TVA may be looking for supplemental power

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

Thailand Covid-19 Electricity Bill Relief offers energy subsidies, tariff cuts, and free power for small meters, helping work-from-home users as authorities waive charges and discount kWh rates via EGAT, MEA, PEA for three months.

Key Points

Program waiving or cutting household electricity bills for 22 million homes in March-May, easing work-from-home costs.

✅ Free power for meters <= 5 amps; up to 10M homes

✅ Up to 800 kWh: pay February rate; above, 50% discount

✅ >3,000 kWh: 30% discount; program valid March-May

The Thailand cabinet has formally approved energy authorities' decision to either waive or cut electricity charges, similar to B.C. electricity relief measures, for 22 million households where people are working at home because of the coronavirus disease.

Energy Minister Sontirat Sontijirawong said after the cabinet meeting on Tuesday that the ministers acknowledged the step taken by from the Energy Regulatory Commission, the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand, the Metropolitan Electricity Authority and the Provincial Electricity Authority and noted parallels with Ontario's COVID-19 hydro plan rolled out to support ratepayers.

The measure would be valid for three months, from March to May, and cover 22 million households. It would cost the state 23.68 billion baht in lost revenue, he said, a pattern also seen with Ontario rate reductions affecting provincial revenues.

"The measure reduces the electricity charges burden on households. It is the cost of living of the people who are working from home to support the government's control of Covid-19," Mr Sontirat said.

The business sector also wants similar assistance, echoing sentiments from Ontario manufacturers during recent price reduction efforts. He said their requests were being considered.

Free electricity is extended to households with a power meter of no more than 5 amps. Up to 10 million households are expected to benefit, although issues like electricity payment challenges in India highlight different market contexts.

For households with a power meter over 5 amps, if their consumption does not exceed 800 units (kilowat hours), they will pay as much as they did in their February bill. The amount over 800 units will be subject to a 50 per cent discount, while elsewhere B.C. commercial consumption has fallen sharply.

Large houses that consume more than 3,000 units will get a 30 per cent discount, at a time when BC Hydro demand is down 10%.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Southeast Alaska Energy Projects advance hydroelectric, biomass, and heat pumps, displacing diesel via grants. Inside Passage Electric Cooperative and Alaska Energy Authority support Kake, Hoonah, Ketchikan with wood pellets, feasibility studies, and rate relief.

Key Points

Programs using hydro, biomass, and heat pumps to cut diesel use and lower electricity costs in Southeast Alaska.

✅ Hydroelectric at Gunnuk Creek to replace diesel in Kake

✅ Biomass and wood pellets displacing fuel oil in facilities

✅ Free feasibility studies; heat pumps where economical

New projects are under development throughout the region to help reduce energy costs for Southeast Alaska residents. A panel presented some of those during last week’s Southeast Conference annual fall meeting in Ketchikan.

Jodi Mitchell is with Inside Passage Electric Cooperative, which is working on the Gunnuk Creek hydroelectric project for Kake. IPEC is a non-profit, she said, with the goal of reducing electric rates for its members.

The Gunnuk Creek project will be built at an existing dam.

“The benefits for the project will be, of course, renewable energy for Kake. And we estimate it will save about 6.2 million gallons over its 50-year life,” she said. “Although, as you heard earlier, these hydro projects last forever.”

The gallons saved are of diesel fuel, which currently is used to power generators for electricity, though in places with limited options some have even turned to new coal plants to keep the lights on.

IPEC operates other hydro projects in Klukwan and Hoonah. Mitchell said they’re looking into future projects, one near Angoon and another that would add capacity to the existing Hoonah project, even as an independent power project in British Columbia is in limbo.

Mitchell said they fund much of their work through grants, which helps keep electric rates at a reasonable level.

Devany Plentovich with the Alaska Energy Authority talked about biomass projects in the state. She said the goal is to increase wood energy use in Alaska, even as some advocates call for a reduction in biomass electricity in other regions.

“We offer any community, any entity, a free feasibility study to see if they have a potential heating system in their community,” she said. “We do advocate for wood heating, but we are trying to get a community to pick the best heating technology for their situation, including options that use more electricity for heat when appropriate. So in a lot of situations, our consultants will give you the economics on a wood heating system but they’ll also recommend maybe you should look at heat pumps or look at waste energy.”

Plentovich said they recently did a study for Ketchikan’s Holy Name Church and School. The result was a recommendation for a heat pump rather than wood.

But, she said, wood energy is on the rise, and utilities elsewhere are increasing biomass for electricity as well. There are more than 50 systems in the state displacing more than 500,000 gallons of fuel oil annually. Those include systems on Prince of Wales Island and in Ketchikan.

Ketchikan recently experienced a supply issue, though. A local wood-pellet manufacturer closed, which is a problem for the airport and the public library, among other facilities that use biomass heaters.

Karen Petersen is the biomass outreach coordinator for Southeast Conference. She said this opens up a great opportunity for someone.

“Devany and I are working on trying to find a supplier who wants to go into the pellet business,” she said. “Probably importing initially, and then converting over to some form of manufacturing once the demand is stabilized.”

So, Petersen said, if anyone is interested in this entrepreneurial opportunity, contact her through Southeast Conference for more information.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario-U.S. Energy Tariff Dispute highlights cross-border trade tensions, retaliatory tariffs, export surcharges, and White House negotiations as Doug Ford meets U.S. officials to de-escalate pressure over steel, aluminum, and energy supplies.

Key Points

A trade standoff over energy exports and tariffs, sparked by Ontario's surcharge and U.S. duties on steel and aluminum.

✅ 25% Ontario energy surcharge paused before White House talks

✅ U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs reduced from 50% to 25%

✅ Potential energy supply cutoff remains leverage in negotiations

Ontario Premier Doug Ford's recent high-stakes diplomatic trip to Washington, D.C., underscores the delicate trade tensions between Canada and the United States, particularly concerning energy exports and Canada's electricity exports across the border. Ford's potential use of tariffs or even halting U.S. energy supplies, amid Ontario's energy independence considerations, remains a powerful leverage tool, one that could either de-escalate or intensify the ongoing trade conflict between the two neighboring nations.

The meeting in Washington follows a turbulent series of events that began with Ontario's imposition of a 25% surcharge on energy exports to the U.S. This move came in retaliation to what Ontario perceived as unfair treatment in trade agreements, a step that aligned with Canadian support for tariffs at the time. In response, U.S. President Donald Trump's administration threatened its own set of tariffs, specifically targeting Canadian steel and aluminum, which further escalated tensions. U.S. officials labeled Ford's threat to cut off U.S. electricity exports and energy supplies as "egregious and insulting," warning of significant economic retaliation.

However, shortly after these heated exchanges, Trump’s commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, extended an invitation to Ford for a direct meeting at the White House. Ford described this gesture as an "olive branch," signaling a potential de-escalation of the dispute. In the lead-up to this diplomatic encounter, Ford agreed to pause the energy surcharge, allowing the meeting to proceed, amid concerns tariffs could spike NY energy prices, without further escalating the crisis. Trump's administration responded by lowering its proposed 50% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum to a more manageable 25%.

The outcome of the meeting, which is set to address these critical issues, could have lasting implications for trade relations between Canada and the U.S. If Ford and Lutnick can reach an agreement, the potential for tariff imposition on energy exports, though experts advise against cutting Quebec's energy exports due to broader risks, could be resolved. However, if the talks fail, it is likely that both countries could face further retaliatory measures, compounding the economic strain on both sides.

As Canada and the U.S. continue to navigate these complex issues, where support for Canadian energy projects has risen, the outcome of Ford's meeting with Lutnick will be closely watched, as it could either defuse the tensions or set the stage for a prolonged trade battle.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Lebanon Power Barge Controversy spotlights Karadeniz Energy's Esra Sultan, Lebanon's electricity crisis, prolonged blackouts, and sectarian politics as Amal and Hezbollah clash over Zahrani vs Jiyeh docking and allocation across regions.

Key Points

A political dispute over the Esra Sultan power ship, its docking, and power allocation amid Lebanon's chronic blackouts.

✅ Karadeniz Energy lent a third barge at below-market rates.

✅ Docking disputes: Zahrani refused; Jiyeh limited; Zouq connected.

✅ Amal vs Hezbollah split exposes sectarian energy politics.

It was supposed to be a goodwill gesture from an energy company in Turkey.

This summer, the Karadeniz Energy Group lent Lebanon a floating power station to generate electricity at below-market rates to help ease the strain on the country's woefully undermaintained power sector.

Instead, the barge's arrival opened a Pandora's box of partisan mudslinging in a country hobbled by political sectarianism and dysfunction.

There have been rows over where it should dock, how to allocate its 235 megawatts of power, and even what to call the barge, echoing controversies like the Maine electric line debate that pit local politics against energy needs.

It has even driven a wedge between Lebanon's two dominant parties among Shiite Muslims: Amal and the militant group Hezbollah.

Amal, which has held the parliament speaker's seat since 1992, revealed sensationally last week it had refused to allow the boat to dock in a port in the predominantly Shiite south, even though it is one of the most underserved regions of Lebanon.

Power outages in the south can stretch on for more than 12 hours a day, much like the Gaza electricity crisis, according to regional observers.

Hezbollah, which normally stands pat with Amal in political matters, issued an exceptional statement that it had nothing to do with the matter of the barge at Zahrani port. A Hezbollah lawmaker went further to say his party disagreed on the issue with Amal.

Ali Hassan Khalil, Lebanon's Finance Minister and a leading Amal party member, said southerners wanted a permanent power station, not a stop-gap solution, in an implied dig at the rival Free Patriotic Movement, a Christian party that runs the Energy Ministry.

But critics seized on the statement as confirmation that Amal's leaders were in bed with the operators of private generators, who have been making fortunes selling electricity during blackouts at many times the state price.

"For decades there's been nothing stopping them from building a power plant," said Mohammad Obeid, a former Amal party official, in an interview with Lebanon's Al Jadeed TV station.

"Now there's a barge that's coming for three months to provide a few more hours of electricity -- and that's the issue?"

Hassan Khalil, reached by phone, refused to comment.

Nabih Berri, Amal's chief and Lebanon's parliament speaker, who has long been the subject of critical coverage from Al Jadeed's, sued the TV channel for libel on Wednesday for its reporting.

Energy Minister Cesar Abi Khalil, a Christian, lashed out at Amal, saying the ministry even changed the barge's name from Ayse, Turkish for Aisha, a name associated in Lebanon with Sunnis, to Esra Sultan, which does not carry any Shiite or Sunni connotations, to try to get it to dock in Zahrani.

Karadeniz said the barge was renamed "out of courtesy and respect to local customs and sensitivities."

"Ayse is a very common Turkish name, where such preferences are not as sensitive as in Lebanon," it said in a statement to The Associated Press.

Finally, on July 18, the barge docked in Jiyeh, a harbour south of Beirut but north of Zahrani, and in a religiously mixed Muslim area.

But two weeks later it was unmoored again, after Abi Khalil, the energy minister, said the infrastructure at Jiyeh could only handle 30 megawatts of the Esra Sultan's 235 capacity, and upgrades such as burying subsea cables are expensive.

With Zahrani closed to the Esra Sultan, it could only go to Zouq Mikhael, a port in the Christian-dominated Kesrouan region in the north, where it was plugged to the grid Tuesday night, giving the region almost 24 hours of electricity a day.

Lebanon has been contending with rolling blackouts since the days of its 1975-1990 civil war. Successive governments have failed to agree on a permanent solution for the chronic electricity failures, largely because of profiteering, endemic corruption and lack of political will, despite periodic pushes for electricity sector reform in Lebanon over the years.

In 2013, the Energy Ministry contracted with Karadeniz to buy electricity from a pair of its barges, which are still docked in Jiyeh and Zouq Mikhael.

This summer, Abi Khalil signed a new contract with Karadeniz to keep the barges for another three years. As part of the deal, Karadeniz agreed to lend Lebanon the third barge, the Esra Sultan, to produce electricity for three months at no cost - Lebanon would just have to pay for the fuel.

The company said Lebanon's internal squabbles do not affect how long the Esra Sultan would stay in Lebanon, even amid wider sector volatility and the pandemic's impact highlighted in a recent financial update. It arrived on July 18 and it will leave on Oct. 18, it said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Electricity Transition faces surging demand, GHG targets, and federal regulations, balancing natural gas, renewables, battery storage, and grid reliability while pursuing net-zero by 2035 and cost-effective decarbonization for industry, EVs, and growing populations.

Key Points

Ontario Electricity Transition is the province's shift to a reliable, low-GHG grid via renewables, storage, and policy.

✅ Demand up 75% by 2050; procurement adds 4,000 MW capacity.

✅ Gas use rises to 25% by 2030, challenging GHG goals.

✅ Tripling wind and solar with storage can cut costs and emissions.

Ontario's electricity sector stands at a pivotal crossroads. Once a leader in clean energy, the province now faces the dual challenge of meeting surging demand while adhering to stringent greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets. Recent developments, including the expansion of natural gas infrastructure and proposed federal regulations, have intensified debates about the future of Ontario's energy landscape, as this analysis explains in detail.

Rising Demand and the Need for Expansion

Ontario's electricity demand is projected to increase by 75% by 2050, equivalent to adding four and a half cities the size of Toronto to the grid. This surge is driven by factors such as industrial electrification, population growth, and the transition to electric vehicles. In response, as Ontario confronts a looming shortfall in the coming years, the provincial government has initiated its most ambitious energy procurement plan to date, aiming to secure an additional 4,000 megawatts of capacity by 2030. This includes investments in battery storage and natural gas generation to ensure grid reliability during peak demand periods.

The Role of Natural Gas: A Controversial Bridge

Natural gas has become a cornerstone of Ontario's strategy to meet immediate energy needs. However, this reliance comes with environmental costs. The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) projects that by 2030, natural gas will account for 25% of Ontario's electricity supply, up from 4% in 2017. This shift raises concerns about the province's ability to meet its GHG reduction targets and to embrace clean power in practice. 

The expansion of gas-fired plants, including broader plans for new gas capacity, such as the Portlands Energy Centre in Toronto, has sparked public outcry. Environmental groups argue that these expansions could undermine local emissions reduction goals and exacerbate health issues related to air quality. For instance, emissions from the Portlands plant have surged from 188,000 tonnes in 2017 to over 600,000 tonnes in 2021, with projections indicating a potential increase to 1.65 million tonnes if the expansion proceeds as planned. 

Federal Regulations and Economic Implications

The federal government's proposed clean electricity regulations aim to achieve a net-zero electricity sector by 2035. However, Ontario's government has expressed concerns that these regulations could impose significant financial burdens. An analysis by the IESO suggests that complying with the new rules would require doubling the province's electricity generation capacity, potentially adding $35 billion in costs by 2050, while other estimates suggest that greening Ontario's grid could cost $400 billion over time. This could result in higher residential electricity bills, ranging from $132 to $168 annually starting in 2033.

Pathways to a Sustainable Future

Experts advocate for a diversified approach to decarbonization that balances environmental goals with economic feasibility. Investments in renewable energy sources, such as new wind and solar resources, along with advancements in energy storage technologies, are seen as critical components of a sustainable energy strategy. Additionally, implementing energy efficiency measures and modernizing grid infrastructure can enhance system resilience and reduce emissions. 

The Ontario Clean Air Alliance proposes phasing out gas power by 2035 through a combination of tripling wind and solar capacity and investing in energy efficiency and storage solutions. This approach not only aims to reduce emissions but also offers potential cost savings compared to continued reliance on gas-fired generation. 

Ontario's journey toward a decarbonized electricity grid is fraught with challenges, including balancing reliability, clean, affordable electricity, and environmental sustainability. While natural gas currently plays a significant role in meeting the province's energy needs, its long-term viability as a bridge fuel remains contentious. The path forward will require careful consideration of technological innovations, regulatory frameworks, and public engagement to ensure a clean, reliable, and economically viable energy future for all Ontarians.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News