Industry weighs various greenhouse gas options

Ontario Ultra-Low Overnight Electricity Rates cut costs for shift workers and EV charging, with time-of-use pricing, off-peak savings, on-peak premiums, kilowatt-hour details, and Ontario Energy Board guidance for homes and businesses across participating utilities.

Key Points

Ontario's ultra-low overnight plan: 2.4c/kWh 11pm-7am for EVs, shift workers; higher daytime on-peak pricing.

✅ 2.4c/kWh 11pm-7am; 24c/kWh on-peak 4pm-9pm

✅ Best for EV charging, shift work, night usage

✅ Available provincewide by Nov 1 via local utilities

The Ontario government is introducing a new ultra-low overnight price plan that can benefit shift workers and individuals who charge electric vehicles while they sleep.

Speaking at a news conference on Tuesday, Energy Minister Todd Smith said the new plan could save customers up to $90 a year.

“Consumer preferences are still changing and our government realized there was more we could do, especially as the province continues to have an excess supply of clean electricity at night when province-wide electricity demand is lower,” Smith said, noting a trend underscored by Ottawa's demand decline during the pandemic.

The new rate, which will be available as an opt-in option as of May 1, will be 2.4 cents per kilowatt-hour from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. Officials say this is 67 per cent lower than the current off-peak rate, which saw a off-peak relief extension during the pandemic.

However, customers should be aware that this plan will mean a higher on-peak rate, as unlike earlier calls to cut peak rates, Hydro One peak charges remained unchanged for self-isolating customers.

The new plan will be offered by Toronto Hydro, London Hydro, Centre Wellington Hydro, Hearst Power, Renfrew Hydro, Wasaga Distribution, and Sioux Lookout Hydro by May. Officials have said this will be expanded to all local distribution companies by Nov. 1.

With the new addition of the “ultra low” pricing, there are now three different electricity plans that Ontarians can choose from. Here is what you have to know about the new hydro options:

TIME OF USE:
Most residential customers, businesses and farms are eligible for these rates, similar to BC Hydro time-of-use proposals in another province, which are divided into off-peak, mid-peak and on-peak hours.

This is what customers will pay as of May 1 according to the Ontario Energy Board, following earlier COVID-19 electricity relief measures that temporarily adjusted rates:

 Off-peak (Weekdays between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. and on weekends/holidays): 7.4 cents per kilowatt-hour
 Mid-Peak (Weekdays between 7 a.m. and 11 a.m., and between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m.): 10.2 cents per kilowatt-hour
 On-Peak ( Weekdays 11 a.m. to 5 p.m.): 15.1 cents per kilowatt-hour

TIERED RATES
This plan allows customers to get a standard rate depending on how much electricity is used. There are various thresholds per tier, and once a household exceeds that threshold, a higher price applies. Officials say this option may be beneficial for retirees who are home often during the day or those who use less electricity overall.

The tiers change depending on the season. This is what customers will pay as of May 1:

 Residential households that use 600 kilowatts of electricity per month and non-residential businesses that use 750 kilowatts per month: 8.7 cents per kilowatt-hour.
 Residences and businesses that use more than that will pay a flat rate of 10.3 cents per kilowatt-hour

ULTRA-LOW OVERNIGHT RATES
Customers can opt-in to this plan if they use most of their electricity overnight.

This is what customers will pay as of May 1:

•  Between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m.: 2.4 cents per kilowatt-hour
•  Weekends and holidays between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m.: 7.4 cents per kilowatt-hour
•  Mid-Peak (Weekdays between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m., and between 9 p.m. and 11 p.m.): 10.2 cents per kilowatt-hour
•  On-Peak (weekdays between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m.): 24 cents per kilowatt-hour

More information on these plans can be found on the Ontario Energy Board website, alongside stable pricing for industrial and commercial updates from the province.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

BC Hydro COVID-19 Relief Fund enables small businesses to waive electricity bills for commercial properties during the pandemic, offering credits, rate support, and applications for eligible customers forced to temporarily close.

Key Points

A program that lets eligible small businesses waive up to three months of BC Hydro bills during COVID-19 closures.

✅ Eligible small general service BC Hydro accounts

✅ Up to 3 months of waived electricity charges

✅ Must be temporarily closed due to the pandemic

Businesses are taking advantage of a BC Hydro relief fund that allows electricity bills for commercial properties to be waived during the COVID-19 pandemic.

More than 3,000 applications have already been filed since the program launched on Wednesday, allowing commercial properties forced to shutter during the crisis to waive the expense for up to three months, while Ontario rate reductions are taking effect for businesses under separate measures. 

“To be eligible for the COVID-19 Relief Fund, business customers must be on BC Hydro’s small general service rate and have temporarily closed or ceased operation due to the COVID-19 pandemic,” BC Hydro said in a statement. “BC Hydro estimates that around 40,000 small businesses in the province will be eligible for the program.”

The program builds off a similar initiative BC Hydro launched last week for residential customers who have lost employment or income because of COVID-19, and parallels Ontario's subsidized hydro plan introduced to support ratepayers. So far, 57,000 B.C. residents have applied for the relief fund, which amounts to an estimated $16 million in credits, amid scrutiny over deferred BC Hydro operating costs reported by the auditor general.

Electricity use across B.C. has plummeted since the outbreak began. 

According to BC Hydro, daily consumption has fallen 13% in the first two weeks of April, aligning with electricity demand down 10% reports, compared to the three-year average for the same time period.

Electricity use has fallen 30% for recreation facilities, 29% in the restaurant sector and 27% in hotels, while industry groups such as Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters have supported steps to reduce prices. 

For more information about the COVID-19 Relief Fund and advice on avoiding BC Hydro scam attempts, go to bchydro.com/covid19relief.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

California Nuclear Renewable Bill AB 2898 seeks to add nuclear to the Renewables Portfolio Standard, impacting Diablo Canyon, PG&E compliance, carbon-free targets, and potential license extensions while addressing climate goals and natural gas reliance.

Key Points

A bill to add nuclear to California's RPS, influencing Diablo Canyon, PG&E planning, and carbon-free climate targets.

✅ Reclassifies nuclear as renewable in California's RPS.

✅ Could influence Diablo Canyon license extension and ownership.

✅ Targets carbon-free goals while limiting natural gas reliance.

Although he admits it's a long shot, a member of the California Legislature from the district that includes the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant has introduced a bill that would add nuclear power to the state's list of renewable energy sources.

"I think that nuclear power is an important component of generating large-scale electricity that's good for the environment," said Jordan Cunningham, R-San Luis Obispo. "Without nuclear as part of the renewable portfolio, we're going to have tremendous difficulty meeting the state's climate goals without a significant cost increase on electricity ratepayers."

Established in 2002, California's Renewables Portfolio Standard spells out the power sources eligible to count toward the state's goals to wean itself of fossil fuels. The list includes solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, small hydroelectric facilities and even tidal currents. The standard has been updated, currently calling for 60 percent of California's electricity to come from renewables by 2030 and 100 percent from carbon-free sources by 2045, even as some analyses argue net-zero emissions may be difficult to achieve without nuclear power.

Nuclear power is not part of the portfolio standard and Diablo Canyon — the only remaining nuclear plant in California — is scheduled to stop producing electricity by 2025, even as some Southern California plant closures face postponement to maintain grid reliability.

Pacific Gas & Electric, the operators of Diablo Canyon, announced in 2016 an agreement with a collection of environmental and labor groups to shut down the plant, often framed as part of a just transition for workers and communities. PG&E said Diablo will become uneconomical to run due to changes in California's power grid — such as growth of renewable energy sources, increased energy efficiency measures and the migration of customers from traditional utilities to community choice energy programs.

But Cunningham thinks the passage of Assembly Bill 2898, which he introduced last week, — as innovators like Bill Gates' mini-reactor venture tout new designs — could give the plant literally a new lease on life.

"If PG&E were able to count the power produced (at Diablo) toward its renewable goals, it might — I'm not saying it will or would, but it might — cause them to reconsider applying to extend the operating license at Diablo," Cunningham said.

Passing the bill, supporters say, could also make Diablo Canyon attractive to an outside investor to purchase and then apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license extension.

But nuclear power has long generated opposition in California and AB 2898 will face long odds in Sacramento, and similar efforts elsewhere have drawn opposition from power producers as well. The Legislature is dominated by Democrats, who have expressed more interest in further developing wind and solar energy projects than offering a lifeline to nuclear.

And if the bill managed to generate momentum, anti-nuclear groups will certainly be quick to mobilize, reflecting a national energy debate over Three Mile Island and whether to save struggling plants.

When told of Cunningham's bill, David Weisman, outreach coordinator for the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, said flatly, "Diablo Canyon has become a burdensome, costly nuclear white elephant."

Critics say nuclear power by definition cannot be considered renewable because it leaves behind waste in the form of spent nuclear fuel that then has to be stored, while supporters point to next-gen nuclear designs that aim to improve safety and costs. The federal government has not found a site to deposit the waste that has built up over decades from commercial nuclear power plants.

Even though Diablo Canyon is the only nuclear plant left in the Golden State, it accounts for 9 percent of California's power mix. Cunningham says if the plant closes, the state's reliance on natural gas — a fossil fuel — will increase, pointing to what happened when the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station closed.

In 2011, the final full year operations for San Onofre, nuclear accounted for 18.2 percent of in-state generation and natural gas made up 45.4 percent. The following year, nuclear dropped to 9.3 percent and gas shot up to 61.1 percent of in-state generation.

"If we're going to get serious about being a national leader as California has been on dealing with climate change, I think nuclear is part of the answer," Cunningham said.

But judging from the response to an email from the Union-Tribune, PG&E isn't exactly embracing Cunningham's bill.

"We remain focused on safely and reliably operating Diablo Canyon Power Plant until the end of its current operating licenses and planning for a successful decommissioning," said Suzanne Hosn, a PG&E senior manager at Diablo Canyon. "The Assemblyman's proposal does not change any of PG&E's plans for the plant."

Cunningham concedes AB 2898 is "a Hail Mary pass" but said "it's an important conversation that needs to be had."

The second-term assemblyman introduced a similar measure late last year that sought to have the Legislature bring the question before voters as an amendment to the state constitution. But the legislation, which would require a two-thirds majority vote in the Assembly and the Senate, is still waiting for a committee assignment.

AB 2898, on the other hand, requires a simple majority to move through the Legislature. Cunningham said he hopes the bill will receive a committee assignment by the end of next month.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ottawa Sewage Energy Exchange System uses wastewater heat recovery and efficient heat pumps to deliver renewable district energy, zero carbon heating and cooling, cutting greenhouse gas emissions at LeBreton Flats and scaling urban developments.

Key Points

A district energy system recovering wastewater heat via pumps to deliver zero carbon heating and cooling.

✅ Delivers 9 MW heating and cooling for 2.4M sq ft at LeBreton Flats

✅ Cuts 5,066 tonnes CO2e each year, reducing greenhouse gases

✅ Powers Odenak zero carbon housing via district energy

Ottawa is embarking on a groundbreaking initiative to harness the latent thermal energy within its wastewater system, in tandem with advances in energy storage in Ontario that strengthen grid resilience, marking a significant stride toward sustainable urban development. The Sewage Energy Exchange System (SEES) project, a collaborative effort led by the LeBreton Community Utility Partnership—which includes Envari Holding Inc. (a subsidiary of Hydro Ottawa) and Theia Partners—aims to revolutionize how the city powers its buildings.

Harnessing Wastewater for Sustainable Energy

The SEES will utilize advanced heat pump technology to extract thermal energy from the city's wastewater infrastructure, providing both heating and cooling to buildings within the LeBreton Flats redevelopment. This innovative approach eliminates the need for fossil fuels, aligning with Ottawa's commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting clean energy solutions across the province, including the Hydrogen Innovation Fund that supports new low-carbon pathways.

The system operates by diverting sewage from the municipal collection network into an external well, where it undergoes filtration to remove large solids. The filtered water is then passed through a heat exchanger, transferring thermal energy to the building's heating and cooling systems. After the energy is extracted, the treated water is safely returned to the city's sewer system.

Environmental and Economic Impact

Once fully implemented, the SEES is projected to deliver over 9 megawatts of heating and cooling capacity, servicing approximately 2.4 million square feet of development. This capacity is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 5,066 tonnes annually—equivalent to the electricity consumption of over 3,300 homes for a year. Such reductions are pivotal in helping Ottawa meet its ambitious goal of achieving a 96% reduction in community-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, as outlined in its Climate Change Master Plan and Energy Evolution strategy, and they align with Ontario's plan to rely on battery storage to meet rising demand across the grid.

Integration with the Odenak Development

The first phase of the SEES will support the Odenak development, a mixed-use project comprising two high-rise residential buildings. This development is poised to be Canada's largest residential zero-carbon project, echoing calls for Northern Ontario grid sustainability from community groups, featuring 601 housing units, with 41% designated as affordable housing. The integration of the SEES will ensure that Odenak operates entirely on renewable energy, setting a benchmark for future urban developments.

Broader Implications and Future Expansion

The SEES project is not just a localized initiative; it represents a scalable model for sustainable urban energy solutions that aligns with green energy investments in British Columbia and other jurisdictions. The LeBreton Community Utility Partnership is in discussions with the National Capital Commission to explore extending the SEES network to additional parcels within the LeBreton Flats redevelopment. Expanding the system could lead to economies of scale, further reducing costs and enhancing the environmental benefits.

Ottawa's venture into wastewater-based energy systems places it at the forefront of a growing trend in North America. Cities like Toronto and Vancouver have initiated similar projects, while related pilots such as the EV-to-grid pilot in Nova Scotia highlight complementary approaches, and European counterparts have long utilized sewage heat recovery systems. Ottawa's adoption of this technology underscores its commitment to innovation and sustainability in urban planning.

The SEES project at LeBreton Flats exemplifies how cities can repurpose existing infrastructure to create sustainable, low-carbon energy solutions. By transforming wastewater into a valuable energy resource, Ottawa is setting a precedent for environmentally responsible urban development. As the city moves forward with this initiative, it not only addresses immediate energy needs but also contributes to a cleaner, more sustainable future for its residents, even as the province accelerates Ontario's energy storage push to maintain reliability.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Nuclear Plant Climate Risks span flood risk, heat stress, and water scarcity, threatening operations, safety systems, and steam generation; resilience depends on mitigation investments, cooling-water management, and adaptive maintenance strategies.

Key Points

Climate-driven threats to nuclear plants: floods, heat, and water stress requiring resilience and mitigation.

✅ Flooding threats to safety and cooling systems

✅ Heat stress reduces thermal efficiency and output

✅ Water scarcity risks limit cooling capacity

Climate change can affect every aspect of nuclear plant operations like fuel handling, power and steam generation and the need for resilient power systems planning, maintenance, safety systems and waste processing, the credit rating agency said.

However, the ultimate credit impact will depend upon the ability of plant operators to invest in carbon-free electricity and other mitigating measures to manage these risks, it added.
Close proximity to large water bodies increase the risk of damage to plant equipment that helps ensure safe operation, the agency said in a note.

Moody’s noted that about 37 gigawatts (GW) of U.S. nuclear capacity is expected to have elevated exposure to flood risk and 48 GW elevated exposure to combined rising heat, extreme heat costs and water stress caused by climate change.

Parts of the Midwest and southern Florida face the highest levels of heat stress, while the Rocky Mountain region and California face the greatest reduction in the availability of future water supply, illustrating the need for adapting power generation to drought strategies, it said.

Nuclear plants seeking to extend their operations by 20, or even 40 years, beyond their existing 40-year licenses in support of sustaining U.S. nuclear power and decarbonization face this climate hazard and may require capital investment adjustments, Moody’s said, as companies such as Duke Energy climate report respond to investor pressure for climate transparency.

“Some of these investments will help prepare for the increasing severity and frequency of extreme weather events, highlighting that the US electric grid is not designed for climate impacts today.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change 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