Power contracts a source of regret

Yukon-BC Electricity Intertie could link Yukon to BC's hydroelectric power, enabling renewable energy integration, net-zero grid goals by 2035, transmission expansion for mining, and stronger Arctic energy security through a coast-to-coast network.

Key Points

A link connecting Yukon's grid to BC hydro to import renewables, cut emissions, and strengthen northern energy security.

✅ Enables renewable imports to meet 2035 net-zero electricity target

✅ Supports mining growth with reliable, low-carbon power

✅ Enhances Arctic energy security via national grid integration

Yukon's energy minister says Canada's push for more green energy and a net-zero electricity grid should spark renewed interest in connecting the territory's power to British Columbia, home to the Electric Highway network.

Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources John Streicker says linking the territory's power grid to the south would help with the national move to renewable energy, including new wind turbines being added in the Yukon, support the mineral extraction required for green projects, and improve northern energy and Arctic security.

"We're getting to the moment in time when we will want an electricity grid which stretches from coast to coast to coast. … I think that the moment is coming for this — it's sort of a nation-building moment. And I think that from the Yukon's perspective, we're very interested," Streicker said in an interview.

The idea of a link, originally proposed to span 763 kilometres between Whitehorse and Iskut, B.C., was first floated in 2016 but sat on the shelf after a viability study put the price tag at as much as $1.7 billion, even as a study indicates B.C. may need to double its power output to electrify all road vehicles.

Two years later, Yukon's then-energy-minister Ranj Pillai — now premier — mused again about the possibility of connecting to power from B.C., where green energy ambitions include the Site C hydro dam.

The idea appeared to have been resurrected at this year's Western Premiers' Conference in June, with both Pillai and B.C. Premier David Eby publicly mentioning early conversations about grid development and interties.

At the conference, Eby said British Columbia was fortunate to have the ability to support other jurisdictions with its hydro electricity.

"So certainly part of the conversation was how do we support each other in sharing our strength, including emerging hydrogen projects across the province?" he said.

"And one of those that British Columbia was able to put on the table is if we can find ways to enter ties with, for example, with the Yukon, to support them in their efforts to access more electricity to grow their economy and decarbonize their electrical grid, then that's very good news for everybody."

The federal government has set a target of making the country's electricity grid net-zero by 2035, while jurisdictions like the N.W.T. plan for more residents to drive electric vehicles as part of the transition.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure 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

Ontario electricity shortage is looming, RBC and IESO warn, as EV electrification surges, Pickering nuclear faces delays, and gas plants backstop expiring renewables, raising GHG emissions and grid reliability concerns across the province.

Key Points

A projected supply shortfall as demand rises from electrification, expiring contracts, and delayed nuclear capacity.

✅ RBC warns shortages as early as 2026, significant by 2030

✅ IESO sees EV-driven demand; 5,000-15,000 MW by 2035

✅ Gas reliance boosts GHGs; Pickering life extension assessed

In a fit of ideological pique, Doug Ford’s government spent more than $200 million to scrap more than 700 green energy projects soon after winning the 2018 election, amid calls to make clean, affordable power a central issue, portraying them as “unnecessary and expensive energy schemes.”

A year later, then Associate Energy Minister Bill Walker defended the decision, declaring, “Ontario has an adequate supply of power right now.”

Well, life moves fast. At the time, scrapping the renewable energy projects was criticized as short-sighted and wasteful, raising doubts about whether Ontario was embracing clean power in a meaningful way. It seems especially so now as Ontario confronts the reality of being short of electricity in the coming years.

How short? A recent report by RBC calls the situation “urgent,” saying that Canada’s most populous province could face energy shortages as early as 2026. As contracts for non-hydro renewables and gas plants expire, the shortages could be “significant” by 2030, the bank report said, with grid greening costs adding to the challenge.

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), which manages the electrical supply in Ontario, says demand for electricity could rise at rates not seen in many years, as the government moves to add new gas plants to boost capacity. “Economic growth coming out of the pandemic, along with electrification in many sectors, is driving energy use up,” the agency said in a December assessment.

The good news is that demand is being driven, in part, by the transition to “green” power – carbon-emission-free electricity – by sectors such as transportation and manufacturing. That will help reduce emissions. Yet meeting that demand presents some challenges, prompting the province to outline a plan to address growing needs across the system. The shift to electric vehicles alone is expected to cause a spike in demand starting in 2030. By 2035, the province could need an additional 5,000 to 15,000 megawatts of electricity, the IESO estimates.

It was perhaps no surprise then to see the province announce last week that it wants to delay the long-planned closing of the Pickering nuclear plant by a year to 2026, even as others note the station is slated to close as planned. Operations beyond that would require refurbishing the facility. The province said it’s taking a fresh look at whether that would make sense to extend its life by another 30 years.

In the interim, the province will be forced to dramatically ramp up its reliance on natural gas plants for electricity generation – and, as analysts warn, Ontario’s power mix could get dirtier even before new non-emitting capacity is built, and in the process, increase greenhouse gas emissions from the energy grid by 400 per cent. Broader electrification is expected to produce “significant” GHG emissions reductions in Ontario over the next two decades, according to the IESO. Still, it’s working at cross-purposes if your electric car is charged by electricity generated by fossil fuels.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Income-Based Electricity Rates propose a fixed monthly fee set by income as utilities and the CPUC weigh progressive pricing, aiming to cut low-income bills while PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E retain usage-based charges.

Key Points

CPUC plan adds income-tiered fixed fees to lower low-income bills while keeping per-kWh usage charges.

✅ Adds fixed monthly fees by income to complement per-kWh charges

✅ Cuts bills for low-income households; higher earners pay more

✅ Utilities say revenue neutral; conservation signals preserved

California’s electric bills — already some of the highest in the nation — are rising as electricity prices soar across the state, but regulators are debating a new plan to charge customers based on their income level. 

Typically what you pay for electricity depends on how much you use. But the state’s three largest electric utilities — Southern California Edison Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company — have proposed a plan to charge customers not just for how much energy they use, but also based on their household income, moving toward income-based flat-fee utility bills over time. Their proposal is one of several state regulators received designed to accommodate a new law to make energy less costly for California’s lowest-income customers.

Some state Republican lawmakers are warning the changes could produce unintended results, such as weakening incentives to conserve electricity or raising costs for customers using solar energy, and some have introduced a plan to overturn the charges in the Legislature.

But the utility companies say the measure would reduce electricity bills for the lowest income customers. Those residents would save about $300 per year, utilities estimate.

California households earning more than $180,000 a year would end up paying an average of $500 more a year on their electricity bills, according to the proposal from utility companies. 

The California Public Utilities Commission’s deadline for deciding on the suggested changes is July 1, 2024, as regulators face calls for action from consumers and advocates. The proposals come at a time when many moderate and low-income families are being priced out of California by rising housing costs.  

Who wants to change the fee structure?
Lawmakers passed and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a comprehensive energy bill last summer that mandates restructuring electricity pricing across the state. 

The Legislature passed the measure in a “trailer-bill” process that limited deliberation. Included in the 21,000-word law are a few sentences requiring the public utilities commission to establish a “fixed monthly fee” based on each customer’s household income. 

A similar idea was first proposed in 2021 by researchers at UC Berkeley and the nonprofit thinktank Next 10. Their main recommendation was to split utility costs into two buckets. Fixed charges, which everyone has to pay just to be connected to the energy grid, would be based on income levels. Variable charges would depend on how much electricity you use.

Utilities say that part of customers’ bills still will be based on usage, but the other portion will reduce costs for lower- and middle-income customers, who “pay a greater percentage of their income towards their electricity bill relative to higher income customers,” the utilities argued in a recent filing. 

They said the current billing system is unjust, regressive and fails to recognize differences in energy usage among households,

“When we were putting together the reform proposal, front and center in our mind were customers who live paycheck to paycheck, who struggle to pay for essentials such as energy, housing and food,” Caroline Winn, CEO of San Diego Gas & Electric in a statement. 

The utilities say in their proposal that the changes likely would not reduce or increase their revenues.

James Sallee, an associate professor at UC Berkeley, said the utilities’ prior system of billing customers mostly by measuring their electric use to pay for what are essentially fixed costs for power is inefficient and regressive. 

The proposed changes “will shift the burden, on average, to a more progressive system that recovers more from higher income households and less from lower income households,” he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Teachers' Evoltz Acquisition expands electricity transmission in Brazil, adding seven grid lines across ten states, aligning infrastructure strategy with inflation-linked cash flows, renewable energy integration, Latin America and net-zero objectives pending regulatory approvals.

Key Points

A 100% purchase of Brazil's Evoltz, adding seven grid lines and delivering stable, inflation-linked cash flows.

✅ 100% stake in Evoltz with seven transmission lines

✅ Aligns with net-zero and renewable energy strategy

✅ Inflation-linked, core infrastructure cash flows in Brazil

The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan has acquired Evoltz Participações, an electricity transmission firm in Brazil, from US asset manager TPG. 

The retirement system took a 100% stake in the energy firm, Ontario Teachers’ said Monday. The acquisition has netted the pension fund seven electricity transmission lines that service consumers and businesses across 10 states in Brazil, amid dynamics similar to electricity rate reductions for businesses seen in Ontario. The firm was founded by TPG just three years ago. 

“Our strategy focuses on allocating significant capital to high-quality core infrastructure assets with lower risks and stable inflation-linked cash flows,” Dale Burgess, senior managing director of infrastructure and natural resources at Ontario Teachers, said in a statement. “Electricity transmission businesses are particularly attractive given their importance in facilitating a transition to a low-carbon economy.” 

The pension fund has invested in other electricity distribution companies recently. In March, Ontario Teachers’ took a 40% stake in Finland’s Caruna, and agreed to acquire a 25% stake in SSEN Transmission in the UK grid. For more than a decade, it has maintained a 50% stake in Chile-based transmission firm Saesa. 

The investment into Evoltz demonstrates Ontario Teachers’ growing portfolio in Brazil and Latin America, while activity in Ontario such as the Peterborough Distribution sale reflects ongoing utility consolidation. In 2016, the firm, with the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), invested in toll roads in Mexico. They took a 49% stake with Latin American infrastructure group IDEAL. 

Evoltz, which delivers renewable energy, will also help decarbonize the pension fund’s portfolio. In January, the fund pledged to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Last year, Ontario Teachers’ issued its first green bond offering. The $890 million 10-year bond will help the retirement system fund sustainable investments aligned with policy measures like Ontario's subsidized hydro plan during COVID-19. 

However, Ontario Teachers’ has also received criticism for its investment into parts of Abu Dhabi’s gas pipeline network, and investor concerns about Hydro One highlight sector uncertainties. Last summer, it joined other institutional investors in investing $10.1 billion for a 49% stake. 

As of December, Ontario Teachers’ reached a portfolio with C$221.2 billion (US$182.5 billion) in assets. Since 1990, the fund has maintained a 9.6% annualized return. Last year, it missed its benchmark with an 8.6% return, with examples such as Hydro One shares fall after shake-up underscoring market volatility.

The pension fund expects the deal will close later this fall, pending closing conditions and regulatory approvals, including decisions such as the OEB combined T&D rates ruling that shape utility economics. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Geothermal Power Plant Risks include hydrogen sulfide leaks, toxic gases, lava flow hazards, well blowouts, and earthquake-induced releases at sites like PGV and the Geysers, threatening public health, grid reliability, and environmental safety.

Key Points

Geothermal Power Plant Risks include toxic gases, lava impacts, well failures, and induced quakes that threaten health.

✅ Hydrogen sulfide exposure can cause rapid pulmonary edema.

✅ Lava can breach wells, venting toxic gases into communities.

✅ Induced seismicity may disrupt grids near PGV and the Geysers.

If lava reaches Hawaii’s PGV geothermal power plant, it could release of deadly hydrogen sulfide gas. That’s the latest potential danger from the Kilauea volcanic eruption in Hawaii. Residents now fear that lava flow will trigger a meltdown at the Puna Geothermal Venture (PGV) power plant that would release even more toxic gases into the air.

Nobody knows what will happen if lava engulfs the PGV because magma has never engulfed a geothermal power plant, Reuters reported. A geothermal power plant uses steam and gas heated by lava deep in the earth to run turbines that make electricity.

The PGV power plant produces 25% of the power used on Hawaii’s “Big Island.” The plant is considered a source of clean energy because geothermal plants burn no fossil fuels and produce little pollution under normal circumstances, even as nuclear retirements like Three Mile Island reshape low-carbon options.

The Potential Danger from Geothermal Energy

The fear is that the lava would release chemicals used to make electricity at the plant. The PGV has been shut down and authorities moved an estimated 60,000 gallons of flammable liquids away from the facility. They also shut down wells that extract steam and gas used to run the turbines.

Another potential danger is that lava would open the wells and release clouds of toxic gases from them. The wells are typically sealed to prevent the gas from entering the atmosphere.

The most significant threat is hydrogen sulfide, a highly toxic and flammable gas that is colorless. Hydrogen sulfide normally has a rotten egg smell which people might not detect when the air is full of smoke. That means people can breathe hydrogen sulfide in without realizing they have been exposed.

The greatest danger from hydrogen sulfide is pulmonary edema; the accumulation of fluid in the lungs, which causes a person to stop breathing. People have died of pulmonary edema after just a few minutes of exposure to hydrogen sulfide gas. Many victims become unconscious before the gas kills them. Long-term dangers that survivors of pulmonary edema face include brain damage.

Hydrogen sulfide can also cause burns to the skin that are similar to frostbite. Persons exposed to hydrogen sulfide can also suffer from nausea, headaches, severe eye burns, and delirium. Children are more vulnerable to hydrogen sulfide because it is a heavy gas that stays close to the ground.

Geothermal Danger Extends Far Beyond Hawaii

The danger from geothermal energy extends far beyond Hawaii. The world’s largest collection of geothermal power plants is located at the Geysers in California’s Wine Country, and regulatory timelines such as the postponed closure of three Southern California plants can affect planning.

The Geysers field contains 350 steam production wells and 22 power plants in Sonoma, Lake, and Mendocino counties. Disturbingly, the Geysers are located just north of the heavily-populated San Francisco Bay Area and just west of Sacramento, where preemptive electricity shutdowns have been used during extreme fire weather. Problems at the Geysers might lead to significant blackouts because the field supplies around 20% of the green energy used in California.

Another danger from geothermal power is earthquakes because many geothermal power plants inject wastewater into hot rock deep below to produce steam to run turbines, a factor under review as SaskPower explores geothermal in new settings. A geothermal project in Switzerland created Earthquakes by injecting water into the Earth, Zero Hedge reported. A theoretical threat is that quakes caused by injection would cause the release of deadly gases at a geothermal power plant.

The dangers from geothermal power might be much greater than its advocates admit, potentially increasing reliance on natural-gas-based electricity during supply shortfalls.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News