Wind farm plans given green light

B.C. LNG Electrification embeds clean hydro and wind power into low-emission liquefied natural gas, cutting carbon intensity, enabling coal displacement in Asia, and opening grid-scale demand for independent power producers and ITMO-based climate accounting.

Key Points

Powering LNG with clean electricity cuts carbon intensity, displaces coal, and grows demand for B.C.'s clean power.

✅ Electric-drive LNG cuts emissions intensity by up to 80%.

✅ Creates major grid load, boosting B.C. independent power producers.

✅ Enables ITMO crediting when coal displacement is verified.

B.C. has abundant clean power – if only there was a way to ship those electrons across the sea to help coal-dependent countries reduce their emissions, and even regionally, Alberta–B.C. grid link benefits could help move surplus power domestically.

Natural gas that is liquefied using clean hydro and wind power and then exported would be, in a sense, a way of embedding B.C.’s low emission electricity in another form of energy, and, alongside the Canada–Germany clean energy pact, part of a broader export strategy.

Given the increased demand that could come from an LNG industry – especially one that moves towards greater electrification and, as the IEA net-zero electricity report notes, broader system demand – poses some potentially big opportunities for B.C.’s clean energy independent power sector, as those attending the Clean Energy Association of BC's annual at the Generate conference heard recently.

At a session on LNG electrification, delegates were told that LNG produced in B.C. with electricity could have some significant environmental benefits.

Given how much power an LNG plant that uses electric drive consumes, an electrified LNG industry could also pose some significant opportunities for independent power producers – a sector that had the wind taken out of its sails with the sanctioning of the Site C dam project.

Only one LNG plant being built in B.C. – Woodfibre LNG – will use electric drive to produce LNG, although the companies behind Kitimat LNG have changed their original design plans, and now plan to use electric drive drive as well.

Even small LNG plants that use electric drive require a lot of power.

“We’re talking about a lot of power, since it’s one of the biggest consumers you can connect to a grid,” said Sven Demmig, head of project development for Siemens.

Most LNG plants still burn natural gas to drive the liquefaction process – a choice that intersects with climate policy and electricity grids in Canada. They typically generate 0.35 tonnes of CO2e per tonne of LNG produced.

Because it will use electric drive, LNG produced by Woodfibre LNG will have an emissions intensity that is 80% less than LNG produced in the Gulf of Mexico, said Woodfibre president David Keane.

In B.C., the benchmark for GHG intensities for LNG plants has been set at 0.16 tonnes of CO2e per tonne of LNG. Above that, LNG producers would need to pay higher carbon taxes than those that are below the benchmark.

The LNG Canada plant has an intensity of 0.15 tonnes og CO2e per tonne of LNG. Woodfibre LNG will have an emissions intensity of just 0.059, thanks to electric drive.

“So we will be significantly less than any operating facility in the world,” Keane said.

Keane said Sinopec has recently estimated that it expects China’s demand for natural gas to grow by 82% by 2030.

“So China will, in fact, get its gas supply,” Keane said. “The question is: where will that supply come from?

“For every tonne of LNG that’s being produced today in the United States -- and tonne of LNG that we’re not producing in Canada -- we’re seeing about 10 million tonnes of carbon leakage every single year.”

The first Canadian company to produce LNG that ended up in China is FortisBC. Small independent operators have been buying LNG from FortisBC’s Tilbury Island plant and shipping to China in ISO containers on container ships.

David Bennett, director of communications for FortisBC, said those shipments are traced to industries in China that are, indeed, using LNG instead of coal power now.

“We know where those shipping containers are going,” he said. “They’re actually going to displace coal in factories in China.”

Verifying what the LNG is used for is important, if Canadian producers want to claim any kind of climate credit. LNG shipped to Japan or South Korea to displace nuclear power, for example, would actually result in a net increase in GHGs. But used to displace coal, the emissions reductions can be significant, since natural gas produces about half the CO2 that coal does.

The problem for LNG producers here is B.C.’s emissions reduction targets as they stand today. Even LNG produced with electricity will produce some GHGs. The fact that LNG that could dramatically reduce GHGs in other countries, if it displaces coal power, does not count in B.C.’s carbon accounting.

Under the Paris Agreement, countries agree to set their own reduction targets, and, for Canada, cleaning up Canada’s electricity remains critical to meeting climate pledges, but don’t typically get to claim any reductions that might result outside their own country.

Canada is exploring the use of Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMO) under the Under the Paris Agreement to allow Canada to claim some of the GHG reductions that result in other countries, like China, through the export of Canadian LNG.

“For example, if I were producing 4 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in B.C. and I was selling 100% of my LNG to China, and I can verify that they’re replacing coal…they would have a reduction of about 60 or million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions,” Keane said.

“So if they’re buying 4 million tonnes of emissions from us, under these ITMOs, then they have net reduction of 56 million tonnes, we’d have a net increase of zero.”

But even if China and Canada agreed to such a trading arrangement, the United Nations still hasn’t decided just how the rules around ITMOs will work.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Hydro One-Avista Merger outlines a utility acquisition shaped by Washington regulators, Colstrip coal plant depreciation, and plans for renewables, clean energy, and emissions cuts, while Montana reviews implications for jobs, ratepayers, and a 2027 closure.

Key Points

A utility deal setting Colstrip depreciation and renewables, without committing to an early coal plant closure.

✅ Washington sets 2027 depreciation for Colstrip units

✅ Montana reviews jobs, ratepayer impacts, community fund

✅ Avista seeks renewables; no binding shutdown commitment

The Washington power company Hydro One is buying will be ready to close its huge coal-fired generating station ahead of schedule, thanks to conditions put on the corporate merger by state regulators there.

Not that we actually plan to do that, the company is telling other regulators in Montana, where coal unit retirements are under debate, the huge coal-fired generating station in question employs hundreds of people. We’ll be in the coal business for a good long time yet.

Hydro One, in which the Ontario government now owns a big minority stake, is still working on its purchase of Avista, a private power utility based in Spokane. The $6.7-billion deal, which Hydro One announced in July, includes a 15 per cent share in two of the four generating units in a coal plant in Colstrip, Montana, one of the biggest in the western United States. Avista gets most of its electricity from hydro dams and gas but uses the Colstrip plant when demand for power is high and water levels at its dams are low.

#google#

Colstrip’s a town of fewer than 2,500 people whose industries are the power plant and the open-pit mines that feed it about 10 million tonnes of coal a year. Two of Colstrip’s generators, older ones Avista doesn’t have any stake in, are closing in 2022. The other two will be all that keep the town in business.

In Washington, they don’t like the coal plant and its pollution. In Montana, the future of Colstrip is a much bigger concern. The companies have to satisfy regulators in both places that letting Hydro One buy Avista is in the public interest.

Ontario proudly closed the last of our coal plants in 2014 and outlawed new ones as environmental menaces, and Alberta's coal phase-out is now slated to finish by 2023. When Hydro One said it was buying Avista, which makes about $100 million in profit a year, Premier Kathleen Wynne said she hoped Ontario’s “value system” would spread to Avista’s operations.

The settlement is “an important step towards bringing together two historic companies,” Hydro One’s chief executive Mayo Schmidt said in announcing it.

The deal has approval from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission staff but is subject to a vote by the group’s three commissioners. It doesn’t commit Avista to closing anything at Colstrip or selling its share. But Avista and Hydro One will budget as if the Colstrip coal burners will close in 2027, instead of running into the 2040s as their owners had once planned, a timeline that echoes debates over the San Juan Generating Station in New Mexico.

In accounting terms, they’ll depreciate the value of their share of the plant to zero over the next nine years, reflecting what they say is the end of the plant’s “useful life.” Another of Colstrip’s owners, Puget Sound Energy, has previously agreed with Washington regulators that it’ll budget for a Colstrip closure in 2027 as well.

Avista and Hydro One will look for sources of 50 megawatts of renewable electricity, including independent power projects where feasible, in the next four years and another 90 megawatts to supplement Avista’s supply once the Colstrip plant eventually closes, they promise in Washington. They’ll put $3 million into a “community transition fund” for Colstrip.

The money will come from the companies’ profits and cash, the agreement says. “Hydro One will not seek cost recovery for such funds from ratepayers in Ontario,” it says specifically.

“Ontario has always been a global leader in the transition away from dirty coal power and towards clean energy,” said Doug Howell, an anti-coal campaigner with the Sierra Club, which is a party to the agreement. “This settlement continues that tradition, paving the way for the closure of the largest single source of climate pollution in the American West by 2027, if not earlier.”

Montanans aren’t as thrilled. That state has its own public services commission, doing its own examination of the corporate merger, which has asked Hydro One and Avista to explain in detail why they want to write off the value of the Colstrip burners early. The City of Colstrip has filed a petition saying it wants in on Montana hearings because “the potential closure of (Avista’s units) would be devastating to our community.”

Don’t get too worked up, an Avista vice-president urged the Montana commission just before Easter.

“Just because an asset is depreciated does not mean that one would otherwise remove that asset from service if the asset is still performing as intended,” Jason Thackston testified in a session that dealt only with what the deal with Washington state would mean to Colstrip. We’re talking strictly about an accounting manoeuvre, not an operational commitment.

Six joint owners will have to agree to close the Colstrip generators and there’s “no other tacit understanding or unstated agreement” to do that, he said.

Besides Washington and Montana, state regulators in Idaho, including those overseeing the Idaho Power settlement process, Alaska and Oregon and multiple federal authorities have to sign off on the deal before it can happen. Hydro One hopes it’ll be done in the second half of this year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Marine Renewables Canada Offshore Wind integrates marine renewables, tidal and wave energy, advancing clean electricity, low-carbon power, supply chain development, and regulatory alignment to scale offshore wind energy projects across Canada's coasts and global markets.

Key Points

An initiative to grow offshore wind using Canada's marine strengths, shared supply chains, and regulatory synergies.

✅ Leverages tidal and wave energy expertise for offshore wind

✅ Aligns supply chain, safety, and regulatory frameworks

✅ Supports low-carbon power and clean electricity goals

With a growing global effort to develop climate change solutions and increase renewable electricity production, including the UK offshore wind growth in recent years, along with Canada’s strengths in offshore and ocean sectors, Marine Renewables Canada has made a strategic decision to grow its focus by officially including offshore wind energy in its mandate.

Marine Renewables Canada plans to focus on similarities and synergies of the resources in order to advance the sector as a whole and ensure that clean electricity from waves, tides, rivers, and offshore wind plays a significant role in Canada’s low-carbon future.

“Many of our members working on tidal energy and wave energy projects also have expertise that can service offshore wind projects both domestically and internationally,” says Tim Brownlow, Chair of Marine Renewables Canada. “For us, offshore wind is a natural fit and our involvement will help ensure that Canadian companies and researchers are gaining knowledge and opportunities in the offshore wind sector as it grows.”

Canada has the longest coastlines in the world, giving it huge potential for offshore wind energy development. In addition to the resource, Canada has significant capabilities from offshore and marine industries that can contribute to offshore wind energy projects. The global offshore wind market is estimated to grow by over 650% by 2030 and presents new opportunities for Canadian business.

“The federal government’s recent inclusion of offshore renewables in legislation, including a plan for regulating offshore wind developed by the government, and support for emerging renewable energy technologies are important steps toward building this industry,” says Elisa Obermann, executive director of Marine Renewables Canada. “There are still challenges to address before we’ll see offshore wind energy development in Canada, but we see a great opportunity to get more involved now, increase our experience, and help inform future development.”

Like wave and tidal energy, offshore wind projects operate in harsh marine environments and development presents many of the same challenges and benefits as it does for other marine renewable energy resources. Marine Renewables Canada has recognized that there is significant overlap between offshore wind and wave and tidal energy when it comes to the supply chain, regulatory issues, and the operating environment. The association plans to focus on similarities and synergies of the resources in order to advance the sector as a whole, leveraging Canada’s opportunity in the global electricity market to ensure that clean electricity from waves, tides, rivers, and offshore wind plays a significant role in Canada’s low-carbon future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

California Rooftop Solar Cost Shift examines PG&E rate hikes, net metering changes, and utility infrastructure spending impacts on low-income households, distributed generation, and clean energy adoption, potentially raising bills and undermining grid resilience.

Key Points

A claim that rooftop solar shifts fixed grid costs to others; critics cite PG&E rates, avoided costs, and impacts.

✅ PG&E rates outpace national average, underscoring cost drivers.

✅ Net metering cuts risk burdening low- and middle-income homes.

✅ Distributed generation avoids infrastructure spend and grid strain.

California is grappling with soaring electricity prices across the state, with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) rates more than double the national average and increasing at an average of 12.5% annually over the past six years. In response, Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order directing state energy agencies to identify ways to reduce power costs. However, recent policy shifts targeting rooftop solar users may exacerbate the problem rather than alleviate it.

The "Cost Shift" Theory

A central justification for these pricing changes is the "cost shift" theory. This theory posits that homeowners with rooftop solar panels reduce their electricity consumption from the grid, thereby shifting the fixed costs of maintaining and operating the electrical grid onto non-solar customers. Proponents argue that this leads to higher rates for those without solar installations.

However, this theory is based on a flawed assumption: that PG&E owns 100% of the electricity generated by its customers and is entitled to full profits even for energy it does not deliver. In reality, rooftop solar users supply only about half of their energy needs and still pay for the rest. Moreover, their investments in solar infrastructure reduce grid strain and save ratepayers billions by avoiding costly infrastructure projects and reducing energy demand growth, aligning with efforts to revamp electricity rates to clean the grid as well.

Impact on Low- and Middle-Income Households

The majority of rooftop solar users are low- and middle-income households. These individuals often invest in solar panels to lower their energy bills and reduce their carbon footprint. Policy changes that undermine the financial viability of rooftop solar disproportionately affect these communities, and efforts to overturn income-based charges add uncertainty about affordability and access.

For instance, Assembly Bill 942 proposes to retroactively alter contracts for millions of solar consumers, cutting the compensation they receive from providing energy to the grid, raising questions about major changes to your electric bill that could follow if their home is sold or transferred. This would force those with solar leases—predominantly lower-income individuals—to buy out their contracts when selling their homes, potentially incurring significant financial burdens.

The Real Drivers of Rising Energy Costs

While rooftop solar users are being blamed for rising electricity rates, calls for action have mounted as the true culprits lie elsewhere. Unchecked utility infrastructure spending has been a significant factor in escalating costs. For example, PG&E's rates have increased rapidly, yet the utility's spending on infrastructure projects has often been criticized for inefficiency and lack of accountability. Instead of targeting solar users, policymakers should scrutinize utility profit motives and infrastructure investments to identify areas where costs can be reduced without sacrificing service quality.

California's approach to addressing rising electricity costs by targeting rooftop solar users is misguided. The "cost shift" theory is based on flawed assumptions and overlooks the substantial benefits that rooftop solar provides to the grid and ratepayers. To achieve a sustainable and equitable energy future, the state must focus on controlling utility spending, promoting clean energy access for all, especially as it exports its energy policies across the West, and ensuring that policies support—not undermine—the adoption of renewable energy technologies.

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

Alberta Solar Energy Expansion confronts high installation costs, grid integration and storage needs, and environmental impact, while incentives, infrastructure upgrades, and renewable targets aim to balance reliability, land use, and emissions reductions provincewide.

Key Points

Alberta Solar Energy Expansion is growth in solar tempered by costs, grid limits, environmental impact, and incentives.

✅ High capex and financing challenge utility-scale projects

✅ Grid integration needs storage, transmission, and flexibility

✅ Site selection must mitigate land and wildlife impacts

Alberta's push towards expanding solar power is encountering significant financial and environmental hurdles. The province's ambitious plans to boost solar power generation have been met with both enthusiasm and skepticism as stakeholders grapple with the complexities of integrating large-scale solar projects into the existing energy framework.

The Alberta government has been actively promoting solar energy as part of its strategy to diversify the energy mix in a province that is a powerhouse for both green energy and fossil fuels today and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Recent developments have highlighted the potential of solar power to contribute to Alberta's clean energy goals. However, the path forward is fraught with challenges related to costs, environmental impact, and infrastructure needs.

One of the primary issues facing the solar energy sector in Alberta is the high cost of solar installations. Despite decreasing costs for solar technology in recent years, the upfront investment required for large-scale solar farms remains substantial, even as some facilities have been contracted at lower cost than natural gas in Alberta today. This financial barrier has led to concerns about the economic viability of solar projects and their ability to compete with other forms of energy, such as natural gas and oil, which have traditionally dominated Alberta's energy landscape.

Additionally, there are environmental concerns associated with the development of solar farms. While solar energy is considered a clean and renewable resource, the construction of large solar installations can have environmental implications. These include potential impacts on local wildlife habitats, land use changes, where approaches like agrivoltaics can co-locate farming and solar, and the ecological effects of large-scale land clearing. As solar projects expand, balancing the benefits of renewable energy with the need to protect natural ecosystems becomes increasingly important.

Another significant challenge is the integration of solar power into Alberta's existing energy grid. Solar energy production is variable and dependent on weather conditions, especially with Alberta's limited hydro capacity for flexibility, which can create difficulties in maintaining a stable and reliable energy supply. The need for infrastructure upgrades and energy storage solutions is crucial to address these challenges and ensure that solar power can be effectively utilized alongside other energy sources.

Despite these challenges, the Alberta government remains committed to advancing solar energy as a key component of its renewable energy strategy. Recent initiatives include financial incentives and support programs aimed at encouraging investment in solar projects and supporting a renewable energy surge that could power thousands of jobs across Alberta today. These measures are designed to help offset the high costs associated with solar installations and make the technology more accessible to businesses and homeowners alike.

Local communities and businesses are also playing a role in the growth of solar energy in Alberta. Many are exploring opportunities to invest in solar power as a means of reducing energy costs and supporting sustainability efforts and, increasingly, to sell renewable energy into the market as demand grows. These smaller-scale projects contribute to the overall expansion of solar energy and demonstrate the potential for widespread adoption across the province.

The Alberta government has also been working to address the environmental concerns associated with solar energy development. Efforts are underway to implement best practices for minimizing environmental impacts and ensuring that solar projects are developed in an environmentally responsible manner. This includes conducting environmental assessments and working with stakeholders to address potential issues before projects are approved and built.

In summary, while Alberta's solar energy initiatives hold promise for advancing the province's clean energy goals, they are also met with significant financial and environmental challenges. Addressing these issues will be crucial to the successful expansion of solar power in Alberta. The government's ongoing efforts to support solar projects through incentives and infrastructure improvements, coupled with responsible environmental practices, will play a key role in determining the future of solar energy in the province.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News