Ontario solar sector harmed by uncertainty

UK Nuclear Power Expansion is vital for low-carbon baseload, energy security, and Net Zero, complementing renewables like wind and solar, reducing gas reliance, and unlocking investment through clear financing rules and proven, dependable reactor technology.

Key Points

Accelerating reactor build-out for low-carbon baseload to boost energy security and help deliver the UK Net Zero target.

✅ Cuts gas dependence and stabilizes grids with firm capacity.

✅ Complements wind and solar for reliable, low-carbon supply.

✅ Needs clear financing to unlock investment and lower costs.

Leading nuclear industry figures will today call for a major programme of new power stations to hit ambitious emissions reduction targets.

The 19th Nuclear Industry Association annual conference in London will highlight the need for a proven, dependable source of low carbon electricity generation alongside growth in weather-dependent solar and wind power, and particularly the rapid expansion of wind and solar generation across the UK.

Without this, they argue, the country risks embedding a major reliance on carbon-emitting gas fired power stations as Europe loses nuclear capacity at a critical time for energy security for generations to come.

Annual public opinion polling released today to coincide with the conference revealed 75% of the population want the UK Government to take more action to reduce CO2 emissions.

The survey, conducted by YouGov in October 2019, has tracked opinion trends on nuclear for more than a decade. It shows continued and consistent public support for an energy mix including nuclear and renewables, with 72% of respondents agreeing this was needed to ensure a reliable supply of electricity.

Nuclear power was also perceived as the most secure energy source for keeping the lights on, compared to other sources such as oil, gas, coal, wind power, fracking and solar power.

Last month both the Labour and Conservative Parties committed to new nuclear power as part of their election Manifestos and the government's wider green industrial revolution plans for clean growth. At the same time, 27 leading figures in the fields of environment, energy, and industry signed an open letter addressed to parliamentary candidates, which set out the benefits of nuclear and underscored the consequences of not, at least, replacing the UK's current fleet of power stations.

The Nuclear Industry Association said there is no time to be lost in clarifying the ambition and the financing rules for new nuclear power which would bring down costs and unlock a major programme of investment.

Tom Greatrex, Chief Executive of the NIA, said "We have to grow the industry's contribution to a low carbon economy. The independent Committee on Climate Change said earlier this year that we need a variety of technologies including nuclear power/1 for net zero to reach the UK's Net Zero emissions target by 2050".

"This is a proven, dependable, technology with lower lifecycle CO2 emissions than solar power and the same as offshore wind/2. It is also an important economic engine for the UK, supporting uses beyond electricity and creating high quality direct and indirect employment for around 155,000 people."

"Right now nuclear provides 20%/3 of all the UK's electricity but all but one of our existing fleet will close over the next decade, amid the debate over nuclear's decline as power demand will only increase with a shift to electric heating and vehicles."

"The countries and regions which have most successfully decarbonised, like Sweden, France and Ontario in Canada, have done so by relying on nuclear, aligning with Canada's climate goals for affordable, safe power today. You are not serious about tackling climate change if you are not serious about nuclear".

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

El Salvador Geothermal Expansion boosts renewable energy with a 7 MW Berlin binary ORC plant, upgrades at Ahuachapan, and pipeline projects, strengthening clean power capacity, grid reliability, and sustainable growth in Central America.

Key Points

A national push adding binary-cycle capacity at Berlin and Ahuachapan, boosting geothermal supply and advancing sites.

✅ 7 MW Berlin binary ORC plant entering service.

✅ Ahuachapan upgrade adds 2 MW, total geothermal 204 MW.

✅ Next: Chinameca, San Miguel, San Vicente, World Bank backed.

El Salvador is set to expand its renewable energy capacity with the inauguration of the 7-MW Berlin binary geothermal power plant, slated to go online later this year. This new addition marks a significant milestone in the country’s geothermal energy development, highlighting its commitment to sustainable energy solutions. The plant, which has already been installed and is currently undergoing testing, is expected to boost the nation’s geothermal capacity, contributing to its growing renewable energy portfolio.

The Role of Geothermal Energy in El Salvador’s Energy Mix

Geothermal energy plays a pivotal role in El Salvador's energy landscape. With the combined output from the Ahuachapan and Berlin geothermal plants, geothermal energy now accounts for about 21% of the country's net electricity supply. This makes geothermal the second-largest source of energy generation in El Salvador, underscoring its importance as a reliable and sustainable energy resource alongside emerging options like advanced nuclear microreactor technologies in the broader low-carbon mix.

In addition to the Berlin plant, El Salvador has made significant improvements to its Ahuachapan geothermal power plant. Recent upgrades have increased its generation capacity by 2 MW, further enhancing the country’s geothermal energy output. Together, the Ahuachapan and Berlin plants bring the total installed geothermal capacity to 204 MW, positioning El Salvador as a regional leader in geothermal energy development.

The Berlin Binary Geothermal Plant: A Technological Milestone

The Berlin binary geothermal power plant is especially noteworthy for several reasons. It is the first geothermal power plant to be constructed in El Salvador since 2007, marking a significant step in the country's ongoing efforts to expand its renewable energy infrastructure while reinforcing attention to risk management in light of Hawaii geothermal safety concerns reported elsewhere. The plant utilizes a binary cycle geothermal system, which is known for its efficiency in extracting energy from lower temperature geothermal resources, making it an ideal solution for regions like Berlin, where geothermal resources are abundant but at lower temperatures.

The plant was built by Turboden, an Italian company specializing in organic Rankine cycle (ORC) technology. The binary cycle system operates by transferring heat from the geothermal fluid to a secondary fluid, which then drives a turbine to generate electricity. This system allows for the efficient use of geothermal resources that might otherwise be too low in temperature for traditional geothermal plants, enabling pairing with thermal storage demonstration solutions to optimize output.

Future Geothermal Developments in El Salvador

El Salvador is not stopping with the Berlin geothermal plant. The country is actively working on other geothermal projects, including those in Chinameca, San Miguel, and San Vicente. These developments are expected to add 50 MW of additional capacity in their first phase, reflecting a broader shift as countries pursue hydrogen-ready power plants to reduce emissions, with a second phase, supported by the World Bank, planned to add another 100 MW.

The Chinameca, San Miguel, and San Vicente projects represent the next wave of geothermal development in El Salvador. When completed, these plants will significantly increase the country’s geothermal capacity, further diversifying its energy mix and reducing reliance on fossil fuels, and will require ongoing grid upgrades, a task complicated elsewhere by Germany grid expansion challenges highlighted in Europe.

International Support and Collaboration

El Salvador’s geothermal development efforts are supported by various international partners, including the World Bank, which has been instrumental in financing the expansion of geothermal projects, as utilities such as SaskPower geothermal plans in Canada explore comparable pathways. This collaboration highlights the global recognition of El Salvador’s potential in geothermal energy and its efforts to position itself as a hub for geothermal energy development in Central America.

Additionally, the country’s expertise in geothermal energy, especially in binary cycle technology, has attracted international attention. El Salvador’s progress in the geothermal sector could serve as a model for other countries in the region that are looking to harness their geothermal resources to reduce energy costs and promote sustainable energy development.

The upcoming launch of the Berlin binary geothermal power plant is a testament to El Salvador’s commitment to sustainable energy. As the country continues to expand its geothermal capacity, it is positioning itself as a leader in renewable energy in the region. The binary cycle technology employed at the Berlin plant not only enhances energy efficiency but also demonstrates El Salvador’s ability to adapt and innovate within the renewable energy sector.

With the continued development of projects in Chinameca, San Miguel, and San Vicente, and ongoing international collaboration, El Salvador’s geothermal energy sector is set to play a crucial role in the country’s energy future. As global demand for clean energy grows, exemplified by U.S. solar capacity additions this year, El Salvador’s investments in geothermal energy are helping to build a more sustainable, resilient, and energy-independent future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

US Offshore Wind Lease Sales signal soaring renewable energy growth, drawing oil and gas developers, requiring BOEM auctions, seismic surveying, transmission planning, with $70B investment, 8 GW milestones, and substantial job creation in coastal communities.

Key Points

BOEM-run auctions granting areas for offshore wind, spurring projects, investment, and jobs in federal waters.

✅ $70B investment needed by 2030 to meet current demand

✅ 8 GW early buildout could create 40,000 US jobs

✅ Requires BOEM auctions, seismic surveying, transmission corridors

Recent offshore lease sales demonstrate that not only has offshore wind arrived in the U.S., but it is clearly set to soar, as forecasts point to a $1 trillion global market in the coming decades. The level of participation today, especially from seasoned offshore oil and gas developers, exemplifies that the offshore industry is an advocate for the 'all of the above' energy portfolio.

Offshore wind could generate 160,000 direct, indirect and induced jobs, with 40,000 new U.S. jobs with the first 8 gigawatts of production, while broader forecasts see a quarter-million U.S. wind jobs within four years.

In fact, a recent report from the Special Initiative on Offshore Wind (SIOW), said that offshore wind investment in U.S. waters will require $70 billion by 2030 just based on current demand, and the UK's rapid scale-up offers a relevant benchmark.

Maintaining this tremendous level of interest from offshore wind developers requires a reliable inventory of regularly scheduled offshore wind sales and the ability to develop those resources. Coastal communities and extreme environmental groups opposing seismic surveying and the issuance of incidental harassment authorizations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act may literally take the wind out of these sales. Just as it is for offshore oil and gas development, seismic surveying is vital for offshore wind development, specifically in the siting of wind turbines and transmission corridors.

Unfortunately, a long-term pipeline of wind lease sales does not currently exist. In fact, with the exception of a sale proposed offshore New York offshore wind or potentially California in 2020, there aren't any future lease sales scheduled, leaving nothing upon which developers can plan future investments and prompting questions about when 1 GW will be on the grid nationwide.

NOIA is dedicated to working with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and coastal communities, consumers, energy producers and other stakeholders, drawing on U.K. wind lessons where applicable, in working through these challenges to make offshore wind a reality for millions of Americans.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

South Carolina Energy Freedom Act lifts net metering caps, reforms PURPA, and overhauls utility planning to boost solar competition, grid resiliency, and consumer choice across the Southeast amid Santee Cooper debt and utility monopoly pressure.

Key Points

A bipartisan reform lifting net metering caps, modernizing PURPA, and updating utility planning to expand solar.

✅ Lifts net metering cap to accelerate rooftop and community solar.

✅ Reforms PURPA contracts to enable fair pricing and transparent procurement.

✅ Modernizes utility IRP and opens markets to competition and customer choice.

The South Carolina House has approved the latest version of the Energy Freedom Act, a bill that overhauls the state’s electricity policies, including lifting the net metering caps and reforming PURPA implementation and utility planning processes in a way that advocates say levels the playing field for solar at all scales.

With Governor Henry McMaster (R) expected to sign the bill shortly, this is a major coup not just for solar in the state, but the region. This is particularly notable given the struggle that solar has had just to gain footing in many parts of the South, which is dominated by powerful utility monopolies and conservative politicians.

Two days ago when the bill passed the Senate we covered the details of the policy, but today we’re going to take a look at the politics of getting the Energy Freedom Act passed, and what this means for other Southern states and “red” states.

Opportunity amid crisis

The first thing to note about this bill is that it comes within a crisis in South Carolina’s electricity sector. This was the first legislative session following state-run utility Santee Cooper’s formal abandonment of a project to build two new reactors at the Virgil C. Sumner nuclear power plant, on which work stopped nearly two years ago.

Santee Cooper still holds $4 billion in construction debt related to the nuclear projects. According to an article in The State, this is costing its customers $5 per month toward the current debt, and this will rise to $13 per month for the next 40 years.

Such costs are particularly unwelcome in South Carolina, which has the highest annual electricity bills in the nation due to a combination of very high electricity usage driven by widespread air conditioning during the hot summers and higher prices per unit of power than other Southern states.

Following this fiasco, Santee Cooper’s CEO has stepped down, and the state government is currently considering selling the utility to a private entity. According to Maggie Clark, southeast state affairs senior manager for Solar Energy Industries Association, all of this set the stage for the bill that passed today.

“South Carolina is in a really ripe state for transformational energy policy in the wake of the VC Sumner nuclear plant cancellation,” Clark told pv magazine. “They were looking for a way forward, and I think this bill really provided them something to champion.”

Renewable energy policy for red states

This major win for solar policy comes in a state where the Republican Party holds majorities in both houses of the state’s legislature and sends bills to a Republican governor.

Broadly speaking, Republican politicians seldom show the level of interest in supporting renewable energy that Democrats do either at the state or national level, and show even less inclination to act to address greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the 100% clean energy mandates that are being implemented in four states and Washington D.C. have only passed with Democratic trifectas, in other words with Republicans controlling neither house of the state legislature nor the governor’s office. (Note: This does not apply to Puerto Rico, which has a different party structure to the rest of the United States)

However, South Carolina shows there are Republican politicians who will support pro-renewable energy policies, and circumstances under which Republican majorities will vote for legislation that aids the adoption of solar. And these specific circumstances speak to both different priorities and ideological differences between the two parties.

SEIA’s Maggie Clark emphasizes that the Energy Freedom Act was about reforming market rules. “This was a way to provide a program that did not provide subsidies or incentives in any way, but to really open the market to competition,” explains Clark. “I think that appealing to conservatives in the South about energy independence and resiliency and ultimately cost savings is the winning message on this issue.”

Such messaging in South Carolina is not an accident. Not only has such messaging been successful in the past, but coalition partner Vote Solar paid for polling to find what messages resounded with the state’s voters, and found that choice and competition were likely to resound.

And all of this happened in the context of what Clark describes as an “extremely well-resourced effort”, with SEIA in particular dedicating national attention and resources to the state – as part of an effort by President and CEO Abigail Hopper to shift attention more towards state-level policy. Maggie Clark is one of two new regional staff who Hopper has hired, and SEIA’s first staff member focused on Southern states.

“Absolutely the South is a prioritized region,” Hopper told pv magazine, noting that three Southern states – the Carolinas and Florida – are among the 12 states that the organization has identified to work on this year. “It became clear that as a region it needed more attention.”

SEIA is not expecting fly-by-night victories, and Hopper attributes the success in South Carolina not only to a broad coalition, but to years of work on the ground in the state.

Nor is SEIA the only organization to grow its presence in the region. Vote Solar now has two full time staff located in the South, whereas two years ago its sole staff member dedicated to the region was located in Washington D.C.

Ideology versus reality in the South

The Energy Freedom Act aligns with conservative ideas about small government and competition, but the American right is not monolithic, nor do political ideas and actions always line up neatly, as other successful policies in other states in the region show

By far the largest deployment of renewable energy in the nation has been in Texas, aside from in California which leads overall. Here a system of renewable energy zones in the sparsely populated but windy and sunny west, north and center of the state feed cities to the east with power from wind and more recently solar.

This was enabled by transmission lines whose cost was socialized among the state’s ratepayers – a tremendous irony given that the state’s politicians would be some of the last in the nation to want to be identified with socializing anything.

Another example is Louisiana, which saw a healthy residential solar market over the last decade due to a 50% state rebate. The policy has expired, but when operating it was exactly the sort of outright subsidy that right-wing media and politicians rail against.

Of course there is also North Carolina, which built the 2nd-largest solar market in the nation on the back of successful state-level implementation of PURPA, a federal law. Finally there is Virginia, where large-scale projects are booming following a 2018 law that found that 5 GW of solar is in the public interest.

Furthermore, while conservatives continually expound the virtues of the free market, the reality of the electricity sector in the “deep red” South is anything but that. The region missed out on the wave of deregulation in the 1990s, and remains dominated by monopoly utilities regulated by the state: a union of big business and big government where competition is non-existent.

This has also meant that the solar which has been deployed in the South is mostly not the kind of rooftop solar that many think of as embodying energy independence, but rather large-scale solar built in farms, fields and forests.

Where to from here?

With such contradictions between stated ideology and practice, it is less clear what makes for successful renewable energy policy in the South. However, opening up markets appears to be working not only in South Carolina, but also in Florida, where third-party solar companies are making inroads after the state’s voters rejected a well-funded and duplicitous utilities’ campaign to kill distributed solar.

SEIA’s Hopper says that she is “aggressively optimistic” about solar in Florida. As utilities have dominated large-solar deployment in the state, even as the state declined federal solar incentives earlier this year, she says that she sees opening up the state’s booming utility-scale solar market to competition as a priority.

Some parts of the region may be harder than others, and it is notable that SEIA has not had as much to say about Alabama, Mississippi or Louisiana, which are largely controlled by utility giants Southern Company and Entergy, or the area under the thumb of the Tennessee Valley Authority, one of the most anti-solar entities in the power sector.

Abby Hopper says ultimately, demand from customers – both individuals and corporations – is the key to transforming policy. “You replicate these victories by customer demand,” Hopper told pv magazine. “That combination of voices from the customer are what’s going to drive change.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

BC Hydro Air Conditioning Efficiency Tips help cut energy bills as HVAC use rises. Avoid inefficient portable AC units, set thermostats near 25 C, use fans and window shading, and turn systems off when unoccupied.

Key Points

BC Hydro's guidelines to lower summer power bills by optimizing A/C settings, fans, shading, and usage habits at home.

✅ Set thermostats to 25 C; switch off A/C when away

✅ Prefer fans and window shading; close doors/windows in heat

✅ Avoid multiple portable A/C units; choose efficient HVAC

BC Hydro is scolding British Columbians for their ineffective, wasteful and costly use of home air conditioners.

In what the electric utility calls “not-so-savvy” behaviour, it says many people are over-spending on air conditioning units that are poorly installed or used incorrectly.

"The majority of British Columbians will spend more time at home this summer because of the COVID-19 pandemic," BC Hydro says in a news release about an August survey of customers.

"With A/C use on the rise, there is evidence British Columbians are not cooling down efficiently, leading to higher summer electricity bills, as extreme heat boosts U.S. bills too this summer."

BC Hydro estimates some customers are shelling out $200 more on their summer energy bills than they need to during a record-breaking 2021 demand year for electricity.

The pandemic is compounding the demand for cool, comfortable air at home. Roughly two in five British Columbians between the ages of 25 and 50 are working from home five days a week.

However, it’s not just COVID-19 that is putting a strain on energy consumption and monthly bills, with drought affecting generation as well today.

About 90 per cent of people who use an air conditioner set it to a temperature below the recommended 25 Celsius, according to BC Hydro.

In fact, one in three people have set their A/C to the determinedly unseasonable temperature of 19 C.

Another 30 per cent are using more than one portable air conditioning unit, which the utility says is considered the most inefficient model on the market, and questions remain about crypto mining electricity use in B.C. today.

The use of air conditioners is steadily increasing in B.C. and has more than tripled since 2001, according to BC Hydro, with all-time high demand also reported in B.C. during recent heat waves. The demand for climate control is particularly high among condo-dwellers since apartments tend to trap heat and stay warmer.

This may explain why one in 10 residents of the Lower Mainland has three portable air conditioning units, and elsewhere Calgary's frigid February surge according to Enmax.

In addition, 30 per cent of people keep the air conditioning on for the sake of their pets while no one is home.

BC Hydro makes these recommendations to save energy and money on monthly bills while still keeping homes cooled during summer’s hottest days, and it also offers a winter payment plan to help manage costs:

Cool homes to 25 C in summer months when home; air conditioning should be turned off when homes are unoccupied.
In place of air conditioning, running a fan for nine hours a day over the summer costs $7.
Shading windows with drapes and blinds can help insulate a home by keeping out 65 per cent of the heat.
If the temperature outside a home is warmer than inside, keep doors and windows closed to keep cooler air inside.
Use a microwave, crockpot or toaster oven to avoid the extra heat produced by larger appliances, such as an oven, when cooking. Hang clothes to dry instead of using a dryer on hot days.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News