Study assesses risk and hazards in older homes

Nithi Mountain Wind Project delivers 200 MW of renewable wind power in British Columbia under a BC Hydro electricity purchase deal, producing 600 GWh yearly, led by Stellat'en First Nation and Innergex.

Key Points

A 200 MW wind farm in British Columbia producing 600 GWh yearly, co-owned by Stellat'en First Nation and Innergex.

✅ 30-year BC Hydro take-or-pay PPA, CPI-indexed

✅ 200 MW capacity, ~600 GWh per year for ~60,000 homes

✅ 51% Stellat'en First Nation; operations targeted for 2030

In December 2024, a significant development unfolded in British Columbia's renewable energy sector, where the clean-energy regulatory process continues to evolve, as Stellat'en First Nation and Innergex Renewable Energy Inc. announced the signing of a 30-year electricity purchase agreement with BC Hydro. This agreement pertains to the Nithi Mountain Wind Project, a 200 MW initiative poised to enhance the province's clean energy capacity.

Project Overview

The Nithi Mountain Wind Project is a collaborative venture between Stellat'en First Nation, which holds a 51% stake, and Innergex Renewable Energy Inc., which holds a 49% stake. Located in the Bulkley-Nechako region of British Columbia, the project is expected to generate approximately 600 GWh of renewable electricity annually, comparable to other large-scale projects like the 280 MW wind farm in Alberta now online, sufficient to power around 60,000 homes. The wind farm is scheduled to commence commercial operations in 2030.

Economic and Community Impact

This partnership is anticipated to create approximately 150 job opportunities during the development, construction, and operational phases, thereby supporting local economic growth and workforce development, and aligns with recent federal green electricity procurement efforts that signal broader market support. The long-term electricity purchase agreement with BC Hydro is structured as a 30-year take-or-pay contract, indexed to a predefined percentage of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), ensuring financial stability and protection against inflation.

Environmental and Cultural Considerations

The Nithi Mountain Wind Project is being developed in close collaboration with First Nations in the area, guided by collaborative land-use planning. The project integrates cultural preservation, environmental stewardship, and economic empowerment for Indigenous communities in the Bulkley-Nechako region, while other solutions such as tidal energy for remote communities are also advancing across Canada. The project is committed to minimizing environmental impact by avoiding sensitive cultural and ecological resources and integrating sustainability at every stage, with remediation practices to restore the land, preserve cultural values, and enhance biodiversity and wildlife habitats if decommissioned.

Broader Implications

This agreement underscores a growing trend of collaboration between Indigenous communities, exemplified by the Ermineskin First Nation project emerging nationwide, and renewable energy developers in Canada. Such partnerships are instrumental in advancing sustainable energy projects that respect Indigenous rights and contribute to the nation's clean energy objectives, as renewable power developers find that diversified energy sources strengthen project outcomes. The Nithi Mountain Wind Project exemplifies how integrating traditional knowledge with modern renewable energy technologies can lead to mutually beneficial outcomes for both Indigenous communities and the broader society.

In summary, the Nithi Mountain Wind Project represents a significant step forward in British Columbia's renewable energy landscape, highlighting the importance of collaboration between Indigenous communities and renewable energy developers. The project promises substantial economic, environmental, and cultural benefits, setting a precedent for future partnerships in the clean energy sector, as large-scale storage acquisitions like Centrica's battery project illustrate complementary pathways to unlock wind potential.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Seattle City Light Energy Efficiency Programs help 93,000 residents cut bills with rebates, home energy audits, weatherization, conservation workshops, and sustainability tools, reducing electricity use and greenhouse gas emissions across Seattle communities.

Key Points

They are utility programs that lower electricity use and bills via rebates, energy audits, and weatherization services.

✅ Rebates for ENERGY STAR appliances and efficient HVAC upgrades

✅ Free audits with tailored recommendations and savings roadmaps

✅ Weatherization aid for low-income households and renters

In a noteworthy achievement for both residents and the environment, Seattle City Light has successfully helped more than 93,000 customers reduce their electricity bills through various energy efficiency programs. This initiative not only alleviates financial burdens for many households, amid concerns about pandemic-era shut-offs that heightened energy insecurity, but also aligns with the city’s commitment to sustainability and responsible energy use.

The Drive for Energy Efficiency

Seattle City Light, the city’s publicly owned electric utility, has been at the forefront of promoting energy efficiency among its customers. Recognizing that energy costs can strain household budgets, the utility has developed a range of programs and tracks emerging utility rate designs to help residents lower their energy consumption and, consequently, their bills.

One of the main aspects of this initiative is the emphasis on education and awareness. By providing customers with tools and resources to understand their energy usage, City Light empowers residents to make informed choices that can lead to substantial savings and prepare for power outage events as well.

Key Programs and Services

Seattle City Light offers a variety of programs aimed at reducing energy consumption. Among the most popular are:

1. Energy Efficiency Rebates: Customers can receive rebates for purchasing energy-efficient appliances, such as refrigerators, washing machines, and HVAC systems. These appliances are designed to consume less electricity than traditional models, resulting in lower energy bills over time.

2. Home Energy Audits: Free energy audits are available for residential customers. During these audits, trained professionals assess homes for energy efficiency and provide recommendations on improvements. This personalized service allows homeowners to understand specific changes that can lead to savings.

3. Weatherization Assistance: This program is particularly beneficial for low-income households. By improving insulation, sealing air leaks, and enhancing overall energy efficiency, residents can maintain comfortable indoor temperatures without over-relying on heating and cooling systems.

4. Community Workshops: Seattle City Light conducts workshops that educate residents about energy conservation strategies. These sessions cover topics such as smart energy use, seasonal tips for reducing consumption, and the benefits of renewable energy sources, highlighting examples of clean energy engagement in other cities.

The Impact on Households

The impact of these initiatives is profound. By assisting over 93,000 customers in lowering their electricity bills, Seattle City Light not only provides immediate financial relief but also encourages a long-term commitment to energy conservation. This collective effort has resulted in significant reductions in overall energy consumption, contributing to a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions—a critical step in the fight against climate change.

Additionally, the programs have been particularly beneficial for low-income households. By targeting these communities, Seattle City Light ensures that the benefits of energy efficiency reach those who need them the most, promoting equity-focused regulation and access to essential resources.

Looking Ahead: Challenges and Opportunities

While the success of these initiatives is commendable, challenges remain. Fluctuating energy prices can still pose difficulties for many households, especially those on fixed incomes, as some utilities explore minimum charges for low-usage customers in their rate structures. Seattle City Light recognizes the need for ongoing support and resources to help residents navigate these financial challenges.

The utility is committed to expanding its programs to reach even more customers in the future. This includes enhancing outreach efforts to ensure that residents are aware of the available resources, even as debates like utility revenue in a free-electricity future shape planning, and potentially forming partnerships with local organizations to broaden the impact of its initiatives.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

India Coal Power PLF rose as capacity utilisation improved on rising peak demand and hydropower shortfall; thermal plants lifted plant load factor, IPPs lagged, and generation beat program targets amid weak rainfall and slower snowmelt.

Key Points

Coal plant load factor in India rose in May on higher demand and weak hydropower, with generation beating targets.

✅ PLF rose to 65.3% as demand climbed

✅ Hydel generation fell 14% YoY on poor rainfall

✅ IPP PLF at 57.8%, below 60% debt comfort

Capacity utilisation levels of coal-based power plants improved in May because of a surge in electricity demand and lower generation from hydroelectric sources. The plant load factor (PLF) of thermal power plants went up to 65.3% in the month, 1.7 percentage points higher than the year-ago period.

While PLFs of central and state government-owned plants were 75.5% and 64.5%, respectively, the same for independent power producers (IPPs) stood at 57.8%, even as coal and electricity shortages eased across the market. Though PLFs of IPPs were higher than May 2017 levels, it failed to cross the 60% mark, which eases debt servicing capabilities of power generation assets.

Thermal power plants generated 96,580 million units (MU) in May, 4% more than the programme set for the month and 5.2% higher than last year, partly supported by higher imported coal volumes in the market. On the other hand, hydel plants produced 10,638 MU, 10% lower than the target, reflecting a 14% decline from last year.

#google#

Peak demand of power on the last day of the month was 1,62,132 MW, 4.3% higher than the demand registered in the same day a year ago, underscoring India's position as the third-largest electricity producer globally.

According to sources, hydropower plants have been generating lesser than expected electricity due to inadequate rainfall and snow melting at a slower pace than previous years, even as the US reported a power generation jump year on year. Data for power generation from renewable sources have not been made available yet.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Hydro Crisis highlights soaring electricity rates, costly subsidies, nuclear refurbishments, and stalled renewables in Ontario. Policy missteps, weak planning, and rising natural gas emissions burden ratepayers while energy efficiency and storage remain underused.

Key Points

High power costs and subsidies from policy errors, nuclear refurbishments, stalled efficiency and renewables in Ontario.

✅ $5.6B yearly subsidy masks electricity rates and deficits

✅ Nuclear refurbishments embed rising costs for decades

✅ Efficiency, storage, and DERs stalled amid weak planning

By Mark Winfield

While the troubled Site C and Muskrat Falls hydroelectric dam projects in B.C. and Newfoundland and Labrador have drawn a great deal of national attention over the past few months, Ontario has quietly been having a hydro crisis of its own.

One of the central promises in the 2018 platform of the Ontario Progressive Conservative party was to “clean up the hydro mess,” and then-PC leader Doug Ford vowed to fire Hydro One's leadership as part of that effort. There certainly is a mess, with the costs of subsidies taken from general provincial revenues to artificially lower hydro rates nearing $7 billion annually. That is a level approaching the province’s total pre-COVID-19 annual deficit. After only two years, that will also exceed total expected cost overruns of the Site C and Muskrat Falls projects, currently estimated at $12 billion ($6 billion each).

There is no doubt that Doug Ford’s government inherited a significant mess around the province’s electricity system from the previous Liberal governments of former premiers Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. But the Ford government has also demonstrated a remarkable capacity for undoing the things its predecessors had managed to get right while doubling down on their mistakes.

The Liberals did have some significant achievements. Most notably: coal-fired electricity generation, which constituted 25 per cent of the province’s electricity supply in the early 2000s, was phased out in 2014. The phaseout dramatically improved air quality in the province. There was also a significant growth in renewable energy production. From  virtually zero in 2003, the province installed 4,500 MW of wind-powered generation, and 450 MW of solar photovoltaic by 2018, a total capacity more than double that of the Sir Adam Beck Generating Stations at Niagara Falls.

At the same time, public concerns over rising hydro rates flowing from a major reconstruction of the province’s electricity system from 2003 onwards became a central political issue in the province. But rather than reconsider the role of the key drivers of the continuing rate increases – namely the massively expensive and risky refurbishments of the Darlington and Bruce nuclear facilities, the Liberals adopted a financially ruinous Fair Hydro Plan. The central feature of the 2017 plan was a short-term 25 per cent reduction in hydro rates, financed by removing the provincial portion of the HST from hydro bills, and by extending the amortization period for capital projects within the system. The total cost of the plan in terms of lost revenues and financing costs has been estimated in excess of $40 billion over 29 years, with the burden largely falling on future ratepayers and taxpayers.

Decision-making around the electricity system became deeply politicized, and a secret cabinet forecast of soaring prices intensified public debate across Ontario. Legislation adopted by the Wynne government in 2016 eliminated the requirement for the development of system plans to be subject to any form of meaningful regulatory oversight or review. Instead, the system was guided through directives from the provincial cabinet. Major investments like the Darlington and Bruce refurbishments proceeded without meaningful, public, external reviews of their feasibility, costs or alternatives.

The Ford government proceeded to add more layers to these troubles. The province’s relatively comprehensive framework for energy efficiency was effectively dismantled in March, 2019, with little meaningful replacement. That was despite strong evidence that energy efficiency offered the most cost-effective strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and electricity costs.

The Ford government basically retained the Fair Hydro Plan and promised further rate reductions, later tabling legislation to lower electricity rates as well. To its credit, the government did take steps to clarify real costs of the plan. Last year, these were revealed to amount to a de facto $5.6 billion-per-year subsidy coming from general revenues, and rising. That constituted the major portion of the province’s $7.4 billion pre-COVID-19 deficit. The financial hole was deepened further through November’s financial statement, with the addition of a further $1.3 billion subsidy to commercial and industrial consumers. The numbers can only get worse as the costs of the Darlington and Bruce refurbishments become embedded more fully into electricity rates.

The government also quietly dispensed with the last public vestige of an energy planning framework, relieving itself of the requirement to produce a Long-Term Energy Plan every three years. The next plan would normally have been due next month, in February.

Even the gains from the 2014 phaseout of coal-fired electricity are at risk. Major increases are projected in emissions of greenhouse gases, smog-causing nitrogen oxides and particulate matter from natural gas-fired power plants as the plants are run to cover electricity needs during the Bruce and Darlington refurbishments over the next decade. These developments could erode as much as 40 per cent of the improvements in air quality and greenhouse gas emission gained through the coal phaseout.

The province’s activities around renewable energy, energy storage and distributed energy resources are at a standstill, with exception of a few experimental “sandbox” projects, while other jurisdictions face profound electricity-sector change and adapt. Globally, these technologies are seen as the leading edge of energy-system development and decarbonization. Ontario seems to have chosen to make itself an energy innovation wasteland instead.

The overall result is a system with little or no space for innovation that is embedding ever-higher costs while trying to disguise those costs at enormous expense to the provincial treasury and still failing to provide effective relief to low-income electricity consumers.

The decline in electricity demand associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, along with the introduction of a temporary recovery rate for electricity, gives the province an opportunity to step back and consider its next steps with the electricity system. A phaseout of the Fair Hydro Plan electricity-rate reduction and its replacement with a more cost-effective strategy of targeted relief aimed at those most heavily burdened by rising hydro rates, particularly rural and low-income consumers, as reconnection efforts for nonpayment have underscored the hardship faced by many households, would be a good place to start.

Next, the province needs to conduct a comprehensive, public review of electricity options available to it, including additional renewables – the costs of which have fallen dramatically over the past decade – distributed energy resources, hydro imports from Quebec and energy efficiency before proceeding with further nuclear refurbishments.

In the longer term, a transparent, evidence-based process for electricity system planning needs to be established – one that is subject to substantive public and regulatory oversight and review. Finally, the province needs to establish a new organization to be called Energy Efficiency Ontario to revive its efforts around energy efficiency, developing a comprehensive energy-efficiency strategy for the province, covering electricity and natural gas use, and addressing the needs of marginalized communities.

Without these kinds of steps, the province seems destined to continue to lurch from contradictory decision after contradictory decision as the economic and environmental costs of the system’s existing trajectory continue to rise.

Mark Winfield is a professor of environmental studies at York University and co-chair of the university’s Sustainable Energy Initiative.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Advanced Nuclear Reactors redefine nuclear energy with SMRs, diverse fuels, passive safety, digital control rooms, and flexible heat and power, pairing veteran operator expertise with cost-efficient, carbon-free electricity for a resilient grid.

Key Points

SMR-based advanced reactors with passive cooling and digital controls deliver flexible power and process heat.

✅ Veteran operators transfer proven safety culture and risk management.

✅ SMRs, passive safety, and digital controls simplify operations.

✅ Flexible output: electricity, process heat, and grid support.

Advanced reactors will break the mold of what we think next-gen nuclear power can accomplish: some will be smaller, some will use different kinds of fuel and others will do more than just make electricity. This new technology may seem like uncharted waters, but when operators, technicians and other workers start up the first reactors of the new generation, they will bring with them years of nuclear experience to run machines that have been optimized with lessons from the current fleet.

While advanced reactors are often portrayed as the future of nuclear energy, and atomic energy is heating up across markets, its our current plants that have paved the way for these exciting innovations and which will be workhorses for years to come.

Reactor Veterans Bring Their Expertise to New Designs

Many of the workers who will operate the next generation of reactors come from a nuclear background. Even though the design of an advanced reactor may be different, the experience and instincts these operators have gained from working at the current fleet will help new plants get off to a more productive start.

They have a questioning attitude; they are always exploring what could go wrong and always understanding the notion of risk management in nuclear operations, whether its the oldest design or the newest design, said Chip Pardee, the president of Terrestrial Energy USA, who is the former chief operating officer at two nuclear utilities, Exelon Corp. and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

They have respect for the technology and a bias towards conservative decision-making.

Jhansi Kandasamy, vice president of engineering at GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, agrees. She said that the presence of industry veterans will benefit the new modelslike the 300 megawatt boiling water reactor her company is developing.

From the beginning, a new reactor will have people who have touched it, worked on it, and experienced it, she said.

Theyre going to be able to tell you if something doesnt look right, because theyve lived through it.

Experience Informs New Reactor Design

Advanced reactors are designed by engineers who are fully familiar with existing plants and can use that experience to optimize the new ones, like a family building a house and wanting the kitchen just so. New reactors will be simpler to operate because of insights gained from years of operations of the current fleet, and some designs even integrate molten salt energy storage to enhance flexibility.

NuScale Power LLC, for example, has a very different design from the current fleet amid an advanced nuclear push that is reshaping development: up to 12 small reactorsinstead of one or two large reactorsmanaged from a single digital control roominstead of one full of analog switches and dials. When the company designed its control room, it brought in industry veterans who had collectively worked at more than two dozen nuclear plants.

The experts that NuScale brought in critiqued everything, even down to the shape of the symbols on the computer screens to make them easier to read for operators who sometimes need to quickly interpret lots of incoming data. The control panels for NuScales small modular reactor (SMR) present information according to its importance and automatically call up appropriate procedures for operators.

Many advanced reactors are also smaller than those currently operating, which makes their components simpler and less expensive. Kandasamy pointed out that the giant mechanical pumps in todays reactors generate a lot of heat and require a lot of supporting systems, including air conditioning in the rooms that house them.

GE Hitachis SMR design relies more on passive cooling so it needs fewer pumps, and those that remain use magnets, so they generate less heat. Fewer, smaller pumps means a smaller building and less cost.

Advanced Nuclear Will Further the Work of Current Reactors

Advanced reactors promise improved flexibility and the ability to do more kinds of work, including nuclear beyond electricity applications, to displace carbon and stabilize the climate. And they will continue nuclear energys legacy of providing reliable, carbon-free electricity, as a recent new U.S. reactor startup illustrates in practice. As new designs come on line over the next decade, we will continue to rely on operating plants which provide nearly 55 percent of the countrys carbon-free electricity.

The world will need all the carbon-free generation it can get for many years to come, as companies, states and countries aim for zero emissions by mid-century and pursue strategies like the green industrial revolution to accelerate deployment. That means it will need wind, solar, advanced reactors and current plants.

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