Canada to establish carbon-trading market

California Rolling Blackouts expose grid reliability risks amid a heatwave, as CAISO curtails power while solar output fades at sunset, wind stalls, and scarce natural gas and nuclear capacity plus PG&E issues strain imports.

Key Points

Grid outages during heatwaves from low reserves, fading solar, weak wind, and limited firm capacity.

✅ Heatwave demand rose as solar output dropped at sunset

✅ Limited imports and gas, nuclear shortfalls cut reserves

✅ Policy, pricing, and maintenance gaps increased outage risk

Millions of Californians were denied electrical power and thus air conditioning during a heatwave, raising the risk of heatstroke and death, particularly among the elderly and sick. 

The blackouts come at a time when people, particularly the elderly, are forced to remain indoors due to Covid-19, and as later heat waves would test the grid again statewide.

At first, the state’s electrical grid operator last night asked customers to voluntarily reduce electricity use. But after lapses in power supply pushed reserves to dangerous levels it declared a “Stage 3 emergency” cutting off power to people across the state at 6:30 pm.

The immediate reason for the black-outs was the failure of a 500-megawatt power plant and an out-of-service 750-megawatt unit not being available. “There is nothing nefarious going on here,” said a spokeswoman for California Independent System Operator (CAISO). “We are just trying to run the grid.”

But the underlying reasons that California is experiencing rolling black-outs for the second time in less than a year stem from the state’s climate policies, which California policymakers have justified as necessary to prevent deaths from heatwaves, and which it is increasingly exporting to Western states as a model.

In October, Pacific Gas and Electric cut off power to homes across California to avoid starting forest fires after reports that its power lines may have started fires in recent seasons. The utility and California’s leaders had over the previous decade diverted billions meant for grid maintenance to renewables. 

And yesterday, California had to impose rolling blackouts because it had failed to maintain sufficient reliable power from natural gas and nuclear plants, or pay in advance for enough guaranteed electricity imports from other states.

It may be that California’s utilities and their regulator, the California Public Utilities Commission, which is also controlled by Gov. Newsom, didn’t want to spend the extra money to guarantee the additional electricity out of fears of raising California’s electricity prices even more than they had already raised them.

California saw its electricity prices rise six times more than the rest of the United States from 2011 to 2019, helping explain why electricity prices are soaring across the state, due to its huge expansion of renewables. Republicans in the U.S. Congress point to that massive increase to challenge justifications by Democrats to spend $2 trillion on renewables in the name of climate change.

Even though the cost of solar panels declined dramatically between 2011 and 2019, their unreliable and weather-dependent nature meant that they imposed large new costs in the form of storage and transmission to keep electricity as reliable. California’s solar panels and farms were all turning off as the blackouts began, with no help available from the states to the East already in nightfall.

Electricity from solar goes away at the very moment when the demand for electricity rises. “The peak demand was steady in late hours,” said the spokesperson for CAISO, which is controlled by Gov. Gavin Newsom, “and we had thousands of megawatts of solar reducing their output as the sunset.”

The two blackouts in less than a year are strong evidence that the tens of billions that Californians have spent on renewables come with high human, economic, and environmental costs.

Last December, a report by done for PG&E concluded that the utility’s customers could see blackouts double over the next 15 years and quadruple over the next 30.

California’s anti-nuclear policies also contributed to the blackouts. In 2013, Gov. Jerry Brown forced a nuclear power plant, San Onofre, in southern California to close.

Had San Onofre still been operating, there almost certainly would not have been blackouts on Friday as the reserve margin would have been significantly larger. The capacity of San Onofre was double that of the lost generation capacity that triggered the blackout.

California's current and former large nuclear plants are located on the coast, which allows for their electricity to travel shorter distances, and through less-constrained transmission lines than the state’s industrial solar farms, to get to the coastal cities where electricity is in highest demand.

There has been very little electricity from wind during the summer heatwave in California and the broader western U.S., further driving up demand. In fact, the same weather pattern, a stable high-pressure bubble, is the cause of heatwaves, since it brought very low wind for days on end along with very high temperatures.

Things won’t be any better, and may be worse, in the winter, with a looming shortage as it produces far less solar electricity than the summer. Solar plus storage, an expensive attempt to fix problems like what led to this blackout, cannot help through long winters of low output.

California’s electricity prices will continue to rise if it continues to add more renewables to its grid, and goes forward with plans to shut down its last nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, in 2025.

Had California spent an estimated $100 billion on nuclear instead of on wind and solar, it would have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels in its in-state electricity mix.

To manage the increasingly unreliable grid, California will either need to keep its nuclear plant operating, build more natural gas plants, underscoring its reliance on fossil fuels for reliability, or pay ever more money annually to reserve emergency electricity supplies from its neighbors.

After the blackouts last October, Gov. Newsom attacked PG&E Corp. for “greed and mismanagement” and named a top aide, Ana Matosantos, to be his “energy czar.” 

“This is not the new normal, and this does not take 10 years to solve,” Newsom said. “The entire system needs to be reimagined.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Hydro Flat Rate sets a single electricity rate at 12.8 cents per kWh, replacing time-of-use pricing for Ontario ratepayers, affecting hydro bills this summer, alongside COVID-19 Energy Assistance Program support.

Key Points

A fixed 12.8 cents per kWh electricity price replacing time-of-use rates across Ontario from June to November.

✅ Single rate applies 24/7, replacing time-of-use pricing

✅ May slightly raise bills versus pre-pandemic usage patterns

✅ COVID-19 aid offers one-time credits for households, small firms

A new provincial COVID-19 measure, including a fixed COVID-19 hydro rate designed to give Ontario ratepayers "stability" on their hydro bills this summer, could result in slightly higher hydro costs over the next four months.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford's government announced over the weekend that consumers would be charged a single around-the-clock electricity rate between June and November, before a Nov. 1 rate increase takes effect, replacing the much-derided time-of-use model ratepayers have complained about for years.

Instead of being charged between 10 to 20 cents per kilowatt hour, depending on the time of day electricity is used, including ultra-low TOU rates during off-peak hours, hydro users will be charged a blanket rate of 12.8 cents per kWh.

"The new rate will simply show up on your bill," Premier Doug Ford said at a Monday afternoon news conference.

While the government said the new fixed rate would give customers "greater flexibility" to use their home appliances without having to wait for the cheapest rate -- and has tabled legislation to lower rates as part of its broader plan -- the new policy also effectively erases a pandemic-related hydro discount for millions of consumers.

For example, a pre-pandemic bill of $59.90 with time-of-use rates, will now cost $60.28 with the government's new recovery rate, as fixed pricing ends across the province, before delivery charges, rebates and taxes.

That same bill would have been much cheaper -- $47.57 -- if the government continued applying the lowest tier of time-of-use 24/7 under an off-peak price freeze as it had been doing since March 24.

The government also introduced support for electric bills with two new assistance programs to help customers struggling to pay their bills.

The COVID-19 Energy Assistance Program will provide a one-time payment consumers to help pay off electricity debt incurred during the pandemic -- which will cost the government $9 million.

The government will spend another $8 million to provide similar assistance to small businesses hit hard by the pandemic.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EU-UK Coal Power Decline 2020 underscores Covid-19's impact on power generation, with renewables rising, carbon emissions falling, and electricity demand down, revealing resilient grids and accelerating the energy transition across European markets.

Key Points

Covid-19's impact on EU-UK power: coal down, renewables up, lower emissions intensity and reduced electricity demand.

✅ Coal generation down 25.5% EU-UK; 29% in March 10-April 10 period

✅ Renewables share up to 46%; grids remained stable and flexible

✅ Electricity demand fell 10%; emissions intensity dropped 19.5%

Coal based power generation has fallen by over a quarter (25.5%) across the European Union (EU) and United Kingdom (UK) in the first three months of 2020, compared to 2019, as a result of the response to Covid-19, with renewable energy reaching a 43% share, as wind and solar outpaced gas across the EU, according to new analysis by the technology group Wärtsilä.

The impact is even more stark in the last month, with coal generation collapsing by almost one third (29%) between March 10 and April 10 compared to the same period in 2019, making up only 12% of total EU and UK generation. By contrast, renewables delivered almost half (46%) of generation – an increase of 8% compared to 2019.

In total, demand for electricity across the continent is down by one tenth (10%), mirroring global demand declines of around 15%, due to measures taken to combat Covid-19, the biggest drop in demand since the Second World War. The result is an unprecedented fall in carbon emissions from the power sector, with emission intensity falling by 19.5% compared to the same March 10-April 10 period last year. The analysis comes from the Wärtsilä Energy Transition Lab, a new free-to-use data platform developed by Wärtsilä to help the industry, policy makers and the public understand the impact of Covid-19 on European electricity markets and analyse what this means for the future design and operation of its energy systems. The goal is to help accelerate the transition to 100% renewables.

Björn Ullbro, Vice President for Europe & Africa at Wärtsilä Energy Business, said: “The impact of the Covid-19 crisis on European energy systems is extraordinary. We are seeing levels of renewable electricity that some people believed would cause systems to collapse, yet they haven’t – in fact they are coping well. The question is, what does this mean for the future?”

“What we can see today is how our energy systems cope with much more renewable power – knowledge that will be invaluable, aligning with IAEA low-carbon insights, to accelerate the energy transition. We are making this new platform freely available to support the energy industry to adapt and use the momentum this tragic crisis has created to deliver a better, cleaner energy system, faster.”

The figures mark a dramatic shift in Europe’s energy mix – one that was not anticipated to occur until the end of the decade. The impact of the Covid-19 crisis has effectively accelerated the energy transition in the short-term, even as later lockdowns saw power demand hold firm in parts of Europe, providing a unique opportunity to see how energy systems function with far higher levels of renewables.

Ullbro added: “Electricity demand across Europe has fallen due to the lockdown measures applied by governments to stop the spread of the coronavirus. However, total renewable generation has remained at pre-crisis levels with low electricity prices, combined with renewables-friendly policy measures, crowding out gas and fossil fuel power generation, especially coal. This sets the scene for the next decade of the energy transition.”

These Europe-wide impacts are mirrored at a national level, for example:

• In the UK, renewables now have a 43% share of generation, following a stall in low-carbon progress in 2019 (up 10% on the same March 10-April 10 period in 2019) with coal power down 35% and gas down 24%.
• Germany has seen the share of renewables reach 60% (up 12%) and coal generation fall 44%, resulting in a fall in the carbon intensity of its electricity of over 30%.
• Spain currently has 49% renewables with coal power down by 41%.
• Italy has seen the steepest fall in demand, down 21% so far.

An industry first, the Wärtsilä Energy Transition Lab has been specifically developed as an open-data platform for the energy industry to understand the impact of Covid-19 and help accelerate the energy transition. The tool provides detailed data on electricity generation, demand and pricing for all 27 EU countries and the UK, combining Entso-E data in a single, easy to use platform. It will also allow users to model how systems could operate in future with higher renewables, as global power demand surpasses pre-pandemic levels, helping pinpoint problem areas and highlight where to focus policy and investment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Iran-Iraq Electricity Cooperation advances with power grid synchronization, cross-border energy trade, 400-kV transmission lines, and education partnerships, boosting grid reliability, infrastructure investment, and electricity exports between Tehran and Baghdad for improved supply and stability.

Key Points

A bilateral initiative to synchronize grids, expand networks, and sustain electricity exports, improving reliability.

✅ 400-kV Amarah-Karkheh line enables synchronized operations.

✅ Extends electricity export contracts to meet Iraq demand.

✅ Enhances grid reliability, training, and infrastructure investment.

Aradakanian has focused his one-day visit to Iraq on discussions pertaining to promoting bilateral collaboration between the two neighboring nations in the field of electricity, grid development deals and synchronizing power grid between Tehran and Baghdad, cooperating in education, and expansion of power networks.

He is also scheduled to meet with Iraqi top officials in a bid to boost cooperation in the relevant fields.

Back in December 2019, Ardakanian announced that Iran will continue exports of electricity to Iraq by renewing earlier contract as it is supplying about 40% of Iraq's power today.

"Iran has signed a 3-year-long cooperation agreement with Iraq to help the country's power industry in different aspects. The documents states at its end that we will export electricity to Iraq as far as they need," Ardakanian told FNA on December 9, 2019.

The contract to "export Iran's electricity" to Iraq will be extended, he added.

Ardakanian also said that Iran and Iraq's power grids have become synchronized in a move that supports Iran's regional power hub plans since a month ago.

In 2004 Iran started selling electricity to Iraq. Iran electricity exports to the western neighbor are at its highest level of 1,361 megawatts per day now, as the country weighs summer power sufficiency ahead of peak demand.

The new Amarah-Karkheh 400-KV transmission line stretching over 73 kilometers, is now synchronized to provide electricity to both countries, reflecting regional power export trends as well. It also paves the way for increasing export to power-hungry Iraq in the near future.

With synchronization of the two grids, the quality of electricity in Iraq will improve as the country explores nuclear power options to tackle shortages.

According to official data, 82% of Iraq's electricity is generated by thermal power plants that use gas as feedstock, while Iran is converting thermal plants to combined cycle to save energy. This is expected to reach 84% by 2027.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

5G Energy Costs highlight base station power consumption, carrier electricity bills, and carbon emissions in China, while advances in energy efficiency, sleep modes, and cooling systems aim to optimize low-latency networks and reduce operational expenses.

Key Points

5G energy costs rise with power-hungry base stations, yet per-bit efficiency and sleep modes help cut bills.

✅ 5G base stations use ~4x 4G electricity

✅ Per-bit 5G energy efficiency is ~4x better than 4G

✅ Sleep modes and advanced cooling reduce OPEX and emissions

As 5G developers look desperately for a "killer app" to prove the usefulness of the superfast wireless technology, mobile carriers in China are complaining about the high energy cost of 5G signal towers.

And the situation is, according to experts, more complicated than many have thought.

The costly 5G

5G technology can be 10 or more times faster than 4G and significantly more responsive to users' input, but the speed comes at a cost.

A 5G base station consumes "four times more electricity" than its 4G counterpart, said Ding Haiyu, head of wireless and terminals at the China Mobile Research Institute, during a symposium on 5G and carbon neutrality in Beijing, a key focus for countries pursuing a net-zero grid by 2050 worldwide.

But concerning each bit of data transmitted, 5G is four times more energy-efficient than 4G, according to Ding.

This means that mobile carriers should fully occupy their 5G network for as long time as possible, but that can be hard at this moment, as many people are still holding 4G smartphones.

"When the 5G stations are running without people using them, they are really electricity guzzlers," said Zhu Qingfeng, head of power supply design at China Information Technology Designing and Consulting Institute Co., Ltd., who represents China Unicom at the symposium. "Each of the three telecom carrier giants are emitting about ten million tonnes of carbon in the air."

"We have to shut down some 5G base stations at night to reduce emission," he added.

Some utilities are testing fuel cell solutions to keep backup batteries charged much longer, supporting network resilience at lower emissions.

A representative from China Telecom said electricity bills of the nationwide carrier reached a new high of 100 billion yuan (about $15 billion) a year, mirroring the power challenges for utilities as data center demand booms elsewhere.

Getting better

While admitting the excessive cost of 5G, experts at the symposium also agreed that the situation is improving, even as climate pressures on the grid continue to mount.

Ding listed a series of recent technologies that is helping reduce the energy use of 5G, including chips of better process, automatic sleeping and wake-up of base stations and liquid nitrogen-based cooling system, and superconducting cables as part of ongoing upgrades.

"We are aiming at halving the 5G electricity cost to only two times of 4G in two years," Ding said.

Experts also discussed the possibility of making use of 5G's low latency features to help monitoring the electricity grid, thus making the digital grid smarter and more cost effective.

G's energy cost is seen as a hot topic for the incoming World 5G Convention in Beijing in early August, alongside smart grid transformation themes. Stay tuned to CGTN Digital as we bring you the latest news about the convention and 5G technology.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies 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