is produced in Russia – and certainly in Iran and Venezuela. We can do better, and learn from our Canadian neighbors.

On average, Canada produces oil with 37% lower methane emissions than the U.S., and the Canadian federal government has set even more aggressive methane reduction targets.

That’s what I mean by climate and security not being mutually exclusive – replacing Russian product has the added benefit of reducing the emissions profile of the energy Europe needs today.

According to the International Energy Agency, stationary and electric vehicle batteries will account for about half of the mineral demand growth from clean energy technologies over the next twenty years.

Unfortunately, China controls 80% of the world’s battery material processing, 60% of the world’s cathode production, 80% of the world’s anode production, and 75% of the world’s lithium ion battery cell production. They’ve cornered the market.

I also strongly believe we need to be taking national energy security into account as we invest in climate solutions.

It makes no sense whatsoever for us to so heavily invest in electric vehicles as a climate solution when that means increasing our reliance on China, because right now we’re not simultaneously increasing our mining, processing, and recycling capacity at the same rate in the United States.

The Canadians are ahead of us on critical minerals refining and processing, and we have much to learn from them about how they’re able to responsibly permit these activities in timelines that blow ours out of the water.

I’m sure our Canadian friends are happy to export minerals to us, but let me be clear, the United States also needs to contribute our part to a North American minerals alliance.

So I’m interested in discussing how we can create an integrated network for raw minerals to move across our borders for processing and manufacturing in both of our countries, and how B.C. critical minerals decisions may affect that.

I believe there is much we can collaborate on with Canada to create a powerful North American critical minerals supply chain instead of increasing China’s geopolitical leverage.

During this time when the U.S., Canada, and our allies and friends are threatened both by dictators weaponizing energy and by intense politicization over climate issues, we must work together to chart a responsible path forward that will ensure security and unlock prosperity for our nations.

We are the superpower of the world, and blessed with abundant energy and minerals resources. We cannot just sit back and let other countries fill the void and find ourselves in a more dire situation in the years ahead.

We must be leaning into the responsible production of all the energy sources we’re going to need, and strengthening strategic partnerships – building a North American Energy Alliance.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Hydrogen Strategy accelerates green hydrogen via electrolysis, reduced electricity rates, and IESO pilots, leveraging ICI, interruptible rates, and surplus power to grow clean tech, low-carbon energy, and export markets across Ontario.

Key Points

A provincial plan to scale green hydrogen with electricity costs, IESO pilots, and surplus power to boost tech.

✅ Amends ICI to admit hydrogen producers from 50 kW demand

✅ Enables co-located electrolysers to use surplus curtailed power

✅ Offers interruptible rates via IESO pilot for flexible loads

The Ontario Ministry of Energy is seeking input on accelerating Ontario’s hydrogen economy. The province has been promoting growth in the clean tech sector, including low-carbon energy production and the Hydrogen Innovation Fund, as an avenue for post-COVID-19 economic recovery. Hydrogen produced through electrolysis (or “green hydrogen”) has been central to these efforts, complimenting both federal and provincial initiatives to create vibrant domestic and export markets for the energy as a principal alternative to conventional fossil fuels.

On April 14, 2022, the Ministry filed a proposal (the Proposal) on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) to gather input from stakeholders, aligning with the province’s industrial electricity pricing consultation underway. As part of Ontario’s Hydrogen Strategy, the Ministry is considering several options that would provide reduced electricity rates for green hydrogen producers to make production more economically competitive with other energies. To date, the relatively high production cost of green hydrogen has been a challenge facing its adoption, both domestically and internationally.

The Proposal features three options:

• Amending the rules for the Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI) applicable to hydrogen producers;
• Enabling onsite hydrogen production using electricity that would otherwise be curtailed; and
• Providing an interruptible electricity rate for hydrogen producers.

Option 1: Amending the ICI rules

Option 1 would amend the ICI rules to allow all hydrogen producers with an average monthly peak demand of 50kW to participate. Hydrogen producers’ facilities could qualify for ICI in the first year of operation with a peak demand factor determined based on a deemed consumption profile, using a method yet to be determined by the Ministry. At the end of the first year, their global adjustment (GA) charges would be reconciled based on their actual consumption pattern. As set out in our prior article, GA was introduced by the province in January 2005 to ensure reliable, sustainable and a diverse supply of power at stable and competitive prices, aligning with plans to rely on battery storage to meet rising energy demand. The Ministry’s current proposal would require hydrogen producers to place a security deposit for their facilities’ first year of operation with the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) or their Local Distribution Company (LDC) to ensure other consumer would not be adversely affected.

Option 2: Enable onsite hydrogen production using surplus electricity

Option 2 would allow businesses to co-locate hydrogen electrolysers at electricity generation facilities, drawing on recent electrolyzer investment trends, to make use of what would become curtailed generation. Under this option in the Proposal, the developer for the hydrogen production facility would be required to be a separate legal entity from the one that owns or operates the electricity generation facility. Based on this required level of independence, the hydrogen developer would be required to pay the electricity generator for the electricity supply.

At this stage, it is not clear whether, or how the generator would be required to share the revenue with other consumers. The next steps of the Proposal may require regulatory amendments, and/or amendments to electricity generator’s contracts, consistent with efforts enabling storage in Ontario's electricity system to integrate flexible resources.

Option 3: Interruptible electricity rates for hydrogen producers

In 2021, the Ministry posted a proposal on the ERO including an Interruptible Rate Pilot that was to be developed in conjunction with the IESO in order to address stakeholder feedback received during the 2019 Industrial Consultation specific to the challenges of identifying and responding to peak demand events while participating in the ICI. The pilot was targeted towards large electricity consumers, where participants were charged GA at a reduced rate in exchange for agreeing to reduce consumption during system or local reliability events, as identified by IESO.

Option 3 would allow for the introduction for a dedicated stream for hydrogen producers into the interruptible rate pilot, which is currently under development with the IESO. This would take into account the unique circumstances of hydrogen producers, as well as the importance of the hydrogen sector in Ontario’s Low-Carbon Hydrogen Strategy. Under the pilot, participants would be given advance notice by the IESO to reduce demand over a fixed number of hours, several times each year, and emerging vehicle-to-grid models where EV owners can sell electricity back to the grid highlight additional flexibility options. Ultimately, the pilot would support low-carbon hydrogen production by offering large electricity consumers, such as hydrogen producers, reduced electricity rates in exchange for reduces consumption during system or local reliability events.

Following this initial development work, the Ministry intends to consult with stakeholders later this year to determine design details, as well as the timing for the potential roll out of the proposed pilot.

Key takeaways

The design options are not meant to be mutually exclusive, and might be pursued by the Ministry in combination. Ultimately, Ontario is focusing on ways to reduce electricity rates in an attempt to make the province a leader in the adoption of green hydrogen, as made clear in the Ontario Hydrogen Strategy, even as an electricity supply crunch looms, underscoring the urgency. Stakeholders will want to participate in this process given its long-term implications for both the hydrogen and power sectors.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Honda Canada EV Supply Chain accelerates electric vehicles with Ontario assembly, battery manufacturing, CAM/pCAM and separator plants in Alliston, creating green jobs, strengthening domestic manufacturing, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions across North America.

Key Points

A $15B Ontario initiative for end-to-end EVs, batteries, and components, creating jobs and cutting emissions.

✅ Alliston EV assembly and battery plants anchor production.

✅ CAM/pCAM and separator facilities via POSCO, Asahi JV.

✅ $15B build-out drives jobs, R&D, and lower emissions.

The electric vehicle (EV) revolution is gaining momentum in Canada, with Honda Canada announcing a historic $15 billion investment to establish the country's first comprehensive EV supply chain in Ontario. This ambitious project promises to create thousands of new jobs, solidify Canada's position in the EV market, and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Honda's Electrifying Vision

The centerpiece of this initiative is a brand-new, world-class electric vehicle assembly plant in Alliston, Ontario. This will be Honda's first dedicated EV assembly plant globally, marking a significant shift towards a more sustainable future. Additionally, a standalone battery manufacturing plant will be constructed at the same location, ensuring a reliable and efficient domestic supply of EV batteries.

Beyond Assembly: A Complete Ecosystem

Honda's vision extends beyond just vehicle assembly. The investment also includes the construction of two additional plants dedicated to critical battery components, mirroring activity such as a Niagara Region battery plant in Ontario: a cathode active material and precursor (CAM/pCAM) processing plant and a separator plant. These facilities, established through joint ventures with POSCO Future M Co., Ltd. and Asahi Kasei Corporation, will ensure a comprehensive in-house EV production capability.

Jobs, Growth, and a Greener Future

This large-scale project is expected to create significant economic benefits for Ontario. The construction and operation of the new facilities are projected to generate over one thousand well-paying manufacturing jobs, similar to GM's Ontario EV plant announcements that underscore employment gains across the province. Additionally, the investment will stimulate growth within Ontario's leading auto parts supplier and research and development ecosystems, bolstered by government-backed EV plant upgrades that reinforce local supply chains, creating even more indirect job opportunities.

But the benefits extend beyond the economy. The transition to electric vehicles plays a crucial role in combating climate change. By bringing EV production onshore, Honda Canada is contributing to a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, aligning with Canada's ambitious climate goals for transportation.

A Catalyst for Change

Honda's investment is a significant vote of confidence in Canada's potential as a leader in the EV industry, as recent EV manufacturing deals put the country in the race. The establishment of this comprehensive EV supply chain will not only benefit Honda, but also attract other EV manufacturers and solidify Ontario's position as a North American EV hub.

The road ahead for Canada's EV industry is bright. With Honda's commitment and this groundbreaking project, and with Ford's Oakville EV plans underway, Canada is well on its way to a cleaner, more sustainable future powered by electric vehicles.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Climate Change Consensus and Disinformation highlights the 97% peer-reviewed agreement on human-caused warming, IPCC warnings, and how fossil fuel lobbying, misinformation, and astroturf tactics echo tobacco denial to mislead media and voters.

Key Points

Explains the 97% scientific consensus and the disinformation that obscures IPCC findings and misleads the public.

✅ 97% peer-reviewed consensus on human-caused climate change

✅ Fossil fuel funding drives denial and media misinformation

✅ IPCC and major scientific bodies confirm severe impacts

Orson Johnson says there is no scientific consensus on climate change. He’s wrong. A 2015 study by Drexel University’s Robert Brulle found that nearly $1 billion per year is being spent to support climate change denial. Electric utilities, fossil fuel and transportation sectors outspent environmental and renewable energy sectors by more than 10-to-1, undermining efforts to achieve net-zero electricity emissions globally. It is virtually the same strategy that tobacco companies used to deny the dangers of tobacco smoke, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to delay recognition of harm from tobacco smoke for decades, and today Trump's oil policies can similarly influence Wall Street's energy strategy. These are the same debunked sources Johnson quotes in his commentary.

The authors of six independent peer-reviewed papers on the consensus for human-caused climate change examined “the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies,” according to an abstract in Environmental Research Letters, and public support for action is strong, with most Americans willing to contribute financially to climate solutions. Of the 30,000 scientists (people with a bachelor’s degree or higher in science) Johnson cites, only 39 specialized in climate science.

A new study by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change draws on momentum from the Katowice climate summit to warn that “The consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe.”

California’s Office of Planning and Research says: “Every major scientific organization in the United States with relevant expertise has confirmed the IPCC’s conclusion, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The list of international scientific organizations affirming the worldwide consensus on climate change is even longer.”

Former President Obama argued that decarbonization is irreversible as the clean-energy transition accelerates.

This issue is a symptom of an even larger problem. Recently, Facebook announced it would continue to allow political ads that contain obvious lies. America’s corporate news media has been following the same policy for years. Printing stories and commentary with information that is clearly not true or where data has been cherry-picked to strongly imply a lie, such as claims that Ottawa is making electricity more expensive for Albertans, sets up a false equivalence fallacy in which two incompatible arguments appear to be logically equivalent when, in fact, they are not.

Conservatives focus exclusively on progressive income taxes to argue that rich people pay a disproportionate share of taxes while ignoring that they take a disproportionate share of income, and federal income taxes account for less than half of taxes collected, with almost all of the other taxes being heavily regressive. Critics of single-payer healthcare disregard that almost every other developed country on earth has been using single-payer for decades to provide better care with universal coverage at roughly half the cost. Other examples abound, including recent policy milestones like the historic U.S. climate deal that nevertheless become targets of misinformation. We live in a society where truth is no longer truth, reality is supplanted by alternative facts and where crippling polarization is driven by the inability to agree on basic facts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change 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

Iran Power Outage Protests surge as electricity blackouts, drought, and a looming heat wave spark unrest in Tehran, Shiraz, and more, with chants against leadership, strikes, and sanctions-driven economic pressures mounting.

Key Points

Protests across Iran over blackouts, drought, and economic strain challenge authorities and demand accountability.

✅ Rolling blackouts blamed on drought, heat wave, and surging demand.

✅ Chants target leadership amid strikes and wage, water shortages.

✅ Legitimacy questioned after low-turnout election and sanctions.

There have been protests in a number of cities in Iran amid rising public anger over widespread electricity blackouts.

Videos on social media appeared to show crowds in Shar-e Rey near Tehran, Shiraz, Amol and elsewhere overnight.

Some people can be heard shouting "Death to the dictator" and "Death to Khamenei" - a reference to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The government has apologised for the blackouts, which it has blamed on a severe drought and high demand.

Elsewhere, similar outages have had political repercussions, as a widespread power outage in Taiwan prompted a minister's resignation earlier this year.

President Hassan Rouhani explained in televised remarks on Tuesday morning that the drought meant most of the country's hydroelectric power plants were not operating, placing more pressure on thermal power plants, and that electricity consumption had surged as people used air conditioning to cope with the intense summer heat.

"I apologise to our dear people who have faced problems and suffering in the past few days and I urge them to co-operate [by cutting their electricity use]. People complain about power outages and they are right," Mr Rouhani said.

A video that has gone viral in recent days shows a woman complaining about the blackouts and corruption at a government office in the northern city of Gorgan and demanding that her comments be conveyed to "higher-ups like Mr Rouhani". "The only thing you have done is forcing hijab on us," she shouts.

The president has promised that the government will seek to resolve the problems within the next two or three weeks.

However, a power sector spokesman warned on Monday that consumption was exceeding the production capacity of Iran's power plants by 11GW, and said a "looming heat wave" could make the situation worse, as seen in Iraq's summer electricity crunch this year.

Iranians have also been complaining about water shortages and the non-payment of wages by some local authorities, while thousands of people working in Iran's oil industry have been on strike over pay and conditions, as officials discuss further energy cooperation with Iraq to ease supply pressures.

There was already widespread discontent at government corruption and the economic hardship caused by sanctions that were reinstated when the US abandoned a nuclear deal with Iran three years ago, even as Iran supplies about 40% of Iraq's electricity through cross-border sales.

Analysts say that after the historically low turnout in last month's presidential election, when more than half of the eligible voters stayed at home, the government is facing a serious challenge to its legitimacy.

Mr Rouhani will be succeeded next month by Ebrahim Raisi, a hard-line cleric close to Ayatollah Khamenei who won 62% of the vote after several prominent contenders were disqualified, while Iran finalizes power grid deals with Iraq to bolster regional ties.

The 60-year-old former judiciary chief has presented himself as the best person to combat corruption and solve Iran's economic problems, including ambitions to transmit electricity to Europe as a regional power hub.

But many Iranians and human rights activists have pointed to his human rights record, accusing him of playing a role in the executions of thousands of political prisoners in the 1980s and in the deadly crackdowns on mass anti-government protests in 2009 and 2019.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News