Nissan to mass-produce electric cars in 2012

EU Electricity Market Reform seeks to curb gas-driven volatility by expanding CfDs and PPAs, decoupling power from gas, and aligning consumer bills with low-cost renewables and nuclear, as Brussels advances market redesign.

Key Points

An EU plan to curb price spikes by expanding long-term contracts and tying bills to cheap renewables.

✅ Expands CfDs and PPAs to lock in predictable power prices

✅ Aims to decouple bills from gas-driven wholesale volatility

✅ Seeks investment certainty for renewables, nuclear, and grids

European Union energy ministers meet on Monday to debate upcoming power market reforms. Brussels is set to propose the revamp next month, but already countries are split over how to "fix" the energy system - or whether it needs fixing at all.

Here's what you need to know.

POST-CRISIS CHANGES
The European Commission pledged last year to reform the EU's electricity market rules, after record-high gas prices - caused by cuts to Russian gas flows - sent power prices soaring during an energy crisis for European companies and citizens.

The aim is to reform the electricity market to shield consumer energy bills from short-term swings in fossil fuel prices, and make sure that Europe's growing share of low-cost renewable electricity translates into lower prices, even though rolling back electricity prices poses challenges for policymakers.

Currently, power prices in Europe are set by the running cost of the plant that supplies the final chunk of power needed to meet overall demand. Often, that is a gas plant, so gas price spikes can send electricity prices soaring.

EU countries disagree on how far the reforms should go.

Spain, France and Greece are among those seeking a deep reform.

In a document shared with EU countries, seen by Reuters, Spain said the reforms should help national regulators to sign more long-term contracts with electricity generators to pay a fixed price for their power.

Nuclear and renewable energy producers, for example, would receive a "contract for difference" (CfD) from the government to provide power during their lifespan - potentially decades - at a stable price that reflects their average cost of production.

Similarly, France suggests, as part of a new electricity pricing scheme, requiring energy suppliers to sign long-term, fixed-price contracts with power generators - either through a CfD, or a private Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between the parties.

French officials say this would give the power plant owner predictable revenue, while enabling consumers to have part of their energy bill comprised of this more stable price.

Germany, Denmark, Latvia and four other countries oppose a deep reform, and, as nine EU countries oppose reforms overall, have warned the EU against a "crisis mode" overhaul of a complex system that has taken decades to develop.

They say Europe's existing power market is functioning well, and has fostered years of lower power prices, supported renewable energy and helped avoid energy shortages.

Those countries support only limited tweaks, such as making it easier for consumers to choose between fluctuating and fixed-price power contracts.

'DECOUPLE' PRICES?
The Commission initially pitched the reform as a chance to "decouple" gas and power prices in Europe, suggesting a redesign of the current system of setting power prices. But EU officials say Brussels now appears to be leaning towards more modest changes.

A public consultation on the reforms last month steered clear of a deep energy market intervention. Rather, it suggested expanding Europe's use of long-term contracts, outlining a plan for more fixed-price contracts that provide power plants with a fixed price for their electricity, like CfDs or PPAs.

The Commission said this could be done by setting EU-wide rules for CfDs and letting countries voluntarily use them, or require new state-funded power plants to sign CfDs. The consultation mooted the idea of forcing existing power plants to sign CfDs, but said this could deter much-needed investments in renewable energy.

RISKS, REWARDS
Pro-reform countries like Spain say a revamped power market will bring down energy prices for consumers, by matching their bills more closely with the true cost of producing lower-carbon electricity.

France says the aim is to secure investment in low-carbon energy including renewables, and nuclear plants like those Paris plans to build. It also says lowering power prices should be part of Europe's response to massive industrial subsidies in the United States and China - by helping European firms keep a competitive edge.

But sceptics warn that drastic changes to the market could knock confidence among investors, putting at risk the hundreds of billions of euros in renewable energy investments the EU says are needed to quit Russian fossil fuels under its plan to dump Russian energy and meet climate goals.

Energy companies including Engie (ENGIE.PA), Orsted (ORSTED.CO) and Iberdrola (IBE.MC) have said making CfDs mandatory or imposing them retroactively on existing power plants could deter investment and trigger litigation from energy companies.

POLITICAL DEBATE
EU countries' energy ministers discuss the reforms on Monday, before formal negotiations begin.

The Commission, which drafts EU laws, plans to propose the reforms on Mar. 14. After that, EU countries and lawmakers negotiate the final law, which must win majority support from European Parliament lawmakers and a reinforced majority of at least 15 countries.

Negotiations on major EU legislation often take more than a year, but some countries are pushing for a fast-tracked deal. France wants the law to be finished this year.

That has already hit resistance from countries like Germany, highlighting a France-Germany tussle over the scope of reform as they say deeper changes cannot be rushed through, and they would need an "in-depth impact assessment" - something the Commission's upcoming proposal is not expected to include, because it has been drafted so quickly.

The timeline is further complicated by European Parliament elections in 2024. That has raised concerns in reform-hungry states that failure to strike a deal before the election could significantly delay the reforms, if negotiations have to pause until a new EU parliament is elected.

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

UK Nuclear Energy Ten Point Plan outlines support for large reactors, SMRs, and AMRs, funding Sizewell C, hydrogen production, and industrial heat to reach net zero, decarbonize transport and heating, and expand clean electricity capacity.

Key Points

A UK plan backing large, small, and advanced reactors to drive net zero via clean power, hydrogen, and industrial heat.

✅ Funds large plants (e.g., Sizewell C) under value-for-money models

✅ Invests in SMRs for factory-built, modular, lower-cost deployment

✅ Backs AMRs for high-temperature heat, hydrogen, and industry

The UK government has just announced its “Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution”, in which it lays out a vision for the future of energy, transport and nature in the UK. As researchers into nuclear energy, my colleagues and I were pleased to see the plan is rather favourable to new nuclear power.

It follows the advice from the UK’s Nuclear Innovation and Research Advisory Board, pledging to pursue large power plants based on current technology, and following that up with financial support for two further waves of reactor technology (“small” and “advanced” modular reactors).

This support is an important part of the plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, as in the years to come nuclear power will be crucial to decarbonising not just the electricity supply but the whole of society.

This chart helps illustrate the extent of the challenge faced:

Electricity generation is only responsible for a small percentage of UK emissions. William Bodel. Data: UK Climate Change Committee

Efforts to reduce emissions have so far only partially decarbonised the electricity generation sector. Reaching net zero will require immense effort to also decarbonise heating, transport, as well as shipping and aviation. The plan proposes investment in hydrogen production and electric vehicles to address these three areas – which will require, as advocates of nuclear beyond electricity argue, a lot more energy generation.

Nuclear is well-placed to provide a proportion of this energy. Reaching net zero will be a huge challenge, and industry leaders warn it may be unachievable without nuclear energy. So here’s what the announcement means for the three “waves” of nuclear power.

Who will pay for it?
But first a word on financing. To understand the strategy, it is important to realise that the reason there has been so little new activity in the UK’s nuclear sector since the 1990s is due to difficulty in financing. Nuclear plants are cheap to fuel and operate and last for a long time. In theory, this offsets the enormous upfront capital cost, and results in competitively priced electricity overall.

But ever since the electricity sector was privatised, governments have been averse to spending public money on power plants. This, combined with resulting higher borrowing costs and cheaper alternatives (gas power), has meant that in practice nuclear has been sidelined for two decades. While climate change offers an opportunity for a revival, these financial concerns remain.

Large nuclear
Hinkley Point C is a large nuclear station currently under construction in Somerset, England. The project is well-advanced, with its first reactor installed and due to come online in the middle of this decade. While the plant will provide around 7% of current UK electricity demand, its agreed electricity price is relatively expensive.

Under construction: Hinkley Point C. Ben Birchall/PA

The government’s new plan states: “We are pursuing large-scale new nuclear projects, subject to value-for-money.” This is likely a reference to the proposed Sizewell C in Suffolk, on which a final decision is expected soon. Sizewell C would be a copy of the Hinkley plant – building follow-up identical reactors achieves capital cost reductions, and setbacks at Hinkley Point C have sharpened delivery focus as an alternative funding model will likely be implemented to reduce financing costs.

Other potential nuclear sites such as Wylfa and Moorside (shelved in 2018 and 2019 respectively for financial reasons) are also not mentioned, their futures presumably also covered by the “subject to value-for-money” clause.

Small nuclear
The next generation of nuclear technology, with various designs under development worldwide are smaller, cheaper, safer Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), such as the Rolls Royce “UK SMR”.

Reactors small enough to be manufactured in factories and delivered as modules can be assembled on site in much shorter times than larger designs, which in contrast are constructed mostly on site. In so doing, the capital costs per unit (and therefore borrowing costs) could be significantly lower than current new-builds.

The plan states “up to £215 million” will be made available for SMRs, Phase 2 of which will begin next year, with anticipated delivery of units around a decade from now.

Advanced nuclear
The third proposed wave of nuclear will be the Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs). These are truly innovative technologies, with a wide range of benefits over present designs and, like the small reactors, they are modular to keep prices down.

Crucially, advanced reactors operate at much higher temperatures – some promise in excess of 750°C compared to around 300°C in current reactors. This is important as that heat can be used in industrial processes which require high temperatures, such as ceramics, which they currently get through electrical heating or by directly burning fossil fuels. If those ceramics factories could instead use heat from AMRs placed nearby, it would reduce CO₂ emissions from industry (see chart above).

High temperatures can also be used to generate hydrogen, which the government’s plan recognises has the potential to replace natural gas in heating and eventually also in pioneering zero-emission vehicles, ships and aircraft. Most hydrogen is produced from natural gas, with the downside of generating CO₂ in the process. A carbon-free alternative involves splitting water using electricity (electrolysis), though this is rather inefficient. More efficient methods which require high temperatures are yet to achieve commercialisation, however if realised, this would make high temperature nuclear particularly useful.

The government is committing “up to £170 million” for AMR research, and specifies a target for a demonstrator plant by the early 2030s. The most promising candidate is likely a High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor which is possible, if ambitious, over this timescale. The Chinese currently lead the way with this technology, and their version of this reactor concept is expected soon.

In summary, the plan is welcome news for the nuclear sector, even as Europe loses nuclear capacity across the continent. While it lacks some specifics, these may be detailed in the government’s upcoming Energy White Paper. The advice to government has been acknowledged, and the sums of money mentioned throughout are significant enough to really get started on the necessary research and development.

Achieving net zero is a vast undertaking, and recognising that nuclear can make a substantial contribution if properly supported is an important step towards hitting that target.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Electricity Rate Overhaul proposes a fixed fee and lower per-kWh rates to boost electrification, renewables, and grid reliability, while CPUC weighs impacts on conservation, low-income customers, and time-of-use pricing across the state.

Key Points

A proposal to add fixed fees and cut per-kWh prices to drive electrification, support renewables, and balance grid costs.

✅ Fixed monthly fee plus lower volumetric per-kWh charges

✅ Aims to accelerate EVs, heat pumps, and building electrification

✅ CPUC review weighs equity, conservation, and grid reliability

California is contemplating a significant overhaul to its electricity rate structure that could bring major changes to electric bills statewide, a move that has ignited debate among environmentalists and politicians alike. The proposed modifications, spearheaded by the California Energy Commission (CEC), would introduce a fixed fee on electric bills and lower the rate per kilowatt-hour (kWh) used.

Motivations for the Change

Proponents of the plan argue that it would incentivize Californians to transition to electric appliances and vehicles, a critical aspect of the state's ambitious climate goals. They reason that a lower per-unit cost would make electricity a more attractive option for applications like home heating and transportation, which are currently dominated by natural gas and gasoline. Additionally, they believe the plan would spur investment in renewable energy sources and distributed generation, ultimately leading to a cleaner electricity grid.

California has some of the most ambitious climate goals in the country, aiming to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The transportation sector is the state's largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and electrification is considered a key strategy for reducing emissions. A 2021 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found that electrifying all California vehicles and buildings could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% compared to 2020 levels.

Concerns and Potential Impacts

Opponents of the proposal, including some consumer rights groups, express apprehensions that it would discourage conservation efforts. They argue that with a lower per-kWh cost, Californians would have less motivation to reduce their electricity consumption. Additionally, they raise concerns that the income-based fixed charges could disproportionately burden low-income households, who may struggle to afford the base charge regardless of their overall electricity consumption.

A recent study by the CEC suggests that the impact on most Californians would be negligible, even as regulators face calls for action over soaring bills from ratepayers across the state. The report predicts that the average household's electricity bill would change by less than $5 per month under the proposed system. However, some critics argue that this study may not fully account for the potential behavioral changes that could result from the new rate structure.

Similar Initiatives and National Implications

California is not the only state exploring changes to its electricity rates to promote clean energy. Hawaii and New York have also implemented similar programs to encourage consumers to use electricity during off-peak hours. These time-varying rates, also known as time-of-use rates, can help reduce strain on the electricity grid during peak demand periods.

The California proposal has garnered national attention as other states grapple with similar challenges in balancing clean energy goals with affordability concerns amid soaring electricity prices in California and beyond. The outcome of this debate could have significant implications for the broader effort to decarbonize the U.S. power sector.

The Road Ahead

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is reviewing the proposal and anticipates making a decision later this year, with a potential income-based flat-fee structure under consideration. The CPUC will likely consider the plan's potential benefits and drawbacks, including its impact on greenhouse gas emissions, electricity costs for consumers, and the overall reliability of the grid, even as some lawmakers seek to overturn income-based charges in the legislature.

The decision on California's electricity rates is merely one piece of the puzzle in the fight against climate change. However, it is a significant one, with the potential to shape the state's energy landscape for years to come, including the future of residential rooftop solar markets and investments.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Energy Poverty in Extreme Heat exposes vulnerable households to heatwaves, utility shutoffs, and unreliable grid infrastructure, straining public health. Community nonprofits, cooling centers, and policy reform aim to improve electricity access, resilience, and affordable energy.

Key Points

Without reliable, affordable power in heatwaves, health risks rise and cooling, food storage, and daily needs suffer.

✅ Risks: heat illness, dehydration, and indoor temperatures above 90F

✅ Causes: utility shutoffs, aging grid, unpaid bills, remote areas

✅ Relief: cooling centers, aid programs, weatherization, bill credits

In a particular pocket of America, approximately 13,000 families endure the dual challenges of sweltering heat and living without electricity, and the broader risk of summer shut-offs highlights how widespread these pressures have become across the country. This article examines the factors contributing to their plight, the impact of living without electricity during hot weather, and efforts to alleviate these hardships.

Challenges Faced by Families

For these 13,000 families, daily life is significantly impacted by the absence of electricity, especially during the scorching summer months. Without access to cooling systems such as air conditioners or fans, residents are exposed to dangerously high temperatures, which can lead to heat-related illnesses and discomfort, particularly among vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and individuals with health conditions, where electricity's role in public health became especially evident.

Causes of Electricity Shortages

The reasons behind the electricity shortages vary. In some cases, it may be due to economic challenges that prevent families from paying utility bills, resulting in disconnections. Other factors include outdated or unreliable electrical infrastructure in underserved communities, as reflected in a recent grid vulnerability report that underscores systemic risks, where maintenance and upgrades are often insufficient to meet growing demand.

Impact of Extreme Heat

During heatwaves, the lack of electricity exacerbates health risks and quality of life issues for affected families, aligning with reports of more frequent outages across the U.S. Furthermore, the absence of refrigeration and cooking facilities can compromise food safety and nutritional intake, further impacting household well-being.

Community Support and Resilience

Despite these challenges, communities and organizations often rally to support families living without electricity. Local nonprofits, community centers, and government agencies provide assistance such as distributing fans, organizing cooling centers, and delivering essentials like bottled water and non-perishable food items during heatwaves to alleviate immediate hardships and improve summer blackout preparedness in vulnerable neighborhoods.

Long-term Solutions

Addressing electricity access issues requires comprehensive, long-term solutions. These may include policy reforms to ensure equitable access to affordable energy, investments in upgrading infrastructure in underserved areas, and expanding financial assistance programs to help families maintain uninterrupted electricity service, in recognition that climate change risks increasingly stress the grid.

Advocacy and Awareness

Advocacy efforts play a crucial role in raising awareness about the challenges faced by families living without electricity and advocating for sustainable solutions. By highlighting these issues, community leaders, activists, and policymakers can work together to drive policy changes, secure funding for infrastructure improvements, and promote energy efficiency initiatives, drawing lessons from Canada's harsh-weather grid exposures that illustrate regional vulnerabilities.

Building Resilience

Building resilience in vulnerable communities involves not only improving access to reliable electricity but also enhancing preparedness for extreme weather events. This includes developing emergency response plans, educating residents about heat safety measures, and fostering community partnerships to support those in need during crises.

Conclusion

As temperatures rise and climate impacts intensify, addressing the plight of families living without electricity becomes increasingly urgent. By prioritizing equitable access to energy, investing in resilient infrastructure, and fostering community resilience, stakeholders can work towards ensuring that all families have access to essential services, even during the hottest months of the year. Collaborative efforts between government, nonprofit organizations, and community members are essential in creating sustainable solutions that improve quality of life and promote health and well-being for all residents.

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