AEP receives approvals to complete separate Ohio assets

Rooftop solar grids transform urban infrastructure with distributed generation, photovoltaic panels, smart grid integration and energy storage, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, lowering utility costs, enabling net metering and community solar for low-carbon energy systems.

Key Points

Rooftop solar grids are PV systems on buildings that generate power, cut emissions, and enable smart grid integration.

✅ Lowers utility bills via net metering and demand offset

✅ Reduces greenhouse gases and urban air pollution

✅ Enables resiliency with storage, smart inverters, and microgrids

As urban areas expand and the climate crisis intensifies, cities are seeking innovative ways to integrate renewable energy sources into their infrastructure. One such solution gaining traction is the installation of rooftop solar grids. A recent CBC News article highlights the significant impact of these solar systems on urban environments, showcasing their benefits and the challenges they present.

Harnessing Unused Space for Sustainable Energy

Rooftop solar panels are revolutionizing how cities approach energy consumption and environmental sustainability. By utilizing the often-overlooked space on rooftops, these systems provide a practical solution for generating renewable energy in densely populated areas. The CBC article emphasizes that this approach not only makes efficient use of available space but also contributes to reducing a city's reliance on non-renewable energy sources.

The ability to generate clean energy directly from buildings helps decrease greenhouse gas emissions and, as scientists work to improve solar and wind power, promotes a shift towards a more sustainable energy model. Solar panels absorb sunlight and convert it into electricity, reducing the need for fossil fuels and lowering overall carbon footprints. This transition is crucial as cities grapple with rising temperatures and air pollution.

Economic and Environmental Advantages

The economic benefits of rooftop solar grids are considerable. For homeowners and businesses, installing solar panels can lead to substantial savings on electricity bills. The initial investment in solar technology is often balanced by long-term energy savings and financial incentives, such as tax credits or rebates, and evidence that solar is cheaper than grid electricity in Chinese cities further illustrates the trend toward affordability. According to the CBC report, these financial benefits make solar energy a compelling option for many urban residents and enterprises.

Environmentally, the advantages are equally compelling. Solar energy is a renewable and clean resource, and increasing the number of rooftop solar installations can play a pivotal role in meeting local and national renewable energy targets, as illustrated when New York met its solar goals early in a recent milestone. The reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel energy sources directly contributes to mitigating climate change and improving air quality.

Challenges in Widespread Adoption

Despite the clear benefits, the adoption of rooftop solar grids is not without its challenges. One of the primary hurdles is the upfront cost of installation. While prices for solar panels have decreased over time, the initial financial outlay remains a barrier for some property owners, and regions like Alberta have faced solar expansion challenges that highlight these constraints. Additionally, the effectiveness of solar panels can vary based on factors such as geographic location, roof orientation, and local weather patterns.

The CBC article also highlights the importance of supportive infrastructure and policies for the success of rooftop solar grids. Cities need to invest in modernizing their energy grids to accommodate the influx of solar-generated electricity, and, in the U.S., record clean energy purchases by Southeast cities have signaled growing institutional demand. Furthermore, policies and regulations must support solar adoption, including issues related to net metering, which allows solar panel owners to sell excess energy back to the grid.

Innovative Solutions and Future Prospects

The future of rooftop solar grids looks promising, thanks to ongoing technological advancements. Innovations in photovoltaic cells and energy storage solutions are expected to enhance the efficiency and affordability of solar systems. The development of smart grid technology and advanced energy management systems, including peer-to-peer energy sharing, will also play a critical role in integrating solar power into urban infrastructures.

The CBC report also mentions the rise of community solar projects as a significant development. These projects allow multiple households or businesses to share a single solar installation, making solar energy more accessible to those who may not have suitable rooftops for solar panels. This model expands the reach of solar technology and fosters greater community engagement in renewable energy initiatives.

Conclusion

Rooftop solar grids are emerging as a key element in the transition to sustainable urban energy systems. By leveraging unused rooftop space, cities can harness clean, renewable energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and, as developers learn that more energy sources make better projects, achieve long-term economic savings. While there are challenges to overcome, such as initial costs and regulatory hurdles, the benefits of rooftop solar grids make them a crucial component of the future energy landscape. As technology advances and policies evolve, rooftop solar grids will play an increasingly vital role in shaping greener, more resilient urban environments.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Canada Critical Infrastructure Cyber Risks include state-sponsored actors probing the electricity grid and ICS/OT, ransomware on utilities, and espionage targeting smart cities, medical devices, and energy networks, pre-positioning for disruptive operations.

Key Points

Nation-state and criminal cyber risks to Canada's power, water, and OT/ICS, aiming to disrupt, steal data, or extort.

✅ State-sponsored probing of power grid and utilities

✅ OT/ICS exposure grows as systems connect to IT networks

✅ Ransomware, espionage, and pre-positioning for disruption

State-sponsored actors are "very likely" trying to shore up their cyber capabilities to attack Canada's critical infrastructure — such as the electricity supply, as underscored by the IEA net-zero electricity report indicating rising demand for clean power, to intimidate or to prepare for future online assaults, a new intelligence assessment warns.

"As physical infrastructure and processes continue to be connected to the internet, cyber threat activity has followed, leading to increasing risk to the functioning of machinery and the safety of Canadians," says a new national cyber threat assessment drafted by the Communications Security Establishment.

"We judge that state-sponsored actors are very likely attempting to develop the additional cyber capabilities required to disrupt the supply of electricity in Canada, even as cleaning up Canada's electricity remains critical for climate goals."

Today's report — the second from the agency's Canadian Centre for Cyber Security wing — looks at the major cyber threats to Canadians' physical safety and economic security.

The CSE does say in the report that while it's unlikely cyber threat actors would intentionally disrupt critical infrastructure — such as water and electricity supplies — to cause major damage or loss of life, they would target critical organizations "to collect information, pre-position for future activities, or as a form of intimidation."

The report said Russia-associated actors probed the networks of electricity utilities in the U.S. and Canada last year and Chinese state-sponsored cyber threat actors have targeted U.S. utility employees. Other countries have seen their industrial control systems targeted by Iranian hacking groups and North Korean malware was found in the IT networks of an Indian power plant, it said.

The threat grows as more critical infrastructure goes high-tech.

In the past, the operational technology (OT) used to control dams, boilers, electricity and pipeline operations has been largely immune to cyberattacks — but that's changing as manufacturers incorporate newer information technology in their systems and products and as the race to net-zero drives grid modernization, says the report.

That technology might make things easier and lower costs for utilities already facing debates over electricity prices in Alberta amid affordability concerns, but it comes with risks, said Scott Jones, the head of the cyber centre.

"So that means now it is a target, it is accessible and it's vulnerable. So what you could see is shutting off of transmission lines, you can see them opening circuit breakers, meaning electricity simply won't flow to our homes to our business," he told reporters Wednesday.

While the probability of such attacks remains low, Jones said the goal of Wednesday's briefing is to send out the early warnings.

"We're not trying to scare people. We're certainly not trying to scare people into going off grid by building a cabin in the woods. We're here to say, 'Let's tackle these now while they're still paper, while they're still a threat we're writing down.'"

Steve Waterhouse, a former cybersecurity officer for the Department of National Defence who now teaches at Université de Sherbrooke, said a saving grace for Canada could be the makeup of its electrical systems.

"Since in Canada, they're very centralized, it's easier to defend, and debates about bridging Alberta and B.C. electricity aim to strengthen resilience, while down in the States, they have multiple companies all around the place. So the weakest link is very hard to identify where it is, but the effect is a cascading effect across the country ... And it could impact Canada, just like we saw in the big Northeastern power outage, the blackout of 2003," he said.

"So that goes to say, we have to be prepared. And I believe most energy companies have been taking extra measures to protect and defend against these type of attacks, even as Canada points to nationwide climate success in electricity to meet emissions goals."

In the future, attacks targeting so-called smart cities and internet-connected devices, such as personal medical devices, could also put Canadians at risk, says the report. 

Earlier this year, for example, Health Canada warned the public that medical devices containing a particular Bluetooth chip — including pacemakers, blood glucose monitors and insulin pumps — are vulnerable to cyber attacks that could crash them.

The foreign signals intelligence agency also says that while state-sponsored programs in China, Russia, Iran and North Korea "almost certainly" pose the greatest state-sponsored cyber threats to Canadian individuals and organizations, many other states are rapidly developing their own cyber programs.

Waterhouse said he was glad to see the government agency call out the countries by name, representing a shift in approach in recent years.

"To tackle on and be ready to face a cyber-attack, you have to know your enemy," he said.

"You have to know what's vulnerable inside of your organization. You have to know how ... vulnerable it is against the threats that are out there."

Commercial espionage continues
State-sponsored actors will also continue their commercial espionage campaigns against Canadian businesses, academia and governments — even as calls to make Canada a post-COVID manufacturing hub grow — to steal Canadian intellectual property and proprietary information, says the CSE.

"We assess that these threat actors will almost certainly continue attempting to steal intellectual property related to combating COVID-19 to support their own domestic public health responses or to profit from its illegal reproduction by their own firms," says the "key judgments" section of the report.

"The threat of cyber espionage is almost certainly higher for Canadian organizations that operate abroad or work directly with foreign state-owned enterprises."

The CSE says such commercial espionage is happening already across multiple fields, including aviation, technology and AI, energy and biopharmaceuticals.

While state-sponsored cyber activity tends to offer the most sophisticated threats, CSE said that cybercrime continues to be the threat most likely to directly affect Canadians and Canadian organizations, through vectors like online scams and malware.

"We judge that ransomware directed against Canada will almost certainly continue to target large enterprises and critical infrastructure providers. These entities cannot tolerate sustained disruptions and are willing to pay up to millions of dollars to quickly restore their operations," says the report.

Cybercrime becoming more sophisticated 
According to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, Canadians lost over $43 million to cybercrime last year. The CSE reported earlier this year that online thieves have been using the COVID-19 pandemic to trick Canadians into forking over their money — through scams like a phishing campaign that claimed to offer access to a Canada Emergency Response Benefit payment in exchange for the target's personal financial details.

Online foreign influence activities — a dominant theme in the CSE's last threat assessment briefing — continue and constitute "a new normal" in international affairs as adversaries seek to influence domestic and international political events, says the agency.

"We assess that, relative to some other countries, Canadians are lower-priority targets for online foreign influence activity," it said.

"However, Canada's media ecosystem is closely intertwined with that of the United States and other allies, which means that when their populations are targeted, Canadians become exposed to online influence as a type of collateral damage."

According to the agency's own definition, "almost certainly" means it is nearly 100 per cent certain in its analysis, while "very likely" means it is 80-90 per cent certain of its conclusions. The CSE says its analysis is based off of a mix of confidential and non-confidential intelligence and sources. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

SDG&E Minimum Bill Proposal would impose a $38.40 fixed charge, discouraging rooftop solar, burdening low income households, and shifting grid costs during peak demand, as the CPUC weighs consumer impacts and affordability.

Key Points

Sets a $38.40 monthly minimum bill that raises low usage costs, deters rooftop solar, and burdens low income households.

✅ $38.40 fixed charge regardless of usage

✅ Disincentivizes rooftop solar investments

✅ Disproportionate impact on low income customers

The utility San Diego Gas & Energy has an aggressive proposal pending before the California Public Utilities Commission, amid recent commission changes in San Diego that highlight how regulatory decisions affect local customers: It wants to charge most residential customers a minimum bill of $38.40 each month, regardless of how much energy they use. The costs of this policy would hit low-income customers and those who generate their own energy with rooftop solar. We’re urging the Commission to oppose this flawed plan—and we need your help.

SDG&E’s proposal is bad news for sustainable energy. About half of the customers whose bills would go up under this proposal have rooftop solar. The policy would deter other customers from investing in rooftop solar by making these investments less economical. Ultimately, lost opportunities for solar would mean burning more gas in polluting power plants. 

The proposal is also bad news for people who already have to scrimp on energy costs. Most customers with big homes and billowing air conditioners won't notice if this policy goes into effect, because they use at least $38 worth of electricity a month anyway. But for households that don’t buy much electricity from the company, including those in small apartments without air conditioning, this proposal would raise the bills. Even for customers on special low-income rates, amid electric bill changes statewide, SDG&E wants a minimum bill of $19.20.

Penalizing customers who don’t use much electricity would disproportionately hurt lower-income customers, raising energy equity concerns across the region, who tend to use less energy than their wealthier neighbors. In the region SDG&E serves, the average family in an apartment uses half as much electricity as a single-family residence. Statewide, low-income households are more than four times as likely to be low-usage electricity customers than high-income households. When it gets hot, residential electricity patterns are often driven by air conditioning. The vast majority of SDG&E's customers live in the coastal climate zone, where access to air conditioning is strongly linked to income: Households with incomes over $150,000 are more than twice as likely to have air conditioning than families making less than $35,000, with significant racial disparities in who has AC.

In its attempt to rationalize its request, SDG&E argues that it should charge everyone for infrastructure costs that do not depend on how much energy they use. But the cost of the grid is driven by how much energy SDG&E delivers on hot summer afternoons, when some customers blast their AC and demand for electricity peaks. If more customers relied on their own solar power or conserved energy, the utility would spend less on its grid and help rein in soaring electricity prices over time.

In the long term, reducing incentives to go solar and conserve energy will strain the grid and drive up costs for everyone, especially as lawmakers may overturn income-based charges and reshape rate design. SDG&E's arguments are part of a standard utility playbook for trying to hike income-based fixed charges, and consumer advocates have repeatedly shut them down.  As far as we know, no regulators in the country have allowed a utility to charge customers over $38 for the “privilege” of accessing electric service. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Tesla Supercharger Billing Update details kWh-based pricing that now includes HVAC, battery thermal management, and other HV loads during charging sessions, improving cost transparency across pay-per-use markets and extreme climate scenarios.

Key Points

Tesla's update bills for kWh used by HVAC, battery heating, and HV loads during charging, reflecting true energy costs.

✅ kWh charges now include HVAC and battery thermal management

✅ Expect 10-25 kWh increases in extreme climates during sessions

✅ Some regions still bill per minute due to regulations

Tesla has updated its Supercharger billing policy to add the cost of electricity use for things other than charging, like HVAC, battery thermal management, etc, while charging at a Supercharger station, a shift that impacts overall EV charging costs for drivers. 

For a long time, Tesla’s Superchargers were free to use, or rather the use was included in the price of its vehicles. But the automaker has been moving to a pay-to-use model over the last two years in order to finance the growth of the charging network amid the Biden-era charging expansion in the United States.

Not charging owners for the electricity enabled Tesla to wait on developing a payment system for its Supercharger network.

It didn’t need one for the first five years of the network, and now the automaker has been fine-tuning its approach to charge owners for the electricity they consume as part of building better charging networks across markets.

At first, it meant fluctuating prices, and now Tesla is also adjusting how it calculates the total power consumption.

Last weekend, Tesla sent a memo to its staff to inform them that they are updating the calculation used to bill Supercharging sessions in order to take into account all the electricity used:

The calculation used to bill for Supercharging has been updated. Owners will also be billed for kWhs consumed by the car going toward the HVAC system, battery heater, and other HV loads during the session. Previously, owners were only billed for the energy used to charge the battery during the charging session.

Tesla says that the new method should more “accurately reflect the value delivered to the customer and the cost incurred by Tesla,” which mirrors recent moves in its solar and home battery pricing strategy as well.

The automaker says that customers in “extreme climates” could see a difference of 10 to 25 kWh for the energy consumed during a charging session:

Owners may see a noticeable increase in billed kWh if they are using energy-consuming features while charging, e.g., air conditioning, heating etc. This is more likely in extreme climates and could be a 10-25 kWh difference from what a customer experienced previously, as states like California explore grid-stability uses for EVs during peak events.

Of course, this is applicable where Tesla is able to charge by the kWh for charging sessions. In some markets, regulations push Tesla to charge by the minute amid ongoing fights over charging control between utilities and private operators.

Electrek’s Take
It actually looks like an oversight from Tesla in the first place. It’s fair to charge for the total electricity used during a session, and not just what was used to charge your battery pack, since Tesla is paying for both, even as some states add EV ownership fees like the Texas EV fee that further shape costs.

However, I wish Tesla would have a clearer way to break down the charging sessions and their costs.

There have been some complaints about Tesla wrongly billing owners for charging sessions, and this is bound to create more confusion if people see a difference between the kWhs gained during charging and what is shown on the bill.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Nalcor Energy Pandemic Loss underscores Muskrat Falls delays, hydroelectric risks, oil price shocks, and COVID-19 impacts, affecting ratepayers, provincial debt, timelines, and software commissioning for the Churchill River project and Atlantic Canada subsea transmission.

Key Points

A $171M Q1 2020 downturn linked to COVID-19, oil price collapse, and Muskrat Falls delays impacting schedules and costs.

✅ Q1 2020 profit swing: +$92M to -$171M amid oil price crash

✅ Muskrat Falls timeline slips; cost may reach $13.1B

✅ Software, workforce, COVID-19 constraints slow commissioning

Newfoundland and Labrador's Crown energy corporation reported a pandemic-related profit loss from the first quarter of 2020 on Tuesday, along with further complications to the beleaguered Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project.

Nalcor Energy recorded a profit loss of $171 million in the first quarter of 2020, down from a $92 million profit in the same period last year, due in part to falling oil prices during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The company released its financial statements for 2019 and the first quarter of 2020 on Tuesday, and officials discussed the numbers in a livestreamed presentation that detailed the impact of the global health crisis on the company's operations.

The loss in the first quarter was caused by lower profits from electricity sales and a drop in oil prices due to the pandemic and other global events, company officials said.

The novel coronavirus also added to the troubles plaguing the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric dam on Labrador's Churchill River, amid Quebec-N.L. energy tensions that long predate the pandemic.

Work at the remote site stopped in March over concerns about spreading the virus. Operations have been resuming slowly, with a reduced workforce tackling the remaining jobs.

Officials with Nalcor said it will likely be another year before the megaproject is complete.

CEO Stan Marshall estimates the months of delays could bring the total cost to $13.1 billion including financing, up from the previous estimate of $12.7 billion -- though the total impact of the coronavirus on the project's price tag has yet to be determined.

"If we're going to shut down again, all of that's wrong," Marshall said. "But otherwise, we can just carry on and we'll have a good idea of the productivity level. I'm hoping that by September we'll have a more definitive number here."

The 824 megawatt hydroelectric dam will eventually send power to Newfoundland, and later Nova Scotia, through subsea cables, even as Nova Scotia boosts wind and solar in its energy mix.

It has seen costs essentially double since it was approved in 2012, and faced significant delays even before pandemic-forced shutdowns in North America and around the world this spring.

Cost and schedule overruns were the subject of a sweeping inquiry that held hearings last year, while broader generation choices like biomass use have drawn scrutiny as well.

The commissioner's report faulted previous governments for failing to protect residents by proceeding with the project no matter what, and for placing trust in Nalcor executives who "frequently" concealed information about schedule, cost and related risks.

Some of the latest delays have come from challenges with the development of software required to run the transmission link between Labrador and Newfoundland, where winter reliability issues have been flagged in reports.

The software is still being worked out, Marshall said Tuesday, and the four units at the dam will come online gradually over the next year.

"It's not an all or nothing thing," Marshall said of the final work stages.
Nalcor's financial snapshot follows a bleak fiscal update from the province this month. The Liberal government reported a net debt of $14.2 billion and a deficit of more than $1.1 billion, even as a recent Churchill Falls deal promised new revenues for the province, citing challenges from pandemic-related closures and oil production shutdowns.

Finance Minister Tom Osborne said at the time that help from Ottawa will be necessary to get the province's finances back on track.

Muskrat Falls represents about one-third of the province's debt, and is set to produce more power than the province of about half a million people requires. Anticipated rate increases due to the ballooning costs and questions about Muskrat Falls benefits have posed a significant political challenge for the provincial government.

Ottawa has agreed to work with Newfoundland and Labrador on a rewrite of the project's financial structure, scrapping the format agreed upon in past federal-provincial loan agreements in order to ease the burden on ratepayers, while some argue independent planning would better safeguard ratepayers.

Marshall, a former Fortis CEO who was brought in to lead Nalcor in 2016, has called the project a "boondoggle" and committed to seeing it completed within four years. Though that plan has been disrupted by the pandemic, Marshall said the end is in sight.

"I'm looking forward to a year from now. And I hope to be gone," Marshall said.

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