Army looks to fuel cells for tanks

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

Barakah Unit 4 Cold Hydrostatic Testing validates reactor coolant system integrity at the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant in Abu Dhabi, UAE, confirming safety, quality, and commissioning readiness under ENEC and KEPCO oversight.

Key Points

Pressure test of Unit 4's reactor coolant system, confirming integrity and safety for commissioning at Barakah.

✅ 25% above normal operating pressure verified.

✅ Welds, joints, and high-pressure components inspected.

✅ Supports safe, reliable, emissions-free baseload power.

The Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC) has successfully completed Cold Hydrostatic Testing (CHT) at Unit 4 of the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant, the Arab world’s first nuclear energy plant being built in the Al Dhafra region of Abu Dhabi, UAE. The testing incorporated the lessons learned from the previous three units and is a crucial step towards the completion of Unit 4, the final unit of the Barakah plant.

As a part of CHT, the pressure inside Unit 4’s systems was increased to 25 per cent above what will be the normal operating pressure, demonstrating, as seen across global nuclear projects, the quality and robust nature of the Unit’s construction. Prior to the commencement of CHT, Unit 4’s Nuclear Steam Supply Systems were flushed with demineralised water, and the Reactor Pressure Vessel Head and Reactor Coolant Pump Seals were installed. During the Cold Hydrostatic Testing, the welds, joints, pipes and components of the reactor coolant system and associated high-pressure systems were verified.

Mohammed Al Hammadi, Chief Executive Officer of ENEC said: “I am proud of the continued progress being made at Barakah despite the circumstances we have all faced in relation to COVID-19. The UAE leadership’s decisive and proactive response to the pandemic supported us in taking timely, safety-led actions to protect the health and safety of our workforce and our plant. These actions, alongside the efforts of our talented and dedicated workforce, have enabled the successful completion of CHT at Unit 4, which was completed in adherence to the highest standards of safety, quality, and security.

“With this accomplishment, we move another step closer to achieving our goal of supplying up to a quarter of our nation’s electricity needs through the national grid and powering its future growth with safe, reliable, and emissions-free electricity,” he added.

By the end of 2019, ENEC and Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), working with Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) on the project, had successfully completed all major construction work including major concrete pouring, installation of the Turbine Generator, and the internal components of the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) of Unit 4, which paved the way for the commencement of testing and commissioning.

The testing at Unit 4 represents a significant achievement in the development of the UAE Peaceful Nuclear Energy Program, following the successful completion of fuel assembly loading into Unit 1 in March 2020, confirming that the UAE has officially become a peaceful nuclear energy operating nation. Preparations are now in the final stages for the safe start-up of Unit 1, which subsequently reached 100% power ahead of commercial operations, in the coming months.

ENEC is currently in the final stages of construction of units 2, 3 and 4 of the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant, as China’s nuclear program continues its steady development globally. The overall construction of the four units is more than 94% complete. Unit 4 is more than 84 per cent, Unit 3 is more than 92 per cent and Unit 2 is more than 95 per cent. The four units at Barakah will generate up to 25 per cent of the UAE’s electricity demand by producing 5,600 MW of clean baseload electricity, as projects such as new reactors in Georgia take shape, and preventing the release of 21 million tons of carbon emissions each year – the equivalent of removing 3.2 million cars off the roads annually.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Global Adjustment and ICI balance hydro rates, renewable cost shift, and peak demand. Class A and Class B customers face demand response decisions amid pandemic occupancy uncertainty and volatile GA charges through 2022.

Key Points

A pricing model where GA costs and ICI peak allocation shape Class A/B bills, driven by renewables cost shifts.

✅ Renewable cost shift trims GA; larger Class A savings expected.

✅ Class A peak strategy returns; occupancy uncertainty persists.

✅ Class B faces volatile GA; limited levers beyond efficiency.

Ontario’s large commercial electricity customers can approach the looming annual decision about their billing structure for the 12 months beginning July 1 with the assurance of long-term relief on a portion of their costs, amid changes coming for electricity consumers that could affect planning. That’s to be weighed against uncertainties around energy demand and whether a locked-in cost allocation formula that looked favourable in pre-pandemic times will remain so until June 30, 2022.

“The biggest unknown is we just don’t know when the people are coming back,” Jon Douglas, director of sustainability with Menkes Property Management Services, reflected during a webinar sponsored by the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) of Greater Toronto last week. “The occupancy in our office buildings this fall, and going into the new year, could really impact the outcome of the decision.”

After a year of operational upheaval and more modifications to provincial electricity pricing policies, BOMA Toronto’s regularly scheduled workshop ahead of the June 15 deadline for eligible customers to opt into the Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI) program had a lot of ground to cover. Notably, beginning in January, all commercial customers have seen a reduction in the global adjustment (GA) component of their monthly hydro bills after the Ontario government shifted costs associated with contracted non-hydroelectric renewable supply to reduce the burden on industrial ratepayers from electricity rates to the general provincial account — a move that trims approximately $258 million per month from the total GA charged to industrial and commercial customers. However, they won’t garner the full benefit of that until 2022 since they’re currently repaying about $333 million in GA costs that were deferred in April, May and June of 2020.

Renewable cost shift pares the global adjustment
For now, Ontario government officials estimate the renewable cost shift equates to a 12 per cent discount relative to 2020 prices, even as typical bills may rise about 2% as fixed pricing ends in some cases. Once last year’s GA deferral is repaid at the end of 2021, they project the average Class A customer participating in the ICI program should realize a 16 per cent saving on the total hydro bill, while Class B customers paying the GA on a volumetric per kilowatt-hour (kWh) basis will see a slightly more moderate 15 per cent decrease.

“This is the biggest change to electricity pricing that’s happened since the introduction of ICI,” Tim Christie, director of electricity policy, economics and system planning for Ontario’s Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines, told online workshop attendees. “The government is funding the out-of-market costs of renewables. It does tail off into the 2030s as those contracts (for wind, solar and biomass generation) expire, but over the next eight-ish years, it’s pretty steady at around just over $3 billion per year.”

Extrapolating from 2020 costs, he pegged average electricity costs at roughly 9.1 cents/kWh for Class A commercial customers and 13.2 cents/kWh for Class B, a point of concern for Ontario manufacturers facing high rates as well. However, energy management specialists suggest actual 2021 numbers haven’t proved that out.

“In commercial buildings, we’re averaging 10 to 12 cents for Class A in 2021, and we’re seeing more than that for about 14, 15 cents for Class B,” reported Scott Rouse, managing partner with the consulting firm, Energy@Work.

GA costs for Class B customers dropped nearly 30 per cent in the first four months of 2021 compared to the last four months of 2020, when they averaged 11.8 cents/kWh. Thus far, though, there have been significant month-to-month fluctuations, with a low of 5.04 cents/kWh in February and a high of 10.9 cents/kWh in April contributing to the four-month average of 8.3 cents/kWh.

“In 2020, system-wide GA very often averaged more than $1 billion per month,” Rouse said. “This February it dropped to $500 million, which was really quite surprising. So it is a very volatile cost.”

Although welcome, the renewable cost shift does alter the payback on energy-saving investments, particularly for demand response mechanisms like energy storage. When combined with pandemic-related uncertainty and a series of policy and program reversals alongside calls to clean up Ontario’s hydro policy in recent years, the industry’s appetite for some more capital-intensive technologies appears to be flagging.

“Volatility puts a pause on some of the innovation,” said Terry Flynn, general manager with BentallGreenOak and chair of BOMA Toronto’s energy committee. “It could be a leading edge, but it might be a bleeding edge that won’t bear any fruit because the way the commodity costs are structured will change.”

“There’s kind of a wait-and-see approach on some of these bigger investments,” Douglas concurred.

Industrial Conservation Initiative underpins commercial class divide
Turning to the ICI, Class A customers — defined as those with average monthly energy demand of at least 1 megawatt (MW) — encountered some unexpected changes to the program rules during 2020. Meanwhile, Class B customers — encompassing the vast share of commercial properties smaller than about 350,000 square feet — confront the persistent reality of electricity cost allocation that offloads the burden from larger players onto them.

Through the ICI, participating Class A customers pay a share of the global adjustment that’s prorated to their energy use during the five hours of the period from May 1 to April 30 when the highest overall system demand is recorded. This gives Class A customers the opportunity to lock in a favourable factor for calculating their share of monthly system-wide global adjustment costs if they can successful project and curtail energy loads during those five hours of peak demand. On the flipside, Class B customers pay the remainder of those system-wide costs, on a straightforward per-kWh basis, once Class A payments have been reconciled.

“Class B has sometimes been regarded as the forgotten middle child of the customer classes in Ontario where all the shifted costs in the system kind of pile up,” acknowledged Mark Olsheski, vice president, energy and environment, with Sussex Strategy Group. “Likewise, there can be big unpredictable and uncontrollable swings in the global adjustment rate from month to month and, outside of pure energy efficiency, there really is precious little opportunity or empowerment for a Class B customer to take actions to lower their bills.”

Nevertheless, COVID-19 presents a few extra hiccups for Class A customers this year. Conventionally, late May is when they receive notification of the cost allocation factor that would be used to determine their GA for the upcoming July 1 to June 30 period. This year, though, all current ICI participants will retain the factor they secured by responding to the five hours of peak demand during the 12 months from May 1, 2019 to April 30, 2020 after the Ontario government placed a temporary halt on the peak demand response aspect of the program last summer. Regardless, eligible ICI participants must formally opt into the program by June 15 or they will be billed as Class B customers.

Peak chasing resumes for summer 2021
Since peak demand hours conventionally occur from June to September, Class A customers will once again be studying forecasts intently and preparing to respond via Peak Perks as the heat wave season sets in. That should help alleviate some of the system stresses that arose last summer — prompting policy-makers to reject lobbying for a continued pause on peak demand response.

“The policy rationale was to allow consumers to focus on their operations when recovering from COVID as opposed to reducing peaks. The other issue was that we did not expect the peaks to be high last summer given COVID shutdowns,” Christie recounted. “But due to some hot weather, more people at home and also the lack of ICI response, we saw peaks we haven’t seen in many, many years come up last summer. So the peak hiatus has ended and this summer we’ll be back to responding to ICI as per normal.”

Among Class A customers, owners/managers of office and retail facilities generally have the most to lose from a billing formula tied to the energy demand of more densely occupied buildings in the summer of 2019. However, they could be much more competitively positioned for 2022-23 if their buildings remain below full occupancy and energy demand stays lower than usual this summer.

“Where we can improve is the IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator) and the LDCs (local distribution companies) need to help customers get their real-time data, especially in light of the phantom demand issue, interpret their bills and their Class A versus B scenarios much more easily and comprehensively,” urged Lee Hodgkinson, vice president, technical services, sustainability and ESG, with Dream Unlimited. “ I look for APIs (application programming interface) and direct data flow from the LDCs to the building owners so that we can access that data really easily.”

Given Class A’s historic advantages, few eligible ICI participants are expected to migrate out to Class B. From a sustainability perspective, there’s perhaps more cause to question how the ICI’s 1-MW threshold encourages strategies to move in the other direction.

“You could jack up demand in some buildings and get them into Class A basically by firing up the chillers on the weekend and then pouring cooling outside to get rid of it,” Douglas noted. “That has nothing to do with climate change strategy or sustainability, but it’s a cost- saving strategy, and, sometimes, when you look at the math, it’s hundreds of thousands of dollars you can save.”

Brian Hewson, vice president, consumer protection and industry performance with the Ontario Energy Board (OEB), confirmed the OEB is currently scrutinizing the discrepancy that leaves Class B as the only consumer group with no flexibility to curtail energy load during higher-priced periods, and will be providing advice to the Ministry of Energy. In the interim, that status does, at least, simplify tactics.

“Just reduce your kWh and it doesn’t matter what time of day because you’re paying that fixed rate for 24 hours a day. So if you can curb your demand at night, you get a big bang for your dollar,” Rouse advised.

“We do talk about rates a lot, but if you’re not using it, you’re not paying for it,” Flynn agreed. “A lot of our focus is still on really to try to reduce the number of kilowatts that we use. That seems to be the best thing to do.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Blood Nickel spotlights ethical sourcing in the EV supply chain, linking nickel mining to human rights, environmental impact, ESG standards, and Canadian leadership in sustainable extraction, transparency, and community engagement across global battery materials markets.

Key Points

Blood Nickel is nickel mined under unethical or harmful conditions, raising ESG, human rights, and environmental risks.

✅ Links EV battery supply chains to social and environmental harm

✅ Calls for transparency, traceability, and ethical sourcing standards

✅ Highlights Canada's role in sustainable mining and community benefits

The rise of electric vehicles (EVs) has sparked a surge in demand for essential battery components, particularly nickel, and related cobalt market pressures essential for their batteries. This demand has ignited concerns about the environmental and social impacts of nickel mining, particularly in regions where standards may not meet global sustainability benchmarks. This article explores the concept of "blood nickel," its implications for the environment and communities, and Canada's potential role in promoting sustainable mining practices.

The Global Nickel Boom

As the automotive industry shifts towards electric vehicles, nickel has emerged as a critical component for lithium-ion batteries due to its ability to store energy efficiently. This surge in demand has led to a global scramble for nickel, with major producers ramping up extraction efforts to meet market needs amid EV shortages and wait times that underscore supply constraints. However, this rapid expansion has raised alarms about the environmental consequences of nickel mining, including deforestation, water pollution, and carbon emissions from energy-intensive extraction processes.

Social Impacts: The Issue of "Blood Nickel"

Beyond environmental concerns, the term "blood nickel" has emerged to describe nickel mined under conditions that exploit workers, disregard human rights, or fail to uphold ethical labor standards. In some regions, nickel mining has been linked to issues such as child labor, unsafe working conditions, and displacement of indigenous communities. This has prompted calls for greater transparency and accountability in global supply chains, with initiatives like U.S.-ally efforts to secure EV metals aiming to align sourcing standards, to ensure that the benefits of EV production do not come at the expense of vulnerable populations.

Canada's Position and Potential

Canada, home to significant nickel deposits, stands at a pivotal juncture in the global EV revolution, supported by EV assembly deals in Canada that strengthen domestic manufacturing. With its robust regulatory framework, commitment to environmental stewardship, and advanced mining technologies, Canada has the potential to lead by example in sustainable nickel mining practices. Canadian companies are already exploring innovations such as cleaner extraction methods, renewable energy integration, and community engagement initiatives to minimize the environmental footprint and enhance social benefits of nickel mining.

Challenges and Opportunities

Despite Canada's potential, the mining industry faces challenges in balancing economic growth with environmental and social responsibility and building integrated supply chains, including downstream investments like a battery plant in Niagara that can connect materials to markets. Achieving sustainable mining practices requires collaboration among governments, industry stakeholders, and local communities to establish clear guidelines, monitor compliance, and invest in responsible resource development. This approach not only mitigates environmental impacts but also fosters long-term economic stability and social well-being in mining regions.

Pathways to Sustainability

Moving forward, Canada can play a pivotal role in shaping the global nickel supply chain by promoting transparency, ethical sourcing, and environmental stewardship. This includes advocating for international standards that prioritize sustainable mining practices, supporting research and development of cleaner technologies, and leveraging adjacent resources such as Alberta lithium potential to diversify battery supply chains, while fostering partnerships with global stakeholders to ensure a fair and equitable transition to a low-carbon economy.

Conclusion

The rapid growth of electric vehicles has propelled nickel into the spotlight, highlighting both its strategic importance and the challenges associated with its extraction. As global demand for "green" metals intensifies, addressing the concept of "blood nickel" becomes increasingly urgent, even as trade measures like tariffs on Chinese EVs continue to reshape market incentives. Canada, with its rich nickel reserves and commitment to sustainability, has an opportunity to lead the charge towards ethical and responsible mining practices. By leveraging its strengths in innovation, regulation, and community engagement, Canada can help forge a path towards a more sustainable future where electric vehicles drive progress without compromising environmental integrity or social justice.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Nova Scotia Power solar charge proposes an $8/kW monthly system access fee on net metering customers, citing grid costs. UARB review, carbon credits, rate hikes, and solar industry impacts fuel political and consumer backlash.

Key Points

A proposed $8/kW monthly grid access fee on net metered solar customers, delayed to Feb 1, 2023, pending UARB review.

✅ $8/kW monthly system access fee on net metering

✅ Delay to Feb 1, 2023 after industry and political pushback

✅ UARB review; debate over grid costs and carbon credits

Nova Scotia Power has pushed back by a year the start date of a proposed new charge for customers who generate electricity and sell it back to the grid, following days of concern from the solar industry and politicians worried that it will damage the sector.

The company applied to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB) last week for various changes, including a "system access charge" of $8 per kilowatt monthly on net metered installations, and the province cannot order the utility to lower rates under current law. The vast majority of the province's 4,100 net metering customers are residential customers with solar power, according to the application. 

The proposed charge would have come into effect Tuesday if approved, but Nova Scotia Power said in a news release Tuesday it will change the date in its filing from Feb. 1, 2022, to Feb. 1, 2023.

"We understand that the solar industry was taken off guard," utility CEO Peter Gregg said in an interview.

"There could have been an opportunity to have more conversations in advance."

Gregg said the utility will meet with members of the solar industry over the next year to work on finding solutions that support the sector's growth, while addressing what NSP sees as an inequity in the net metering system.

NSP recognized that customers who choose solar invest a significant amount and pay for the electricity they use, but they don't pay for costs associated with accessing the electrical grid when they need energy, such as on cold winter evenings when the sun is not shining.

"I know that's hit a nerve, but it doesn't take away the fact that it is an issue," Gregg said.

He said this is an issue utilities are navigating around North America, where seasonal rate designs have sparked consumer backlash in New Brunswick, and NSP is open to hearing ideas for other models of charges or fees.

The utility's suggested system access charge closely resembles one proposed in California, which has also raised major concerns from the solar industry and been criticized by the likes of Elon Musk, and has parallels to Massachusetts solar demand charges as well.

Although the "solar profile" of Nova Scotia and California is very different, with far more solar customers in that state, and in other provinces such as Saskatchewan, NDP criticism of 8% hikes has intensified affordability debates, Gregg said the fundamental issues are the same.

For those with a typical 10-kilowatt solar system, which generates around $1,800 of electricity a year, the new charge would mean those customers would be required to pay $960 back to NSP. That would roughly double the length of time it takes for those customers to pay off their investment for the panels.

David Brushett, chair of Solar Nova Scotia, said he relayed concerns from solar installers and others in the industry to Gregg on Monday. 

Brushett said the year delay is a positive first step, but he is still calling on the province to take a strong stance against the application, which has led to customers cancelling their panel installations and companies considering layoffs.

"There's still an urgency to this situation that hasn't been addressed, and we need to kind of protect the industry," he said Tuesday.

NSP's original application proposed exempting net metering customers who enrolled before Feb. 1, 2022, from the charge for 25 years after they sign up. But any benefit would be lost if those customers sold their home, and the exemption wouldn't extend to the new buyers, said Brushett.

Carbon offsets missing from equation: industry
Brushett said NSP "completely ignored" the fact that it's getting free carbon offset credits from homeowners who use solar energy under the provincial cap and trade program.

If the net metering system continues as is, NSP has said non-solar customers would pay about $55 million between now and 2030. That number assumes about 2,000 people sign up for net metering each year over the next nine years.

When asked whether those carbon emission credits were factored into the calculations for the proposed charge, Gregg said, "I don't believe in the current structure it is, but it's something that certainly we'd be open to hearing about."

Brushett said his group is finalizing a legal response to NSP's proposal and has already filed an official complaint against the company with the UARB.

Base charge on actual electrical output: customer
At least one shareholder in NSP parent company Emera is considering selling his shares in response to the application.

Joe Hood, a shareholder from Middle Sackville, said the proposed charge won't apply to his existing 11.16-kilowatt solar system, but if it did, it would cost him $1,071 a year.

"I am offended that a company I would invest in would do this to the solar industry in Nova Scotia," he said.

According to his meter, Hood said he pushed 9,600 kilowatt hours of solar electricity to the grid last year— some only for a brief period, and all of which was used by his home by the end of the year.

Under the proposed charge, someone with one solar panel who goes away on vacation in the summer would push all their electricity to the grid, and be charged far less than someone with 10 panels who has used all their own power and hasn't pushed anything.

"Nova Scotia Power's argument is that it's an issue with the grid. Well, then it should be based on what touches the grid," Hood said.

Far from actually making the system fair for everyone, Hood said this charge places solar only in the hands of the super-rich or NSP, with projects like its community solar gardens in Amherst, N.S.

Green Party suggests legislation update
Nova Scotia's Green Party also said Tuesday that Gregg's arguments of fairness are misleading, echoing earlier premier opposition to a 14% hike on rates.

The party is calling for an update to the Electricity Act that would "prevent penalizing any activity that helps Nova Scotia reach its emissions target," aligning with calls to make the electricity system more accountable to residents.

In its application, NSP has also asked to increase electricity rates for residential customers by at least 10 per cent over the next three years, amid debate that culminated in a 14% rate hike approval by regulators. 

The company wants to maintain its nine per cent rate of return.

NSP expects to earn $153 million this year, $192 million in 2023, and $213 million in 2024 from its rate of return. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Muskrat Falls funding deal delivers federal relief to Newfoundland and Labrador: Justin Trudeau outlines loan guarantees, transmission investment, Hibernia royalties, and $10-a-day child care to stabilize hydroelectric costs and curb electricity rate hikes.

Key Points

A $5.2b federal plan aiding NL hydro via loan guarantees, transmission funds, and Hibernia royalties to curb power rates.

✅ $1b for transmission and $1b in federal loan guarantees

✅ $3.2b via Hibernia royalty transfers through 2047

✅ Limits power rate hikes; adds $10-a-day child care in NL

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was in Newfoundland and Labrador Wednesday to announce a $5.2-billion ratepayer protection plan to help the province cover the costs of a troubled hydroelectric project ahead of an expected federal election call.

Trudeau's visit to St. John's, N.L., wrapped up a two-day tour of Atlantic Canada that featured several major funding commitments, and he concluded his day in Newfoundland and Labrador by announcing the province will become the fourth to strike a deal with Ottawa for a $10-a-day child-care program.

As he addressed reporters, the prime minister was flanked by the six Liberal members of Parliament from the province. He alluded to the mismanagement that led the over-budget Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project to become what Liberal Premier Andrew Furey has called an "anchor around the collective souls" of the province.

"The pressures and challenges faced by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for mistakes made in the past is something that Canadians all needed to step up on, and that's exactly what we did," Trudeau said.

Furey, who joined Trudeau for the two announcements and was effusive in his praise for the federal government, said the federal funding will help Newfoundland and Labrador avoid a spike in electricity rates as customers start paying for Muskrat Falls ahead of when the project begins generating power this November.

"Muskrat Falls has been the No. 1 issue facing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians now for well over a decade," Furey said, adding that he is regularly asked by people whether their electricity rates are going to double, a concern other provinces address through rate legislation in Ontario as well.

"We landed on a deal today that I think -- I know -- is a big deal for Newfoundland and Labrador and will finally get the muskrat off our back," he said.

The agreement-in-principle between the two governments includes a $1-billion investment from Ottawa in a transmission through Quebec portion of the project, as well as $1 billion in loan guarantees. The rest will come from annual transfers from Ottawa equivalent to its annual royalty gains from its share in the Hibernia offshore oilfield, which sits off the coast of St. John's. Those transfers are expected to add up to about $3.2 billion between now and 2047, when the oilfield is expected to run dry.

The money will help cover costs set to come due when the Labrador project comes online, preventing rate increases that would have been needed to pay the bills, and officials have discussed a lump-sum bill credit to help households. Though electricity rates in the province will still rise, to 14.7 cents per kilowatt hour from the current 12.5 cents, that's well below the projected 23 cents that officials had said would be needed to cover the project's costs.

Muskrat Falls was commissioned in 2012 at a cost of $7.4 billion, but its price tag has since ballooned to $13.1 billion. Ottawa previously backed the project with billions of dollars in loan guarantees, and in December, Trudeau announced he had appointed Serge Dupont, former deputy clerk of the Privy Council, to oversee rate mitigation talks with the province about financially restructuring the project.

Its looming impact on the provincial budget is set against an already grim financial situation: the province projected an $826-million deficit in its latest budget, and a recent financial update from the provincial energy corporation reflected pandemic impacts, coupled with $17.2 billion in net debt.

After visiting with children from a daycare centre in the College of the North Atlantic, Trudeau and Furey announced that in 2023, the average cost of regulated child care in the province for children under six would be cut to $10 a day from $25 a day. Trudeau said that within five years, almost 6,000 new daycare spaces would be created in the province.

"As part of the agreement, a new full-day, year-round pre-kindergarten program for four-year-olds will also start rolling out in 2023," the prime minister told reporters. "For parents, this agreement is huge."

Newfoundland and Labrador is the fourth province, after Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and British Columbia, to sign on to the federal government's child-care program.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News