High Voltage Solar Power Controversy

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

EECBG Program Funding empowers states, Tribes, and local governments with DOE grants to deploy clean energy, energy efficiency, EV infrastructure, and community solar, cutting emissions, lowering utility bills, and advancing net-zero decarbonization.

Key Points

EECBG Program Funding is a $550M DOE grant for states, Tribes, and governments to deploy clean energy and efficiency.

✅ Supports EV infrastructure and community solar deployment

✅ Cuts emissions and lowers utility costs via efficiency

✅ Prioritizes Justice40 benefits for underserved communities

The Biden-Harris Administration, through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), today released a Notice of Intent announcing $550 million to support community-based clean energy in state, Tribal, and local governments — serving more than 250 million Americans. This investment in American communities, through the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program, will support communities across the country to develop local programming and deploy clean energy technologies to cut emissions, advance a 90% carbon-free electricity goal nationwide, and reduce consumers’ energy costs, and help meet President Biden’s goal of a net-zero economy by 2050. 

“This funding is a streamlined and flexible tool for local governments to build their electricity future with clean energy,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm. “State, local, and Tribal communities nationwide will be able to leverage this funding to drive greater energy efficiency and conservation practices to lower utility bills and create healthier environments for American families.”   

The EECBG Program will fund 50 states, five U.S. territories, the District of Columbia, 774 Tribes, and 1,878 local governments in a variety of capacity-building, planning, and infrastructure efforts to reduce carbon emissions and energy use and improve energy efficiency in the transportation, building, and other related sectors. For example, communities with this funding can build out electric vehicle infrastructure and deploy community solar to serve areas that otherwise do not have access to electric vehicles or clean energy, particularly through a rural energy security program where appropriate.  

The $550 million made available through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) represents the second time that the EECBG Program has been funded, the first of which was through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. With this most recent funding, communities can build on prior investments and leverage additional clean energy funding from DOE, other federal agencies, and the private sector to achieve sustained impacts, supported by a Clean Electricity Standard where applicable, that can put their communities on a pathway to decarbonization. 

Through the EECBG Program and the Office of State and Community Energy Programs (SCEP), DOE will support the many diverse state, local, and tribal communities across the U.S., including efforts to revitalize coal communities through clean energy, as they implement this funding and other clean energy projects. To ensure no communities are left behind, the program aligns with President’s Justice40 initiative and efforts toward equity in electricity regulation to help ensure that 40% of the overall benefits of clean energy investments go to underserved and overburdened communities. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S. Utility Spending Shift highlights rising transmission and distribution costs, grid modernization, and smart meters, while generation expenses decline amid fuel price volatility, capital and labor pressures, and renewable integration across the power sector.

Key Points

A decade-long trend where utilities spend more on delivery and grid upgrades, and less on electricity generation costs.

✅ Delivery O&M, wires, poles, and meters drive rising costs

✅ Generation spending declines amid fuel price changes and PPI

✅ Grid upgrades add reliability, resilience, and renewable integration

Over the past decade, major utilities in the United States have been spending more on delivering electricity to customers and less on producing that electricity, a shift occurring as electricity demand is flat across many regions.

After adjusting for inflation, major utilities spent 2.6 cents per kilowatthour (kWh) on electricity delivery in 2010, using 2020 dollars. In comparison, spending on delivery was 65% higher in 2020 at 4.3 cents/kWh, and residential bills rose in 2022 as inflation persisted. Conversely, utility spending on power production decreased from 6.8 cents/kWh in 2010 (using 2020 dollars) to 4.6 cents/kWh in 2020.

Utility spending on electricity delivery includes the money spent to build, operate, and maintain the electric wires, poles, towers, and meters that make up the transmission and distribution system. In real 2020 dollar terms, spending on electricity delivery increased every year from 1998 to 2020 as utilities worked to replace aging equipment, build transmission infrastructure to accommodate new wind and solar generation amid clean energy transition challenges that affect costs, and install new technologies such as smart meters to increase the efficiency, reliability, resilience, and security of the U.S. power grid.

Spending on power production includes the money spent to build, operate, fuel, and maintain power plants, as well as the cost to purchase power in cases where the utility either does not own generators or does not generate enough to fulfill customer demand. Spending on electricity production includes the cost of fuels including natural gas prices alongside capital, labor, and building materials, as well as the type of generators being built.

Other utility spending on electricity includes general and administrative expenses, general infrastructure such as office space, and spending on intangible goods such as licenses and franchise fees, even as electricity sales declined in recent years.

The retail price of electricity reflects the cost to produce and deliver power, the rate of return on investment that regulated utilities are allowed, and profits for unregulated power suppliers, and, as electricity prices at 41-year high have been reported, these components have drawn increased scrutiny.

In 2021, demand for consumer goods and the energy needed to produce them has been outpacing supply, though power demand sliding in 2023 with milder weather has also been noted. This difference has contributed to higher prices for fuels used by electric generators, especially natural gas. The increased cost for fuel, capital, labor, and building materials, as seen in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Producer Price Index, is increasing the cost of power production for 2021. U.S. average electricity prices have been higher every month of this year compared with 2020, according to our Monthly Electric Power Industry Report.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

European Grid Frequency Clock Slowdown has made appliance clocks run minutes behind as AC frequency drifts on the 50 Hz electricity grid, driven by a Kosovo-Serbia billing dispute and ENTSO-E monitored supply-demand imbalance.

Key Points

An EU-wide timing error where 50 Hz AC deviations slow appliance clocks due to Kosovo-Serbia grid imbalances.

✅ Clocks drifted up to six minutes across interconnected Europe

✅ Cause: unpaid power in N. Kosovo, contested by Serbia

✅ ENTSO-E reported 50 Hz deviations from supply-demand mismatch

Over the past couple of months, Europeans have noticed time slipping away from them. It’s not just their imaginations: all across the continent, clocks built into home appliances like ovens, microwaves, and coffee makers have been running up to six minutes slow. The unlikely cause? A dispute between Kosovo and Serbia over who pays the electricity bill.

To make sense of all this, you need to know that the clocks in many household devices use the frequency of electricity to keep time. Electric power is delivered to our homes in the form of an alternating current, where the direction of the flow of electricity switches back and forth many times a second. (How this system came to be established is complex, but the advantage is that it allows electricity to be transmitted efficiently.) In Europe, this frequency is 50 Hertz — meaning a current alternating of 50 times a second. In America, it’s 60 Hz, and during peak summer demand utilities often prepare for blackouts as heat drives loads higher.

Since the 1930s, manufacturers have taken advantage of this feature to keep time. Each clock needs a metronome — something with a consistent rhythm that helps space out each second — and an alternating current provides one, saving the cost of extra components. Customers simply set the time on their oven or microwave once, and the frequency keeps it precise.

At least, that’s the theory. But because this timekeeping method is reliant on electrical frequency, when the frequency changes, so do the clocks. That is what has been happening in Europe.

The news was announced this week by ENTSO-E, the agency that oversees the single, huge electricity grid connecting 25 European countries and which recently synchronized with Ukraine to bolster regional resilience. It said that variations in the frequency of the AC caused by imbalances between supply and demand on the grid have been messing with the clocks. The imbalance is itself caused by a political argument between Serbia and Kosovo. “This is a very sensitive dispute that materializes in the energy issues,” Susanne Nies, a spokesperson for ENTSO-E, told The Verge.

Essentially, after Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in 2008, there were long negotiations over custody of utilities like telecoms and electricity infrastructure. As part of the ongoing agreements (Serbia still does not recognize Kosovo as a sovereign state), four Serb-majority districts in the north of Kosovo stopped paying for electricity. Kosovo initially covered this by charging the rest of the country more, but last December, it decided it had had enough and stopped paying. This led to an imbalance: the Kosovan districts were still using electricity, but no one was paying to put it on the grid.

This might sound weird, but it’s because electricity grids work on a system of supply and demand, where surging consumption has even triggered a Nordic grid blockade in response to constrained flows. As Stewart Larque of the UK’s National Grid explains, you want to keep the same amount of electricity going onto the grid from power stations as the amount being taken off by homes and businesses. “Think of it like driving a car up a hill at a constant speed,” Larque told The Verge. “You need to carefully balance acceleration with gravity.” (The UK itself has not been affected by these variations because it runs its own grid.)

“THEY ARE FREE-RIDING ON THE SYSTEM.”

This balancing act is hugely complex and requires constant monitoring of supply and demand and communication between electricity companies across Europe, and growing cyber risks have spurred a renewed focus on protecting the U.S. power grid among operators worldwide. The dispute between Kosovo and Serbia, though, has put this system out of whack, as the two governments have been refusing to acknowledge what the other is doing.

“The Serbians [in Kosovo] have, according to our sources, not been paying for their electricity. So they are free-riding on the system,” says Nies.

The dispute came to a temporary resolution on Tuesday, when the Kosovan government stepped up to the plate and agreed to pay a fee of €1 million for the electricity used by the Serb-majority municipalities. “It is a temporary decision but as such saves our network functionality,” said Kosovo’s prime minister Ramush Haradinaj. In the longer term, though, a new agreement will need to be reached.

There have been rumors that the increase in demand from northern Kosovo was caused by cryptocurrency miners moving into the area to take advantage of the free electricity. But according to ENTSO-E, this is not the case. “It is absolutely unrelated to cryptocurrency,” Nies told The Verge. “There’s a lot of speculation about this, and it’s absolutely unrelated.” Representatives of Serbia’s power operator, EMS, refused to answer questions on this.

For now, “Kosovo is in balance again,” says Nies. “They are producing enough [electricity] to supply the population. The next step is to take the system back to normal, which will take several weeks.” In other words, time will return to normal for Europeans — if they remember to change their clocks, even as the U.S. power grid sees more blackouts than other developed nations.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

PG&E dividend halt for wildfire mitigation directs cash from shareholders to tree clearing, wildfire risk reduction, and probation compliance under Judge William Alsup, amid bankruptcy, Camp Fire liabilities, and power line vegetation management mandates.

Key Points

A court-ordered dividend halt funding vegetation clearance and wildfire mitigation as PG&E meets probation terms.

✅ Judge Alsup bars dividends until mitigation targets met

✅ 375,000 trees cleared near power lines in high-risk zones

✅ Measures tied to probation amid bankruptcy and liabilities

A U.S. judge said on Tuesday that PG&E may not resume paying dividends and must use the money to fund its plan for cutting down trees to reduce the risk of wildfires in California, stopping short of more costly measures he proposed earlier this year.

The new criminal probation terms for PG&E are modest compared with ones the judge had in mind in January and that PG&E said could have cost upwards of $150 billion.

The terms will, however, keep PG&E under the supervision of Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and hold the company, which also is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy and whose bankruptcy plan has drawn support from wildfire victims, to its target for clearing areas around its power lines of some 375,000 trees this year.

PG&E's probation stems from its felony conviction after a deadly 2010 natural gas pipeline blast in San Bruno, California, near San Francisco, that killed eight people and injured 58 others.

PG&E filed for bankruptcy protection on Jan. 29 in anticipation of liabilities from wildfires, including a catastrophic 2018 blaze, the Camp Fire, for which PG&E later pleaded guilty to 85 counts in state court. It killed 86 people in the deadliest and most destructive wildfire in California history.

At a January hearing, Alsup, who is overseeing PG&E's probation, said he felt compelled to propose additional probation terms in the aftermath of Camp Fire. San Francisco-based PG&E expects its equipment will be found to have caused the blaze.

The probation process is separate from San Francisco-based PG&E's bankruptcy filing and from operational measures such as its pandemic response and shutoff moratorium implemented to protect customers.

As the company faces $30 billion in wildfire liabilities and bankruptcy proceedings and has opened a wildfire assistance program for affected residents, the energy company is expected to name as its new chief executive Bill Johnson, a source said on Tuesday. Johnson has been the CEO of the Tennessee Valley Authority since 2013 and is retiring on Friday.

Additional probation terms imposed by Alsup on Tuesday will require PG&E to meet goals in a wildfire mitigation plan it unveiled in February.

The goals include removing 375,000 dead, dying or hazardous trees from areas at high risk of wildfires in 2019, compared with 160,000 last year.

The judge said PG&E will not be able to pay shareholders until it complies with his new probation terms.

Shares fell 2% on Tuesday to close at $17.66 on the New York Stock Exchange and are down 63% since November 2018 due to concerns about the company's bankruptcy and wildfire liabilities, though the utility has said rates are set to stabilize in 2025 as part of its long-term plan. The shares traded as low as $5.07 in January.

PG&E in December 2017 suspended its quarterly cash dividend, while continuing to pay significant property taxes to California counties, citing uncertainty about liabilities from wildfires in October of that year that struck Northern California.

PG&E paid $798 million in dividends in 2017 and $925 million in 2016, a period in which the company did a poor job of clearing areas around its power lines of hazardous trees, according to Alsup.

Money meant for shareholders should have been spent on efforts to reduce wildfire risks in recent years, Alsup said at Tuesday's hearing.

"PG&E has started way more than its share of these fires," Alsup said.

"I want to see the people of California safe," the judge added.

Lawyers for PG&E did not contest the new terms, which the company considers more feasible than terms Alsup proposed in January.

To comply with the terms Alsup proposed in January, PG&E said it would have to remove 100 million trees. The company added that shutting power lines during high winds as Alsup proposed would not be feasible because the lines traverse rural areas to service cities and suburbs.

Idling lines could also affect the power grid in other states, PG&E said.

Alsup on Tuesday said he was still considering his proposal to require PG&E to shut down power lines during windy weather to prevent tree branches from making contact and sparking wildfires linked to power lines in the region.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

IAEA OSART Cernavoda highlights strengthened operational safety at Romania’s Cernavoda NPP, citing improved maintenance practices, simulator training, and deficiency reporting, with ongoing actions on spare parts procurement, procedure updates, and chemical control for nuclear compliance.

Key Points

An IAEA follow-up mission confirming improved operational safety at Cernavoda NPP, with remaining actions tracked.

✅ Enhanced simulator training and crew performance

✅ Improved field deficiency identification and reporting

✅ Ongoing upgrades to procedures, spares, and chemical control

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said yesterday that the operator of Romania’s Cernavoda nuclear power plant had demonstrated "strengthened operational safety" by addressing the findings of an initial IAEA review in 2016. The Operational Safety Review Team (OSART) concluded a five-day follow-up mission on 8 March to the Cernavoda plant, which is on the Danube-Black Sea Canal, about 160 km from Bucharest.

The plant's two 706 MWe CANDU pressurised heavy water reactors, reflecting Canadian nuclear projects, came online in 1996 and 2007, respectively.

The OSART team was led by Fuming Jiang, a senior nuclear safety officer at the IAEA, which recently commended China's nuclear security in separate assessments.

"We saw improvements in key areas, such as the procurement of important spare parts, the identification and reporting of some deficiencies, and some maintenance work practices, as evidenced by relevant performance indicators," Jiang said, noting milestones at nuclear projects worldwide this year.

The team observed that several findings from the 2016 review had been fully addressed, including: enhanced operator crew performance during simulator training; better identification and reporting of deficiencies in the field; and improvement in maintenance work practices.

More time is required, it said, to fully implement some actions, including: further improvements in the procurement of important spare parts with relevance to safety; further enhancement in the revision and update of some operating procedures, drawing on lessons from Pickering NGS life extensions undertaken in Ontario; and control and labelling of some plant chemicals.

Dan Bigu, site vice president of Cernavoda NPP, said the 2016 mission had "proven to be very beneficial", adding that the current follow-up mission would "provide further catalyst support to our journey to nuclear excellence".

The team provided a draft report of the mission to the plant's management and a final report will be submitted to the Romanian government, which recently moved to terminate talks with a Chinese partner on a separate nuclear project, within three months.

OSART missions aim to improve operational safety by objectively assessing safety performance, even as the agency reports mines at Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia plant amid ongoing risks, using the IAEA's safety standards and proposing recommendations and suggestions for improvement where appropriate. The follow-up missions are standard components of the OSART programme and, as the IAEA has warned of risks from attacks on Ukraine's power grids, are typically conducted within two years of the initial mission.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News