Maine utilities told to stick with ISO

Europe's Nuclear Energy Policy shapes responses to the energy crisis, soaring gas prices, EU taxonomy rules, net-zero goals, renewables integration, baseload security, SMRs, and Russia-Ukraine geopolitics, exposing cultural, financial, and environmental divides.

Key Points

A policy guiding nuclear exits or expansion to balance energy security, net-zero goals, costs, and EU taxonomy.

✅ Divergent national stances: phase-outs vs. new builds

✅ Costs, delays, and waste challenge large reactors

✅ SMRs, renewables, and gas shape net-zero pathways

As the Fukushima disaster unfolded in Japan in 2011, then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel made a dramatic decision that delighted her country’s anti-nuclear movement: all reactors would be ditched.

What couldn’t have been predicted was that Europe would find itself mired in one of the worst energy crises in its history. A decade later, the continent’s biggest economy has shut down almost all its capacity already. The rest will be switched off at the end of 2022 — at the worst possible time.

Wholesale power prices are more than four times what they were at the start of the coronavirus pandemic. Governments are having to take emergency action to support domestic and industrial consumers faced with crippling bills, which could rise higher if the tension over Ukraine escalates. The crunch has not only exposed Europe’s supply vulnerabilities, but also the entrenched cultural and political divisions over the nuclear industry and a failure to forge a collective vision. 

Other regions meanwhile are cracking on, challenging the idea that nuclear power is in decline worldwide. China is moving fast on nuclear to try to clean up its air quality. Its suite of reactors is on track to surpass that of the U.S., the world’s largest, by as soon as the middle of this decade. Russia is moving forward with new stations at home and has more than 20 reactors confirmed or planned for export construction, according to the World Nuclear Association.

“I don’t think we’re ever going to see consensus across Europe with regards to the continued running of existing assets, let alone the construction of new ones,” said Peter Osbaldstone, research director for power and renewables at Wood Mackenzie Group Ltd. in the U.K. “It’s such a massive polarizer of opinions that national energy policy is required in strength over a sustained period to support new nuclear investment.” 

France, Europe’s most prolific nuclear energy producer, is promising an atomic renaissance as its output becomes less reliable. Britain plans to replace aging plants in the quest for cleaner, more reliable energy sources. The Netherlands wants to add more capacity, Poland also is seeking to join the nuclear club, and Finland is starting to produce electricity later this month from its first new plant in four decades. 

Belgium and Spain, meanwhile, are following Germany’s lead in abandoning nuclear, albeit on different timeframes. Austria rejected it in a referendum in 1978.

Nuclear power is seen by its proponents as vital to reaching net-zero targets worldwide. Once built, reactors supply low-carbon electricity all the time, unlike intermittent wind or solar.

Plants, though, take a decade or more to construct at best and the risk is high of running over time and over budget. Finland’s new Olkiluoto-3 unit is coming on line after a 12-year delay and billions of euros in financial overruns. 

Then there’s the waste, which stays hazardous for 100,000 years. For those reasons European Union members are still quarreling over whether nuclear even counts as sustainable.

Electorates are also split. Polling by YouGov Plc published in December found that Danes, Germans and Italians were far more nuclear-skeptic than the French, British or Spanish. 

“It comes down to politics,” said Vince Zabielski, partner at New York-based law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, who was a nuclear engineer for 15 years. “Everything political ebbs and flows, but when the lights start going off people have a completely different perspective.”

What’s Behind Europe’s Skyrocketing Energy Prices

Indeed, there’s a risk of rolling blackouts this winter. Supply concerns plaguing Europe have sent gas and electricity prices to record levels and inflation has ballooned. There’s also mounting tension with Russia over a possible invasion of Ukraine, which could lead to disrupted supplies of gas. All this is strengthening the argument that Europe needs to reduce its dependence on international sources of gas.

Europe will need to invest 500 billion euros ($568 billion) in nuclear over the next 30 years to meet growing demand for electricity and achieve its carbon reduction targets, according to Thierry Breton, the EU’s internal market commissioner. His comments come after the bloc unveiled plans last month to allow certain natural gas and nuclear energy projects to be classified as sustainable investments. 

“Nuclear power is a very long-term investment and investors need some kind of guarantee that it will generate a payoff,” said Elina Brutschin at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. In order to survive in liberalized economies like the EU, the technology needs policy support to help protect investors, she said.

That already looks like a tall order. The European Commission has been told by a key expert group that the labeling risks raising greenhouse gas emissions and undermining the bloc’s reputation as a bastion for environmentally friendly finance.

Austria has threatened to sue the European Commission over attempts to label atomic energy as green. The nation previously attempted a legal challenge, when the U.K. was still an EU member, to stop the construction of Electricite de France SA’s Hinkley Point C plant, in the west of England. It has also commenced litigation against new Russia-backed projects in neighboring Hungary.

Germany, which has missed its carbon emissions targets for the past two years, has been criticized by some environmentalists and climate scientists for shutting down a supply of clean power at the worst time, despite arguments for a nuclear option for climate policy. Its final three reactors will be halted this year. Yet that was never going to be reversed with the Greens part of the new coalition government. 

The contribution of renewables in Germany has almost tripled since the year before Fukushima, and was 42% of supply last year. That’s a drop from 46% from the year before and means the country’s new government will have to install some 3 gigawatts of renewables — equivalent to the generating capacity of three nuclear reactors — every year this decade to hit the country's 80% goal.

“Other countries don’t have this strong political background that goes back to three decades of anti-nuclear protests,” said Manuel Koehler, managing director of Aurora Energy Research Ltd., a company analyzing power markets and founded by Oxford University academics. 

At the heart of the issue is that countries with a history of nuclear weapons will be more likely to use the fuel for power generation. They will also have built an industry and jobs in civil engineering around that.

Germany’s Greens grew out of anti-nuclear protest movements against the stationing of U.S. nuclear missiles in West Germany. The 1986 Chernobyl meltdown, which sent plumes of radioactive fallout wafting over parts of western Europe, helped galvanize the broader population. Nuclear phase-out plans were originally laid out in 2002, but were put on hold by the country's conservative governments. The 2011 Fukushima meltdowns reinvigorated public debate, ultimately prompting Merkel to implement them.

It’s not easy to undo that commitment, said Mark Hibbs, a Bonn, Germany-based nuclear analyst at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, or to envision any resurgence of nuclear in Germany soon: “These are strategic decisions, that have been taken long in advance.”

In France, President Emmanuel Macron is about to embark on a renewed embrace of nuclear power, even as a Franco-German nuclear dispute complicates the debate. The nation produces about two-thirds of its power from reactors and is the biggest exporter of electricity in Europe. Notably, that includes anti-nuclear Germany and Austria.

EDF, the world’s biggest nuclear plant operator, is urging the French government to support construction of six new large-scale reactors at an estimated cost of about 50 billion euros. The first of them would start generating in 2035.

But even France has faced setbacks. Development of new projects has been put on hold after years of technical issues at the Flamanville-3 project in Normandy. The plant is now scheduled to be completed next year. 

In the U.K., Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said that the global gas price crisis underscores the need for more home-generated clean power. By 2024, five of Britain’s eight plants will be shuttered because they are too old. Hinkley Point C is due to be finished in 2026 and the government will make a final decision on another station before an election due in 2024. 

One solution is to build small modular reactors, or SMRs, which are quicker to construct and cheaper. The U.S. is at the forefront of efforts to design smaller nuclear systems with plans also underway in the U.K. and France. Yet they too have faced delays. SMR designs have existed for decades though face the same challenging economic metrics and safety and security regulations of big plants.

The trouble, as ever, is time. “Any investment decisions you make now aren’t going to come to fruition until the 2030s,” said Osbaldstone, the research director at Wood Mackenzie. “Nuclear isn’t an answer to the current energy crisis.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Summer Power Grid Reliability and Climate Risk drives urgent planning as extreme heat, peak demand, drought, and aging infrastructure strain ERCOT, NERC regions, risking outages without renewables integration and climate-informed grid modeling.

Key Points

Assessment of how extreme weather and demand stress the US grid, informing climate-smart planning to reduce outages.

✅ Many operators rely on historical weather, not climate projections

✅ NERC flags elevated blackout risk amid extreme heat and drought

✅ Renewables and storage can boost capacity and cut emissions

As heat ramps up ahead of what forecasters say will be a hotter than normal summer, electricity experts and officials are warning that states may not have enough power to meet demand in the coming months. And many of the nation's grid operators are also not taking climate change into account in their planning, despite available grid resilience guidance that could inform upgrades, even as extreme weather becomes more frequent and more severe.

Power operators in the Central US, in their summer readiness report, have already predicted "insufficient firm resources to cover summer peak forecasts." That assessment accounted for historical weather and the latest NOAA outlook that projects for more extreme weather this summer.

But energy experts say that some power grid operators are not considering how the climate crisis is changing our weather — including more frequent extreme events — and that is a problem if the intent is to build a reliable power grid while accelerating investing in carbon-free electricity across markets.

"The reality is the electricity system is old and a lot of the infrastructure was built before we started thinking about climate change," said Romany Webb, a researcher at Columbia University's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. "It's not designed to withstand the impacts of climate change."

Webb says many power grid operators use historical weather to make investment decisions, rather than the more dire climate projections, simply because they want to avoid the possibility of financial loss, even as climate-related credit risks for nuclear plants are being flagged, for investing in what might happen versus what has already happened. She said it's the wrong approach and it makes the grid vulnerable.

"We have seen a reluctance on the part of many utilities to factor climate change into their planning processes because they say the science around climate change is too uncertain," Webb said. "The reality is we know climate change is happening, we know the impact it has in terms of more severe heatwaves, hurricanes, drought, with recent hydropower constraints in British Columbia illustrating the risks, and we know that all of those things affect the electricity system so ignoring those impacts just makes the problems worse."

An early heatwave knocked six power plants offline in Texas earlier this month. Residents were asked to limit electricity use, keeping thermostats at 78 degrees or higher and, as extreme heat boosts electricity bills for consumers, avoid using large appliances at peak times. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, in its seasonal reliability report, said the state's power grid is prepared for the summer and has "sufficient" power for "normal" summer conditions, based on average weather from 2006 to 2020.

But NOAA's recently released summer outlook forecasts above average temperatures for every county in the nation.

"We are continuing to design and site facilities based on historical weather patterns that we know in the age of climate change are not a good proxy for future conditions," Webb said.

When asked if the agency is creating a blind spot for itself by not accounting for extreme weather predictions, an ERCOT spokesperson said the report "uses a scenario approach to illustrate a range of resource adequacy outcomes based on extreme system conditions, including some extreme weather scenarios."

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation, or NERC — a regulating authority that oversees the health of the nation's electrical infrastructure — has a less optimistic projection.

In a recent seasonal reliability report, NERC placed Texas at "elevated risk" for blackouts this summer. It also reported that while much of the nation will have adequate electricity this summer, several markets are at risk of energy emergencies.

California grid operators, who recently avoided widespread rolling blackouts as heat strained the grid, in its summer reliability report also based its readiness analysis on "the most recent 20 years of historical weather data." The report also notes the assessment "does not fully reflect more extreme climate induced load and supply uncertainties."

Compounding the US power grid's supply and demand problem is drought: NERC says there's been a 2% loss of reliable hydropower from the nation's power-producing dams. Add to that the rapid retirement of many coal power plants — all while nearly everything from toothbrushes to cars are now electrified. Energy experts say adding more renewables into the mix will have the dual impact of cutting climate change inducing greenhouse gas emissions but also increasing the nation's power supply, aligning with efforts such as California's 100% carbon-free mandate that aim to speed the transition.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Cape Town Renewable Energy Plan targets 450+ MW via solar, wind, and battery storage, cutting Eskom reliance, lowering greenhouse gas emissions, stabilizing electricity prices, and boosting grid resilience through municipal procurement, PPAs, and city-owned plants.

Key Points

A municipal plan to procure over 450 MW, cut Eskom reliance, stabilize prices, and reduce Cape Town emissions.

✅ Up to 150 MW from private plants within the city

✅ 300 MW to be purchased from outside Cape Town later

✅ City financing 100-200 MW of its own generation

Cape Town is seeking to secure more than 450 megawatts of power from renewable sources to cut reliance on state power utility Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd., where wind procurement cuts were considered during lockdown, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

South Africa’s second-biggest city is looking at a range of options, including geothermal exploration in comparable markets, and expects the bulk of the electricity to be generated from solar plants, Kadri Nassiep, the city’s executive director of energy and climate change, said in an interview.

On July 14 the city of 4.6 million people released a request for information to seek funding to build its own plants. This month or next it will seek proposals for the provision of as much as 150 megawatts from privately owned plants, largely solar additions, to be built and operated within the city, he said. As much as 300 megawatts may also be purchased at a later stage from plants outside of Cape Town, according to Nassiep.

The city could secure finance to build 100 to 200 megawatts of its own generation capacity, Nassiep said. “We realized that it is important for the city to be more in control around the pricing of the power,” he added.

Power Outages

Cape Town’s foray into the securing of power from sources other than Eskom comes after more than a decade of intermittent electricity outages, while elsewhere in Africa coal projects face scrutiny from lenders, because the utility can’t meet national demand. The government last year said municipalities could find alternative suppliers.

Earlier this month Ethekwini, the municipal area that includes the city of Durban, issued a request for information for the provision of 400 megawatts of power, similar to BC Hydro’s call for power driven by EV uptake.

The City of Johannesburg will in September seek information and proposals for the construction of a 150-megawatt solar plant, reflecting moves like Ontario’s new wind and solar procurements to tackle supply gaps, 50 megawatts of rooftop solar panels and the refurbishment of an idle gas-fired plant that could generate 20 megawatts, it said in June. It will also seek information for the installation of 100 megawatts of battery storage.

Cape Town, which uses a peak of 1,800 megawatts of electricity in winter, hopes to start generating some of its own power next year, aligning with SaskPower’s 2030 renewables plan seen in Canada, according to a statement that accompanied its request for financing proposals.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

U.S. Electricity Trade by State, 2013-2017 highlights EIA grid patterns, interstate imports and exports, cross-border flows with Canada and Mexico, net exporters and importers, and market regions like ISOs and RTOs shaping consumption and generation.

Key Points

Brief EIA overview of interstate and cross-border power flows, ranking top net importers and exporters.

✅ Pennsylvania was the largest net exporter, averaging 59 million MWh.

✅ California was the largest net importer, averaging 77 million MWh.

✅ Top cross-border: NY, CA, VT, MN, MI imports; WA, TX, CA, NY, MT exports.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) State Electricity Profiles, from 2013 to 2017, Pennsylvania was the largest net exporter of electricity, while California was the largest net importer.

Pennsylvania exported an annual average of 59 million megawatt-hours (MWh), while California imported an average of 77 million MWh annually.

Based on the share of total consumption in each state, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Idaho and Delaware were the five largest power-importing states between 2013 and 2017, highlighting how some clean states import 'dirty' electricity as consumption outpaces local generation. Wyoming, West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana and New Hampshire were the five largest power-exporting states. Wyoming and West Virginia were net power exporting states between 2013 and 2017.

New York, California, Vermont, Minnesota and Michigan imported the most electricity from Canada or Mexico on average from 2013 to 2017, reflecting the U.S. look to Canada for green power during that period. Similarly, Washington, Texas, California, New York, and Montana exported the most electricity to Canada or Mexico, on average, during the same period.

Electricity routinely flows among the Lower 48 states and, to a lesser extent, between the United States and Canada and Mexico. From 2013 to 2017, Pennsylvania was the largest net exporter of electricity, sending an annual average of 59 million megawatthours (MWh) outside the state. California was the largest net importer, receiving an average of 77 million MWh annually.

Based on the share of total consumption within each state, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Idaho, and Delaware were the five largest power-importing states between 2013 and 2017. Wyoming, West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana, and New Hampshire were the five largest power-exporting states. States with major population centers and relatively less generating capacity within their state boundaries tend to have higher ratios of net electricity imports to total electricity consumption, as utilities devote more to electricity delivery than to power production in many markets.

Wyoming and West Virginia were net power exporting states (they exported more power to other states than they consumed) between 2013 and 2017. Customers residing in these two states are not necessarily at an economic disadvantage or advantage compared with customers in neighboring states when considering their electricity bills and fees and market dynamics. However, large amounts of power trading may affect a state’s revenue derived from power generation.

Some states also import and export electricity outside the United States to Canada or Mexico, even as Canada's electricity exports face trade tensions today. New York, California, Vermont, Minnesota, and Michigan are the five states that imported the most electricity from Canada or Mexico on average from 2013 through 2017. Similarly, Washington, Texas (where electricity production and consumption lead the nation), California, New York, and Montana are the five states that exported the most electricity to Canada or Mexico, on average, for the same period.

Many states within the continental United States fall within integrated market regions, referred to as independent system operators or regional transmission organizations. These integrated market regions allow electricity to flow freely between states or parts of states within their boundaries.

EIA’s State Electricity Profiles provide details about the supply and disposition of electricity for each state, including net trade with other states and international imports and exports, and help you understand where your electricity comes from more clearly.

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

India spot electricity prices surged on Q3 demand, lifting power tariffs in the spot market as discoms scrambled for supply; Sembcorp SGPL boosted PLF and short-term PPA realizations, benefiting from INR per kWh peaks.

Key Points

India spot electricity prices hit Q3 records amid demand spikes, lifting tariffs and aiding Sembcorp SGPL via PLF gains.

✅ Record 10.6 cents/kWh average; 15-minute peak 20.7 cents/kWh

✅ SGPL shifted output to short-term PPA at 7.3 cents/kWh

✅ PLF ramped above 90%, cutting core losses by 30-40%

Electricity prices in India, now the third-largest electricity producer globally, bolted to a record high of 10.6 cents/kWh (INR5.1/kWh) in Q3.

A jolt in Indian spot electricity prices could save Sembcorp Industries' Indian business from further losses, even though demand has occasionally slumped in recent years, UOB Kay Hian said.

The firm said spot electricity prices in India bolted to a record high of 10.6 cents/kWh (INR5.1/kWh) in Q3 and even hit a 15-minute peak of 20.7 cents/kWh (9.9/kWh). The spike was due to a power supply crunch on higher electricity demand from power distribution companies, alongside higher imported coal volumes as domestic supplies shrank.

As an effect, Sembcorp Industries' Sembcorp Gayatri Power Limited's (SGPL) losses of $26m in Q1 and $29m in Q2 could narrow down by as much as 30-40%.

On a net basis, SGPL will recognise a significantly higher electricity tariff in 3Q17. By tactically shutting down its Unit #3 for maintenance, Unit #4 effectively had its generation contracted out at the higher short-term PPA tariff of around 7.3 cents/kWh (Rs3.5/kWh).

SGPL also capitalised on the price spike in 3Q17 as it ramped up its plant load factor (PLF) to more than 90%.

“On the back of this, coupled with the effects of reduced finance costs, we expect SGPL’s 3Q17 quarterly core loss to shrink by 30-40% from previous quarters,” UOB Kay Hian said.

Whilst electricity prices have corrected to 7.1 cents/kWh (INR3.4/kWh), the firm said it could still remain elevated on structural factors, even as coal and electricity shortages ease nationwide.

Sembcorp Industries' India operations brought in a robust performance for Q3. PLF for Thermal Powertech Corporation India Limited (TPCIL) hit 91%, whilst it reached 73% for SGPL, echoing the broader trend of thermal PLF up across the sector.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News