Weak grid hampers Chinese wind integration

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

Maple Ridge Lithium-Ion Battery Plant will be a $1B E-One Moli clean-tech facility in Canada, manufacturing high-performance cells for tools and devices, with federal and provincial funding, creating 450 jobs and boosting battery supply chains.

Key Points

A $1B E-One Moli facility in B.C. producing lithium-ion cells, backed by federal and provincial funding.

✅ $204.5M federal and up to $80M B.C. support committed

✅ E-One Moli to create 450 skilled jobs in Maple Ridge

✅ High-performance cells for tools, medical devices, and equipment

A lithium-ion battery cell production plant costing more than $1 billion will be built in Maple Ridge, B.C., Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Premier David Eby jointly announced on Tuesday.

Trudeau and Eby say the new E-One Moli facility will bolster Canada's role as a global leader in clean technology, as recent investments in Quebec's EV battery assembly illustrate today.

It will be the largest factory in Canada to manufacture such high-performance batteries, Trudeau said during the announcement, amid other developments such as a new plant in the Niagara Region supporting EV growth.

The B.C. government will contribute up to $80 million, while the federal government plans to contribute up to $204.5 million to the project. E-One Moli and private sources will supply the rest of the funding. 

Trudeau said B.C. has long been known for its innovation in the clean-technology sector, and securing the clean battery manufacturing project, alongside Northvolt's project near Montreal, will build on that expertise.

"The world is looking to Canada. When we support projects like E-One Moli's new facility in Maple Ridge, we bolster Canada's role as a global clean-tech leader, create good jobs and help keep our air clean," he said.

"This is the future we are building together, every single day. Climate policy is economic policy."

Nelson Chang, chairman of E-One Moli Energy, said the company has always been committed to innovation and creativity as creator of the world's first commercialized lithium-metal battery.

E-One Moli has been operating a plant in Maple Ridge since 1990. Its parent company, Taiwan Cement Corp., is based in Taiwan.

"We believe that human freedom is a chance for us to do good for others and appreciate life's fleeing nature, to leave a positive impact on the world," Chang said.

"We believe that [carbon dioxide] reduction is absolutely the key to success for all future businesses," he said.

The new plant will produce high-performance lithium-cell batteries found in numerous products, including vacuums, medical devices, and power and gardening tools, aligning with B.C.'s grid development and job plans already underway, and is expected to create 450 jobs, making E-One Moli the largest private-sector employer in Maple Ridge.

Eby said every industry needs to find ways to reduce their carbon footprint to ensure they have a prosperous future and every province should do the same, with resource plays like Alberta's lithium supporting the EV supply chain today.

It's the responsible thing to do given the record wildfires, extreme heat, and atmospheric rivers that caused catastrophic flooding in B.C., he said, with large-scale battery storage in southwestern Ontario helping grid reliability.

"We know that this is what we have to do. The people who suggest that we have to accept that as the future and stop taking action are simply wrong."

Trudeau, Eby and Chang toured the existing plant in Maple Ridge, east of Vancouver, before making the announcement.

The prime minister wove his way around several machines and apologized to technicians about the commotion his visit was creating.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation criticized the federal and B.C. governments for the announcement, saying in a statement the multimillion-dollar handout to the battery firm will cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars for each job.

Federation director Franco Terrazzano said the Trudeau government has recently given "buckets of cash" to corporations such as Volkswagen, Stellantis, the Ford Motor Company and Northvolt.

"Instead of raising taxes on ordinary Canadians and handing out corporate welfare, governments should be cutting red tape and taxes to grow the economy," said Terrazzano. 

Construction is expected to start next June, as EV assembly deals put Canada in the race, and the company plans for the facility to be fully operational in 2028.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Germany's Joint Onshore Wind and Solar Tender invites 200 MW bids in an EEG auction, with PV and onshore wind competing on price per MWh, including grid integration costs and network fees under BNA rules.

Key Points

A BNA-run 200 MW EEG auction where PV and onshore wind compete on price per MWh, including grid integration costs.

✅ 200 MW cap; minimum project size 750 kW

✅ Max subsidy 87.50 per MWh; bids include network costs

✅ Solar capped at 10-20 MW; wind requires prior approval

Germany's Federal Network Agency (BNA) has launched its second joint onshore wind and solar photovoltaic (PV) tender, with a total capacity of 200 MW.

A maximum guaranteed subsidy payment has been set at 87.50 per MWh for both energy sources, which BNA says will have to compete against each other for the lowest price of electricity. According to auction rules, all projects must have a minimum of 750 kW.

The auction is due to be completed on 2 November.

The network regulator has capped solar projects at 10 MW, though this has been extended to 20 MW in some districts, amid calls to remove barriers to PV at the federal level. Onshore wind projects did not receive any such restrictions, though they require approval from Federal Immission Control three weeks prior to the bid date of 11 Octobe

Bids also require network and system integration costs to be included, and similar solicitations have been heavily subscribed, as an over-subscribed Duke Energy solar solicitation in the US market illustrates.

According to Germanys Renewable Energy Act (EEG), two joint onshore wind and solar auctions must take place each year between 2018 and 2021. After this, the government will review the scheme and decide whether to continue it beyond 2021.

The first tender, conducted in April, saw the entire 200 MW capacity given to solar PV projects, reflecting a broader solar power boost in Germany during the energy crisis. Of the 32 contracts awarded, value varied from 39.60 per MWh to 57.60 per MWh. Among the winning bids were five projects in agricultural and grassland sites in Bavaria, totalling 31 MW, and three in Baden-Wrttemberg at 17 MW.

According to the Agency, the joint tender scheme was initiated in an attempt to determine the financial support requirements for wind and solar in technology-specific auctions, however, solar powers sole win in the April auction meant it was met with criticism, even as clean energy accounts for 50% of Germany's electricity today.

The heads of the Federal Solar Industry Association (BSW-Solar) and German Wind Energy Association (BWE) saying the joint tender scheme is unsuitable for the build-out of the two technologies.

A BWE spokesman previously stressed the companys rejection of competition between wind and solar, saying: It is not clear how this could contribute to an economically meaningful balanced energy mix,

Technologies that are in various stages of development must not enter into direct competition with each other. Otherwise, innovation and development potential will be compromised.

Similarly, BSW-Solar president Carsten Krnig said: We are happy for the many solar winners, but consider the experiment a failure. The auction results prove the excellent price-performance ratio of new solar power plants, as solar-plus-storage is cheaper than conventional power in Germany, but not the suitability of joint tenders.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Ontario Battery Energy Storage anchors IESO strategy, easing peak demand and boosting grid reliability. Projects like Oneida BESS (250MW) and nearly 3GW procurements integrate renewables, wind and solar, enabling flexible, decarbonized power.

Key Points

Provincewide grid batteries help IESO manage peaks, integrate renewables, and strengthen reliability across Ontario.

✅ IESO forecasts 1,000MW peak growth by 2026

✅ Oneida BESS adds 250MW with 20-year contract

✅ Nearly 3GW storage procured via LT1 and other RFPs

Ontario’s electricity grid is facing increasing demand amid a looming supply crunch, prompting the province to invest heavily in battery energy storage systems (BESS) as a key solution. The Ontario Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) has highlighted that these storage technologies will be crucial for managing peak demand in the coming years.

Ontario's energy demands have been on the rise, driven by factors such as population growth, electric vehicle manufacturing, data center expansions, and heavy industrial activity. The IESO's latest assessment, and its work on enabling storage, covering the period from April 2025 to September 2026, indicates that peak demand will increase by approximately 1,000MW between the summer of 2025 and 2026. This forecasted rise in energy use is attributed to the acceleration of various sectors within the province, underscoring the need for reliable, scalable energy solutions.

A significant portion of this solution will be met by large-scale energy storage projects. Among the most prominent is the Oneida BESS, a flagship project that will contribute 250MW of storage capacity. This project, developed by a consortium including Northland Power and NRStor, will be located on land owned by the Six Nations of the Grand River. Expected to be operational soon, it will play a pivotal role in ensuring grid stability during high-demand periods. The project benefits from a 20-year contract with the IESO, guaranteeing payments that will support its financial viability, alongside additional revenue from participating in the wholesale energy market.

In addition to Oneida, Ontario has committed to acquiring nearly 3GW of energy storage capacity through various procurement programs. The 2023 Expedited Long-Term 1 (LT1) request for proposals (RfP) alone secured 881MW of storage, with additional projects in the pipeline. A notable example is the Hagersville Battery Energy Storage Park, which, upon completion, will be the largest such project in Canada. The success of these procurement efforts highlights the growing importance of BESS in Ontario's energy strategy.

The IESO’s proactive approach to energy storage is not only a response to rising demand but also a step toward decarbonizing the province’s energy system. As Ontario transitions away from traditional fossil fuels, BESS will provide the necessary flexibility to accommodate increasing renewable energy generation, a clean energy solution widely recognized in jurisdictions like New York, particularly from intermittent sources like wind and solar. By storing excess energy during periods of low demand and dispatching it when needed, these systems will help maintain grid stability, and as many utilities see benefits even without mandates, reduce reliance on fossil fuel-based power plants.

Looking ahead, Ontario's energy storage capacity is expected to grow significantly, complemented by initiatives such as the Hydrogen Innovation Fund, with projects from the 2023 LT1 RfP expected to come online by 2027. As more storage resources are integrated into the grid, the province is positioning itself to meet its rising energy needs while also advancing its environmental goals.

Ontario’s increasing reliance on battery energy storage is a clear indication of the province’s commitment to a sustainable and resilient energy future, aligning with perspectives from Sudbury sustainability advocates on the grid's future. With substantial investments in storage technology, Ontario is not only addressing current energy challenges but also paving the way for a cleaner, more reliable energy system in the years to come.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

US Climate Alliance 100% Renewables 2035 accelerates clean energy, electrification, and decarbonization, replacing coal and gas with wind, solar, and storage to cut air pollution, lower energy bills, create jobs, and advance environmental justice.

Key Points

A state-level target for alliance members to meet all electricity demand with renewable energy by 2035.

✅ 100% RES can meet rising demand from electrification

✅ Major health gains from reduced SO2, NOx, and particulates

✅ Jobs grow, energy burdens fall, climate resilience improves

The Union of Concerned Scientists joined with COPAL (Minnesota), GreenRoots (Massachusetts), and the Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition, to better understand the feasibility and implications of leadership states meeting 100 percent of their electricity needs with renewable energy by 2035, a target reflected in federal clean electricity goals under discussion today.

We focused on 24 member states of the United States Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of governors committed to the goals of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. We analyzed two main scenarios: business as usual versus 100 percent renewable electricity standards, in line with many state clean energy targets now in place.

Our analysis shows that:

Climate Alliance states can meet 100 percent of their electricity consumption with renewable energy by 2035, as independent assessments of zero-emissions feasibility suggest. This holds true even with strong increases in demand due to the electrification of transportation and heating.

A transition to renewables yields strong benefits in terms of health, climate, economies, and energy affordability.

To ensure an equitable transition, states should broaden access to clean energy technologies and decision making to include environmental justice and fossil fuel-dependent communitieswhile directly phasing out coal and gas plants.

Demands for climate action surround us. Every day brings news of devastating "this is not normal" extreme weather: record-breaking heat waves, precipitation, flooding, wildfires. To build resilience and mitigate the worst impacts of the climate crisis requires immediate action to reduce heat-trapping emissions and transition to renewable energy, including practical decarbonization strategies adopted by states.

On the Road to 100 Percent Renewables explores actions at one critical level: how leadership states can address climate change by reducing heat-trapping emissions in key sectors of the economy as well as by considering the impacts of our energy choices. A collaboration of the Union of Concerned Scientists and local environmental justice groups COPAL (Minnesota), GreenRoots (Massachusetts), and the Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition, with contributions from the national Initiative for Energy Justice, assessed the potential to accelerate the use of renewable energy dramatically through state-level renewable electricity standards (RESs), major drivers of clean energy in recent decades. In addition, the partners worked with Greenlink Analytics, an energy research organization, to assess how RESs most directly affect people's lives, such as changes in public health, jobs, and energy bills for households.

Focusing on 24 members of the United States Climate Alliance (USCA), the study assesses the implications of meeting 100 percent of electricity consumption in these states, including examples like Rhode Island's 100% by 2030 plan that inform policy design, with renewable energy in the near term. The alliance is a bipartisan coalition of governors committed to reducing heat-trapping emissions consistent with the goals of the 2015 Paris climate agreement.[1]

On the Road to 100 Percent Renewables looks at three types of results from a transition to 100 percent RES policies: improvements in public health from decreasing the use of coal and gas2 power plants; net job creation from switching to more labor-oriented clean energy; and reduced household energy bills from using cleaner sources of energy. The study assumes a strong push to electrify transportation and heating to address harmful emissions from the current use of fossil fuels in these sectors. Our core policy scenario does not focus on electricity generation itself, nor does it mandate retiring coal, gas, and nuclear power plants or assess new policies to drive renewable energy in non-USCA states.

Our analysis shows that:

USCA states can meet 100 percent of their electricity consumption with renewable energy by 2035 even with strong increases in demand due to electrifying transportation and heating.

A transition to renewables yields strong benefits in terms of health, climate, economies, and energy affordability.

Renewable electricity standards must be paired with policies that address not only electricity consumption but also electricity generation, including modern grid infrastructure upgrades that enable higher renewable shares, both to transition away from fossil fuels more quickly and to ensure an equitable transition in which all communities experience the benefits of a clean energy economy.

Currently, the states in this analysis meet their electricity needs with differing mixes of electricity sourcesfossil fuels, nuclear, and renewables. Yet across the states, the study shows significant declines in fossil fuel use from transitioning to clean electricity; the use of solar and wind powerthe dominant renewablesgrows substantially:

In the study's "No New Policy" scenario"business as usual"coal and gas generation stay largely at current levels over the next two decades. Electricity generation from wind and solar grows due to both current policies and lowest costs.

In a "100% RES" scenario, each USCA state puts in place a 100 percent renewable electricity standard. Gas generation falls, although some continues for export to non-USCA states. Coal generation essentially disappears by 2040. Wind and solar generation combined grow to seven times current levels, and three times as much as in the No New Policy scenario.

A focus on meeting in-state electricity consumption in the 100% RES scenario yields important outcomes. Reductions in electricity from coal and gas plants in the USCA states reduce power plant pollution, including emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. By 2040, this leads to 6,000 to 13,000 fewer premature deaths than in the No New Policy scenario, as well as 140,000 fewer cases of asthma exacerbation and 700,000 fewer lost workdays. The value of the additional public health benefits in the USCA states totals almost $280 billion over the two decades. In a more detailed analysis of three USCA statesMassachusetts, Michigan, and Minnesotathe 100% RES scenario leads to almost 200,000 more added jobs in building and installing new electric generation capacity than the No New Policy scenario.

The 100% RES scenario also reduces average energy burdens, the portion of household income spent on energy. Even considering household costs solely for electricity and gas, energy burdens in the 100% RES scenario are at or below those in the No New Policy scenario in each USCA state in most or all years. The average energy burden across those states declines from 3.7 percent of income in 2020 to 3.0 percent in 2040 in the 100% RES scenario, compared with 3.3 percent in 2040 in the No New Policy scenario.

Decreasing the use of fossil fuels through increasing the use of renewables and accelerating electrification reduces emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), with implications for climate, public health, and economies. Annual CO2 emissions from power plants in USCA states decrease 58 percent from 2020 to 2040 in the 100% RES scenario compared with 12 percent in the No New Policy scenario.

The study also reveals gaps to be filled beyond eliminating fossil fuel pollution from communities, such as the persistence of gas generation to sell power to neighboring states, reflecting barriers to a fully renewable grid that policy must address. Further, it stresses the importance of policies targeting just and equitable outcomes in the move to renewable energy.

Moving away from fossil fuels in communities most affected by harmful air pollution should be a top priority in comprehensive energy policies. Many communities continue to bear far too large a share of the negative impacts from decades of siting the infrastructure for the nation's fossil fuel power sector in or near marginalized neighborhoods. This pattern will likely persist if the issue is not acknowledged and addressed. State policies should mandate a priority on reducing emissions in communities overburdened by pollution and avoiding investments inconsistent with the need to remove heat-trapping emissions and air pollution at an accelerated rate. And communities must be centrally involved in decisionmaking around any policies and rules that affect them directly, including proposals to change electricity generation, both to retire fossil fuel plants and to build the renewable energy infrastructure.

Key recommendations in On the Road to 100 Percent Renewables address moving away from fossil fuels, increasing investment in renewable energy, and reducing CO2 emissions. They aim to ensure that communities most affected by a history of environmental racism and pollution share in the benefits of the transition: cleaner air, equitable access to good-paying jobs and entrepreneurship alternatives, affordable energy, and the resilience that renewable energy, electrification, energy efficiency, and energy storage can provide. While many communities can benefit from the transition, strong justice and equity policies will avoid perpetuating inequities in the electricity system. State support to historically underserved communities for investing in solar, energy efficiency, energy storage, and electrification will encourage local investment, community wealth-building, and the resilience benefits the transition to renewable energy can provide.

A national clean electricity standard and strong pollution standards should complement state action to drive swift decarbonization and pollution reduction across the United States. Even so, states are well positioned to simultaneously address climate change and decades of inequities in the power system. While it does not substitute for much-needed national and international leadership, strong state action is crucial to achieving an equitable clean energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Kakrapar Unit 3 700MWe PHWR achieved first criticality, showcasing indigenously designed nuclear power, NPCIL operations, Make in India manufacturing, advanced safety systems, grid integration, and closed-fuel-cycle strategy for India's expansion of pressurised heavy water reactors.

Key Points

India's first indigenous 700MWe PHWR at Kakrapar reached criticality, advancing NPCIL's Make in India nuclear power.

✅ First indigenous 700MWe PHWR achieves criticality

✅ NPCIL-built, Make in India components and contractors

✅ Advanced safety: passive decay heat removal, containment spray

Unit 3 of India’s Kakrapar nuclear plant in Gujarat achieved criticality on 22 July, as milestones at nuclear projects worldwide continue to be reached. It is India’s first indigenously designed 700MWe pressurised heavy water reactor (PHWR) to achieve this milestone.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi congratulated nuclear scientists, saying the reactor is a shining example of the 'Make in India' campaign and of the government's steps to get nuclear back on track in recent years, and a trailblazer for many such future achievements. 

India developed its own nuclear power generation technology as it faced sanctions from the international community following its first nuclear weapons test in in 1974. It has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while China's nuclear energy development is on a steady track according to experts. India has developed a three-stage nuclear programme based on a closed-fuel cycle, where the used fuel of one stage is reprocessed to produce fuel for the next stage.

Kakrapar 3 was developed and is operated by state-owned Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL), while in Europe KHNP considered for a Bulgarian project as countries weigh options. The first two units are 220MWe PHWRs commissioned in 1993 and 1995. NPCIL said in a statement that the components and equipment for Kakrapur 3 were “manufactured by lndian industries and the construction and erection was undertaken by various lndian contractors”.

The 700MWe PHWRs have advanced safety features such as steel lined inner containment, a passive decay heat removal system, a containment spray system, hydrogen management systems etc, the statement added.

Fuel loading was completed by mid-March, a crucial step in Abu Dhabi during its commissioning as well. “Thereafter, many tests and procedures were carried out during the lockdown period following all COVlD-19 guidelines.”

“As a next step, various experiments / tests will be conducted and power will be increased progressively, a path also followed by Barakah Unit 1 reaching 100% power before commercial operations.” Kakrapur 3 will be connected to the western grid and will be India’s 23rd nuclear power reactor.

Kakrapur 3 “is the front runner in a series of 16 indigenous 700MWe PHWRs which have been accorded administrative approval and financial sanction by the government and are at various stages of implementation”. Five similar units are under construction at Kakarapur 4, Rajasthan 7&8 and Gorakhpur1&2.

DAE said in January 2019 that India planned to put 21 new nuclear units with a combined generating capacity of 15,700MWe into operation by 2031, including ten indigenously designed PHWRs, while Bangladesh develops nuclear power with IAEA assistance. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News