Landowners upset over power line

Calgary Winter Storm and Extreme Cold delivers heavy snowfall, ECCC warnings, blowing snow, icy roads, and dangerous wind chill across southern Alberta, as a low-pressure system and northerly inflow fuel hazardous travel and frostbite risks.

Key Points

A severe Alberta storm with heavy snow, strong winds, ECCC warnings, dangerous wind chill, and high frostbite risk.

✅ ECCC extends snowfall and winter storm warnings regionwide.

✅ Wind chill -28 to -47; frostbite possible within 5-30 minutes.

✅ AMA rescues surge; non-essential travel strongly discouraged.

Calgary and much of southern Alberta faced a significant winter storm that brought heavy snowfall, strong winds, and dangerously low temperatures. Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) issued extended and expanded snowfall and winter storm warnings as persistent precipitation streamed along the southern borders. The combination of a low-pressure system off the West Coast, where a B.C. 'bomb cyclone' had left tens of thousands without power, and a northerly inflow at the surface led to significant snow accumulations in a short period.

The storm resulted in poor driving conditions across much of southern Alberta, with snow-packed and icy roads, as well as limited visibility due to blowing snow. ECCC advised postponing non-essential travel until conditions improved. As of 10 a.m. on January 17, the 511 Alberta map showed poor driving conditions throughout the region, while B.C. electricity demand hit an all-time high amid the cold.

In Calgary, the city recorded four centimeters of snow on January 16, with an additional four centimeters expected on January 17. Temperatures remained far below seasonal averages until the end of the week, and Calgary electricity use tends to surge during such cold snaps according to Enmax, with improvements starting on Sunday.

The extreme cold posed significant risks, with wind chills of -28 to -39 capable of causing frostbite in 10 to 30 minutes, as a Quebec power demand record illustrated during the deep freeze. When wind chills dropped to -40 to -47, frostbite could occur in as little as five to 10 minutes. Residents were advised to watch for signs of frostbite, including color changes on fingers and toes, pain, numbness, tingling sensations, or swelling. Those most at risk included young children, older adults, people with chronic illnesses, individuals working or exercising outdoors, and those without proper shelter.

In response to the severe weather, the Alberta Motor Association (AMA) experienced a surge in calls for roadside assistance. Between January 12 and 14, there were approximately 32,000 calls, with about 22,000 of those requiring rescues between January 12 and 14. The high volume of requests led the AMA to temporarily cease providing wait time updates on their website due to the inability to provide accurate information, while debates over Alberta electricity prices also intensified during the cold.

The storm also had broader implications across Canada. Heavy snow was expected to fall across wide swaths of southern British Columbia and parts of southern Alberta, as BC Hydro's winter payment plan offered billing relief to customers during the stretch. Northern Alberta was under extreme cold warnings, with temperatures expected to dip to -40°C through the rest of the week. Similar extreme cold was forecast for southern Ontario, with wind chill values reaching -30°C.

As the storm progressed, conditions began to improve. The wind warning for central Alberta ended by January 17, though a blowing snow advisory remained in effect for the southeast corner of the province. Northwest winds gusting up to 90 km/h combined with falling snow continued to cause poor visibility in some areas, while California power outages and landslides were reported amid concurrent severe storms along the coast. Conditions were expected to improve by mid-morning.

In the aftermath of the storm, residents were reminded of the importance of preparedness and caution during severe winter weather. Staying informed through official weather advisories, adjusting travel plans, and taking necessary precautions can help mitigate the risks associated with such extreme conditions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

UK Wind Power Record as Storm Malik boosts renewable electricity, with National Grid reporting 19,500 megawatts in Scotland, cutting fossil fuel use and easing market prices on the path toward net zero targets.

Key Points

An all-time peak in UK wind generation, reaching 19,500 MW during Storm Malik, supplying over half of electricity.

✅ Peak: 19,500 MW, over 50% of UK electricity.

✅ Driven by Storm Malik; strongest winds in Scotland.

✅ Lowered market prices; reduced fossil fuel generation.

The UK’s windfarms generated a new record for wind power generation over the weekend as Storm Malik battered parts of Scotland and northern England.

Wind speeds of up to 100 miles an hour recorded in Scotland's wind farms helped wind power generation to rise to a provisional all-time high of more than 19,500 megawatts – or more than half the UK’s electricity – according to data from National Grid.

National Grid’s electricity system operator said that although it recognised the new milestone towards the UK’s ‘net zero’ carbon future, where wind is leading the power mix according to recent analyses, it was “also thinking of those affected by Storm Malik”.

The deadly storm caused widespread disruption over the weekend, leaving thousands without electricity and killing two people.

Many of the areas affected by Storm Malik were also hit in December by Storm Arwen, which caused the most severe disruption to power supplies since 2005, leaving almost a million homes without power for up to 12 days.

The winter storms have followed a summer of low wind power generation across the UK and Europe, even though wind produced more electricity than coal for the first time in 2016, which caused increased use of gas power plants during a global supply shortfall.

Gas markets around the world reached record highs due to rising demand for gas, and UK electricity prices hit a 10-year high as economies have rebounded from the economic shock of the Covid-19 pandemic. In the UK, electricity market prices reached an all-time high of more than £424.60 a megawatt-hour in September, compared with an average price of £44/MWh in the same month the year before.

The UK’s weekend surge in renewable electricity helped to provide a temporary reprieve from its heavy reliance on fossil fuel generation in recent months, and on some days wind has been the main source of UK electricity, which has caused market prices to reach record highs.

The market price for electricity on Saturday fell to £150.59 pounds a megawatt-hour, the lowest level since 3 January, while UK peak power prices have risen with the price for power on Sunday, when wind was expected to fall, jumping to more than £193.50/MWh.

The new wind generation record bettered a high recorded last year when the gusty May bank holiday weekend recorded 17.6GW.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Spain Electricity Prices surge to record highs as the wholesale market hits €339.84/MWh, driven by gas costs and CO2 permits, impacting PVPC regulated tariffs, free-market contracts, and household energy bills, OMIE data show.

Key Points

Rates in Spain's wholesale market that shape PVPC tariffs and free-market bills, moving with gas prices and CO2 costs.

✅ Record €339.84/MWh; peak 20:00-21:00; low 04:00-05:00 (OMIE).

✅ PVPC users and free-market contracts face higher bills.

✅ Drivers: high gas prices and rising CO2 emission rights.

Electricity in Spain's wholesale market will rise in price once more as European electricity prices continue to surge. Once again, it will set a historical record in Spain, reaching €339.84/MWh. With this figure, it is already the fifth time that the threshold of €300 has been exceeded.

This new high is a 6.32 per cent increase on today’s average price of €319.63/MWh, which is also a historic record, while Germany's power prices nearly doubled over the past year. Monday’s energy price will make it 682.65 per cent higher than the corresponding date in 2020, when the average was €43.42.

According to data published by the Iberian Energy Market Operator (OMIE), Monday’s maximum will be between the hours of 8pm and 9pm, reaching €375/MWh, a pattern echoed by markets where Electric Ireland price hikes reflect wholesale volatility. The cheapest will be from 4am to 5am, at €267.99.

The prices of the ‘pool’ have a direct effect on the regulated tariff  – PVPC – to which almost 11 million consumers in the country are connected, and serve as a reference for the other 17 million who have contracted their supply in the free market, where rolling back prices is proving difficult across Europe.

These spiraling prices in recent months, which have fueled EU energy inflation, are being blamed on high gas prices in the markets, and carbon dioxide (CO2) emission rights, both of which reached record highs this year.

According to an analysis by Facua-Consumidores en Acción, if the same rates were maintained for the rest of the month, the last invoice of the year would reach €134.45 for the average user. That would be 94.1 per cent above the €69.28 for December 2020, while U.S. residential electricity bills rose about 5% in 2022 after inflation adjustments.

The average user’s bill so far this year has increased by 15.1 per cent compared to 2018, as US electricity prices posted their largest jump in 41 years. Thus, compared to the €77.18 of three years ago, the average monthly bill now reaches €90.87 euros. However, the Government continues to insist that this year households will end up paying the same as in 2018.

As Ruben Sanchez, the general secretary of Facua commented, “The electricity bill for December would have to be negative for President Sanchez, and Minister Ribera, to fulfill their promise that this year consumers will pay the same as in 2018 once the CPI has been discounted”.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

China Industrial Power Demand 2020 highlights COVID-19 disruption to electricity consumption as factory output stalls; IHS Markit estimates losses equal to Chile's usage, impacting thermal coal, LNG, and Hubei's industrial load.

Key Points

An analysis of COVID-19's hit to China's electricity use, cutting industry demand and fuel needs for coal and LNG.

✅ 73 billion kWh loss equals Chile's annual power use

✅ Cuts translate to 30m tonnes coal or 9m tonnes LNG

✅ Hubei peak load 21 percent below plan amid shutdowns

China’s industrial power demand in 2020 may decline by as much as 73 billion kilowatt hours (kWh), according to IHS Markit, as the outbreak of the coronavirus has curtailed factory output and prevented some workers from returning to their jobs.

FILE PHOTO: Smoke is seen from a cooling tower of a China Energy ultra-low emission coal-fired power plant during a media tour, in Sanhe, Hebei province, China July 18, 2019. REUTERS/Shivani Singh
The cut represents about 1.5% of industrial power consumption in China. But, as the country is the world’s biggest electricity consumer and analyses of China's electricity appetite routinely underscore its scale, the loss is equal to the power used in the whole of Chile and it illustrates the scope of the disruption caused by the outbreak.

The reduction is the energy equivalent of about 30 million tonnes of thermal coal, at a time when China aims to reduce coal power production, or about 9 million tonnes of liquefied natural gas (LNG), IHS said. The coal figure is more than China’s average monthly imports last year while the LNG figure is a little more than one month of imports, based on customs data.

China has tried to curtail the spread of the coronavirus that has killed more than 1,400 and infected over 60,000 by extending the Lunar New Year holiday for an extra week and encouraging people to work from home, measures that contributed to a global dip in electricity demand as well.

Last year, industrial users consumed 4.85 trillion kWh electricity, accounting for 67% of the country’s total, even as India's electricity demand showed sharp declines in the region.

Xizhou Zhou, the global head of power and Renewables at IHS Markit, said that in a severe case where the epidemic goes on past March, China’s economic growth will be only 4.2% during 2020, down from an initial forecast of 5.8%, while power consumption will climb by only 3.1%, down from 4.1% initially, even as power cuts and blackouts raise concerns.

“The main uncertainty is still how fast the virus will be brought under control,” said Zhou, adding that the impact on the power sector will be relatively modest from a full-year picture in 2020, even though China's electric power woes are already clouding solar markets.

In Hubei province, the epicenter of the virus outbreak, the peak power load at the end of January was 21% less than planned, mirroring how Japan's power demand was hit during the outbreak, data from Wood Mackenzie showed.

Industrial operating rates point to a firm reduction in power consumption in China.

Utilization rates at plastic processors are between 30% and 60% and the low levels are expected to last for another two week, according to ICIS China.

Weaving machines at textile plants are operating at below 10% of capacity, the lowest in five years, ICIS data showed. China is the world’s biggest textile and garment exporter.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Pickering Nuclear Closure will shift supply to natural gas, raising emissions as the electricity grid manages nuclear refurbishment, IESO planning, clean power imports, and new wind, solar, and storage to support electrification.

Key Points

Ontario will close Pickering and rely on natural gas, increasing emissions while other nuclear units are refurbished.

✅ 14% of Ontario electricity supplied by Pickering now

✅ Natural gas use rises; grid emissions projected up 375%

✅ IESO warns gas phaseout by 2030 risks blackouts, costs

The Ontario government will not reconsider plans to close the Pickering nuclear station and instead stop-gap the consequent electricity shortfall with natural gas-generated power in a move that will, as an analysis of Ontario's grid shows, hike the province’s greenhouse gas emissions substantially in the coming years.

In a report released this week, a nuclear advocacy group urged Ontario to refurbish the aging facility east of Toronto, which is set to be shuttered in phases in 2024 and 2025, prompting debate over a clean energy plan after Pickering as the closure nears. The closure of Pickering, which provides 14 per cent of the province’s annual electricity supply, comes at the same time as Ontario’s other two nuclear stations are undergoing refurbishment and operating at reduced capacity.

Canadians for Nuclear Energy, which is largely funded by power workers' unions, argued closing the 50-year-old facility will result in job losses, emissions increases, heightened reliance on imported natural gas and an electricity supply gap across Ontario.

But Palmer Lockridge, spokesperson for the provincial energy minister, said further extending Pickering’s lifespan isn’t on the table.

“As previously announced in 2020, our government is supporting Ontario Power Generation’s plan to safely extend the life of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station through the end of 2025,” said Lockridge in an emailed response to questions.

“Going forward, we are ensuring a reliable, affordable and clean electricity system for decades to come. That’s why we put a plan in place that ensures we are prepared for the emerging energy needs following the closure of Pickering, and as a result of our government’s success in growing and electrifying the province’s economy.”

The Progressive Conservative government under Premier Doug Ford has invested heavily in electrification, sinking billions into electric vehicle and battery manufacturing and industries like steel-making to retool plants to run on electricity rather than coal, and exploring new large-scale nuclear plants to bolster baseload supply.

Natural gas now provides about seven per cent of the province’s energy, a piece of the pie that will rise significantly as nuclear energy dwindles. Emissions from Ontario’s electricity grid, which is currently one of the world’s cleanest with 94 per cent zero-emission power generation, are projected to rise a whopping 375 per cent as the province turns increasingly to natural gas generation. Those increases will effectively undo a third of the hard-won emissions reductions the province achieved by phasing out coal-fired power generation.

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), which manages Ontario’s grid, studied whether the province could phase out natural gas generation by 2030 and concluded that “would result in blackouts and hinder electrification” and increase average residential electricity costs by $100 per month.

The Ontario Clean Air Alliance, however, obtained draft documents from the electricity operator that showed it had studied, but not released publicly, other scenarios that involved phasing out natural gas without energy shortfalls, price hikes or increases in emissions.

The Ontario government will not reconsider plans to close the Pickering nuclear station and instead stop-gap the consequent electricity shortfall facing Ontario with natural gas-generated power in a move that will hike the province’s greenhouse gas emissions.

One model suggested increasing carbon taxes and imports of clean energy from other provinces could keep blackouts, costs and emissions at bay, while another involved increasing energy efficiency, wind generation and storage.

“By banning gas-fired electricity exports to the U.S., importing all the Quebec water power we can with the existing transmission lines and investing in energy efficiency and wind and solar and storage — do all those things and you can phase out gas-fired power and lower our bills,” said Jack Gibbons, chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance.

The IESO has argued in response that the study of those scenarios was not complete and did not include many of the challenges associated with phasing out natural gas plants.

Ontario Energy Minister Todd Smith asked the IESO to develop “an achievable pathway to zero-emissions in the electricity sector and evaluate a moratorium on new-build natural gas generation stations,” said his spokesperson. That report, an early look at halting gas power, is expected in November.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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