Missing radioactive part found

Rolls-Royce and Exelon UKSMR Partnership accelerates factory-built small modular reactors, nuclear power, clean energy, 440MW units, advanced manufacturing, fleet deployment, net zero goals, and resilient, low-cost baseload generation in the UK and globally.

Key Points

A partnership to deploy factory-built SMR stations, providing 440MW low-carbon baseload for the UK and export markets.

✅ 440MW factory-built SMR units with rapid modular assembly

✅ Exelon to operate and enhance high capacity factors

✅ Supports UK net zero, jobs, and export-led manufacturing

Rolls-Royce and Exelon Generation have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to pursue the potential for Exelon Generation to operate compact nuclear power stations both in the UK and internationally, including markets such as Canada where New Brunswick SMR questions are prompting public debate today.

Exelon Generation will be using their operational experience to assist Rolls Royce in the development and deployment of the UKSMR.

Rolls-Royce is leading a consortium that is designing a low-cost factory built nuclear power station, known as a small modular reactor (SMR), with UK mini-reactor approval anticipated as development progresses. Its standardised, factory-made components and advanced manufacturing processes push costs down, while the rapid assembly of the modules and components inside a weatherproof canopy on the power station site itself avoid costly schedule disruptions.

The consortium is working with its partners and UK Government to secure a commitment for a fleet of factory built nuclear power stations, each providing 440MW of electricity, to be operational within a decade, helping the UK meet its net zero obligations in line with the green industrial revolution policy set out by government. A fleet deployment in the UK will lead to the creation of new factories that will make the components and modules which will help the economy recover from the Covid-19 pandemic and pave the way for significant export opportunities as well.

The consortium members feature the best of nuclear engineering, construction and infrastructure expertise in Assystem, Atkins, BAM Nuttall, Jacobs, Laing O'Rourke, National Nuclear Laboratory, Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, Rolls-Royce and TWI. Exelon will add valuable operational experience to the team.

Tom Samson, interim Chief Executive Officer of the UKSMR consortium, said: 'Nuclear power is central to tackling climate change and economic recovery, but it must be affordable, reliable and investable and the way we manufacture and assemble our power station brings its cost down to be comparable with offshore wind.

'It's a compelling proposition that could draw new players into the UK's power generation landscape, improving choice for consumers and providing uninterrupted low carbon energy to homes and businesses.

'The opportunity to partner with Exelon is a very exciting prospect for our program, complementing our existing Consortium partnerships with one of the world's largest nuclear operator adds an important dimension to our growth ambitions, embodies the strength of the UK and USA alliance on nuclear matters and reflects wider international moves, such as a Canadian premiers' SMR initiative to accelerate technology development, and offers our future customers the ability to achieve the highest performance standards associated with Exelon's outstanding operational track record.'

The power stations will be built by the UKSMR consortium, before being handed over to be operated by power generation companies. Exelon Generation will work closely with the consortium during the pre-operation period. Exelon Nuclear operates 21 nuclear reactors in America, and U.S. regulators recently issued a final safety evaluation for a NuScale SMR that underscores momentum in the sector. The Exelon nuclear fleet is an integral part of the U.S. clean power mix; it produces more than 158 million megawatt-hours of clean electricity every year.

Bryan Hanson, EVP and COO of Exelon Generation said: 'We believe that SMRs are a crucial part of the world's clean energy mix, as projects like Darlington SMRs advance in Ontario. With our experience both in the US and internationally, Exelon is confident that we can help Rolls Royce ensure SMRs play a key role in the UK's energy future. We've had a very strong record of performance for 20 consecutive years, with a 2019 capacity factor of 95.7 percent. We will leverage this experience to achieve sustainably high capacity factors for the UKSMRs.'

Ralph Hunter, Managing Director of Exelon Nuclear Partners, who runs Exelon's international clean energy business, said: 'We have a strong track record of success to be the operator of choice for the UKSMR. We will help develop operational capability, training and human capacity development in the UK, as utilities such as Ontario Power Generation commit to SMRs abroad, ensuring localisation of skills and a strong culture of safety, performance and efficiency.'

By 2050 a full UK programme of a fleet of factory built nuclear power stations in the UK could create:

Up to 40,000 jobs GBP52BN of value to the UK economy GBP250BN of exports

The current phase of the programme has been jointly funded by all consortium members and UK Research and Innovation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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

BC Hydro Deferred Regulatory Assets detail $5.5 billion in costs under rate-regulated accounting, to be recovered from ratepayers, highlighting B.C. Utilities Commission oversight, audit scrutiny, financial reporting impacts, and public utility governance.

Key Points

BC Hydro defers costs as regulatory assets to recover from ratepayers, influencing rates and financial reporting.

✅ $5.5B in deferred costs recorded as net regulatory assets

✅ Rate impacts tied to B.C. Utilities Commission oversight

✅ Auditor General to assess accounting and governance

Auditor General Carol Bellringer says BC Hydro has deferred $5.5 billion in expenses that it plans to recover from ratepayers in the future, as rates to rise by 3.75% over two years.

Bellringer focuses on the deferred expenses in a report on the public utility's use of rate-regulated accounting to control electricity rates for customers.

"As of March 31, 2018, BC Hydro reported a total net regulatory asset of $5.455 billion, which is what ratepayers owe," says the report. "BC Hydro expects to recover this from ratepayers in the future. For BC Hydro, this is an asset. For ratepayers, this is a debt."

She says rate-regulated accounting is used widely across North America, but cautions that Hydro has largely overridden the role of the independent B.C. Utilities Commission to regulate rates.

"We think it's important for the people of B.C. and our members of the legislative assembly to better understand rate-regulated accounting in order to appreciate the impact it has on the bottom line for BC Hydro, for government as a whole, for ratepayers and for taxpayers, especially following a three per cent rate increase in April 2018," Bellringer said in a conference call with reporters.

Last June, the B.C. government launched a two-phase review of BC Hydro to find cost savings and look at the direction of the Crown utility, amid calls for change from advocates.

The review came shortly after a planned government rate freeze was overturned by the utilities commission, which resulted in a three per cent rate increase in April 2018.

A statement by BC Hydro and the government says a key objective of the review due this month is to enhance the regulatory oversight of the commission.

Bellringer's office will become BC Hydro's auditor next year — and will be assessing the impact of regulation on the utility's financial reporting.

"It is a complex area and confidence in the regulatory system is critical to protect the public interest," wrote Bellringer.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Maritime Link HVDC Transmission connects Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to the North American grid, enabling renewable energy imports, subsea cable interconnection, Muskrat Falls hydro power delivery, and lower carbon emissions across Atlantic Canada.

Key Points

A 500 MW HVDC intertie linking Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to deliver Muskrat Falls hydro power.

✅ 500 MW capacity using twin 170 km subsea HVDC cables

✅ Interconnects Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to the North American grid

✅ Enables Muskrat Falls hydro imports, cutting CO2 and costs

For the first time, electricity has been sent between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia through the new Maritime Link.

The 500-megawatt transmission line — which connects Newfoundland to the North American energy grid for the first time and echoes projects like the New England Clean Power Link underway — was tested Friday.

"This changes not only the energy options for Newfoundland and Labrador but also for Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada," said Rick Janega, the CEO of Emera Newfoundland and Labrador, which owns the link.

"It's an historic event in our eyes, one that transforms the electricity system in our region forever."

'On time and on budget'

It will eventually carry power from the Muskrat Falls hydro project in Labrador, where construction is running two years behind schedule and $4 billion over budget, a context in which the Manitoba Hydro line to Minnesota has also faced delay, to Nova Scotia consumers. It was supposed to start producing power later this year, but the new deadline is 2020 at the earliest.

The project includes two 170-kilometre subsea cables across the Cabot Strait between Cape Ray in southwestern Newfoundland and Point Aconi in Cape Breton.

The two cables, each the width of a two-litre pop bottle, can carry 250 megawatts of high voltage direct current, and rest on the ocean floor at depths up to 470 metres.

This reel of cable arrived in St. John's back in April aboard the Norwegian vessel Nexans Skagerrak, after the first power cable reached Nova Scotia earlier in the project. (Submitted by Emera NL)

The Maritime Link also includes almost 50 kilometres of overland transmission in Nova Scotia and more than 300 kilometres of overland transmission in Newfoundland, paralleling milestones on Site C transmission work in British Columbia.

The link won't go into commercial operation until January 1.

Janega said the $1.6-billion project is on time and on budget.

"We're very pleased to be in a position to be able to say that after seven years of working on this. It's quite an accomplishment," he said.

This Norwegian vessel was used to transport the 5,500 tonne subsea cable. (Submitted by Emera NL)

Once in service, the link will improve electrical interconnections between the Atlantic provinces, aligning with climate adaptation guidance for Canadian utilities.

"For Nova Scotia it will allow it to achieve its 40 per cent renewable energy target in 2020. For Newfoundland it will allow them to shut off the Holyrood generating station, in fact using the Maritime Link in advance of the balance of the project coming into service," Janega said.

Karen Hutt, president and CEO of Nova Scotia Power, which is owned by Emera Inc., calls it a great day for Nova Scotia.

"When it goes into operation in January, the Maritime Link will benefit Nova Scotia Power customers by creating a more stable and secure system, helping reduce carbon emissions, and enabling NSP to purchase power from new sources," Hutt said in a statement.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

Hydro One Rate Hike reflects Ontario Energy Board approval for higher delivery charges, impacting seasonal customers more than residential classes, funding infrastructure upgrades like wood pole and transformer replacements across Ontario's medium-density service areas.

Key Points

The Hydro One rate hike is an OEB-approved delivery charge increase to fund upgrades, with impacts on seasonal users.

✅ OEB-approved delivery rate increases retroactive to 2018

✅ Seasonal customers see larger monthly bill impacts than residential

✅ Funds pole, transformer replacements and tree trimming work

Hydro One seasonal customers will face bigger increases in their bills than the utility's residential customers as a result of an Ontario Energy Board approval of a rate hike, a topic drawing attention from a utilities watchdog in other provinces as well.

Hydro One received permission to increase its delivery charge, as large projects like the Meaford hydro generation proposal are considered across Ontario, retroactive to last year.

It says it needs the money to maintain and upgrade its infrastructure, including efforts to adapt to climate change, much of which was installed in the 1950s.

The utility is notifying customers that new statements reflect higher delivery rates which were not charged in 2018 and the first half of this year, due to delay in receiving the OEB's permission, similar to delays that can follow an energy board recommendation in other jurisdictions.

The amount that customers' bills will increase by depends not only on how much electricity they use, but also on which rate class they belong to, as well as policy decisions affecting remote connections such as the First Nations electricity line in northern Ontario.

For seasonal customers such as summer cottage owners, the impact on a typical user's bill will be 2.9 per cent more per month for 2018, and 1.7 per cent per month for 2019.

There will be further increases of 1.0 per cent, 1.4 per cent and 1.1 per cent per month in 2020, 2021 and 2022 respectively. 

Typical residential customers will experience smaller increases or rate freezes over the same period.

In the residential medium density class, the rate changes are a 2.0 per cent increase for last year, a decrease of 0.5 per cent this year, and an increase of 0.5 per cent in 2021. There will be no increases in 2020 and 2022.

Seasonal Rate Class — Estimated bill impact per month

2018 - 2.9 %

2019 - 1.7%

2020 - 1.0%

2021 - 1.4%

2022 - 1.1%

Residential Medium Density Rate Class — Estimated bill impact per month

2018 - 2.0%

2019 - -0.5% decrease

2020 - 0.0%

2021 - 0.5%

2022 - 0.0%

A Hydro One spokesperson told tbnewswatch.com that over the next three years, the utility's upgrading plan includes reliability investments such as replacing more than 24,000 wood poles across the province as well as numerous transformers.

In the Thunder Bay area, the spokesperson said, some of the revenue generated by the higher delivery rates will cover the cost of replacing more than 180 poles and trimming hazardous trees around 3,200 kilometres of overhead power lines while sharing electrical safety tips with customers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News