Power shortage called unlikely

Thermoelectric Materials convert waste heat into electricity via the Seebeck effect; quantum computations and semiconductors accelerate discovery, enabling clean energy, higher efficiency, and scalable heat-to-power conversion from abundant, non-toxic, cost-effective compounds.

Key Points

Thermoelectric materials turn waste heat into electricity via the Seebeck effect, improving energy efficiency.

✅ Convert waste heat to electricity via the Seebeck effect

✅ Quantum computations rapidly identify high-performance candidates

✅ Target efficient, low-thermal-conductivity, non-toxic, abundant compounds

The need to transition to clean energy is apparent, urgent and inescapable. We must limit Earth’s rising temperature to within 1.5 C to avoid the worst effects of climate change — an especially daunting challenge in the face of the steadily increasing global demand for energy and the need for reliable clean power, with concepts that can generate electricity at night now being explored worldwide.

Part of the answer is using energy more efficiently. More than 72 per cent of all energy produced worldwide is lost in the form of heat, and advances in turning thermal energy into electricity could recover some of it. For example, the engine in a car uses only about 30 per cent of the gasoline it burns to move the car. The remainder is dissipated as heat.

Recovering even a tiny fraction of that lost energy would have a tremendous impact on climate change. Thermoelectric materials, which convert wasted heat into useful electricity, can help, especially as researchers pursue low-cost heat-to-electricity materials for scalable deployment.

Until recently, the identification of these materials had been slow. My colleagues and I have used quantum computations — a computer-based modelling approach to predict materials’ properties — to speed up that process and identify more than 500 thermoelectric materials that could convert excess heat to electricity, and help improve energy efficiency.

Making great strides towards broad applications
The transformation of heat into electrical energy by thermoelectric materials is based on the “Seebeck effect.” In 1826, German physicist Thomas Johann Seebeck observed that exposing the ends of joined pieces of dissimilar metals to different temperatures generated a magnetic field, which was later recognized to be caused by an electric current.

Shortly after his discovery, metallic thermoelectric generators were fabricated to convert heat from gas burners into an electric current. But, as it turned out, metals exhibit only a low Seebeck effect — they are not very efficient at converting heat into electricity.

In 1929, the Russian scientist Abraham Ioffe revolutionized the field of thermoelectricity. He observed that semiconductors — materials whose ability to conduct electricity falls between that of metals (like copper) and insulators (like glass) — exhibit a significantly higher Seebeck effect than metals, boosting thermoelectric efficiency 40-fold, from 0.1 per cent to four per cent.

This discovery led to the development of the first widely used thermoelectric generator, the Russian lamp — a kerosene lamp that heated a thermoelectric material to power a radio.

Are we there yet?
Today, thermoelectric applications range from energy generation in space probes to cooling devices in portable refrigerators, and include emerging thin-film waste-heat harvesters for electronics as well. For example, space explorations are powered by radioisotope thermoelectric generators, converting the heat from naturally decaying plutonium into electricity. In the movie The Martian, for example, a box of plutonium saved the life of the character played by Matt Damon, by keeping him warm on Mars.

In the 2015 film, The Martian, astronaut Mark Watney (Matt Damon) digs up a buried thermoelectric generator to use the power source as a heater.

Despite this vast diversity of applications, wide-scale commercialization of thermoelectric materials is still limited by their low efficiency.

What’s holding them back? Two key factors must be considered: the conductive properties of the materials, and their ability to maintain a temperature difference, as seen in nighttime electricity from cold concepts, which makes it possible to generate electricity.

The best thermoelectric material would have the electronic properties of semiconductors and the poor heat conduction of glass. But this unique combination of properties is not found in naturally occurring materials. We have to engineer them, drawing on advances such as carbon nanotube energy harvesters to guide design choices.

Searching for a needle in a haystack
In the past decade, new strategies to engineer thermoelectric materials have emerged due to an enhanced understanding of their underlying physics. In a recent study in Nature Materials, researchers from Seoul National University, Aachen University and Northwestern University reported they had engineered a material called tin selenide with the highest thermoelectric performance to date, nearly twice that of 20 years ago. But it took them nearly a decade to optimize it.

To speed up the discovery process, my colleagues and I have used quantum calculations to search for new thermoelectric candidates with high efficiencies. We searched a database containing thousands of materials to look for those that would have high electronic qualities and low levels of heat conduction, based on their chemical and physical properties. These insights helped us find the best materials to synthesize and test, and calculate their thermoelectric efficiency.

We are almost at the point where thermoelectric materials can be widely applied, but first we need to develop much more efficient materials. With so many possibilities and variables, finding the way forward is like searching for a tiny needle in an enormous haystack.

Just as a metal detector can zero in on a needle in a haystack, quantum computations can accelerate the discovery of efficient thermoelectric materials. Such calculations can accurately predict electron and heat conduction (including the Seebeck effect) for thousands of materials and unveil the previously hidden and highly complex interactions between those properties, which can influence a material’s efficiency.

Large-scale applications will require themoelectric materials that are inexpensive, non-toxic and abundant. Lead and tellurium are found in today’s thermoelectric materials, but their cost and negative environmental impact make them good targets for replacement.

Quantum calculations can be applied in a way to search for specific sets of materials using parameters such as scarcity, cost and efficiency, and insights can even inform exploratory devices that generate electricity out of thin air in parallel fields. Although those calculations can reveal optimum thermoelectric materials, synthesizing the materials with the desired properties remains a challenge.

A multi-institutional effort involving government-run laboratories and universities in the United States, Canada and Europe has revealed more than 500 previously unexplored materials with high predicted thermoelectric efficiency. My colleagues and I are currently investigating the thermoelectric performance of those materials in experiments, and have already discovered new sources of high thermoelectric efficiency.

Those initial results strongly suggest that further quantum computations can pinpoint the most efficient combinations of materials to make clean energy from wasted heat and the avert the catastrophe that looms over our planet.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Teachers' Evoltz Acquisition expands electricity transmission in Brazil, adding seven grid lines across ten states, aligning infrastructure strategy with inflation-linked cash flows, renewable energy integration, Latin America and net-zero objectives pending regulatory approvals.

Key Points

A 100% purchase of Brazil's Evoltz, adding seven grid lines and delivering stable, inflation-linked cash flows.

✅ 100% stake in Evoltz with seven transmission lines

✅ Aligns with net-zero and renewable energy strategy

✅ Inflation-linked, core infrastructure cash flows in Brazil

The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan has acquired Evoltz Participações, an electricity transmission firm in Brazil, from US asset manager TPG. 

The retirement system took a 100% stake in the energy firm, Ontario Teachers’ said Monday. The acquisition has netted the pension fund seven electricity transmission lines that service consumers and businesses across 10 states in Brazil, amid dynamics similar to electricity rate reductions for businesses seen in Ontario. The firm was founded by TPG just three years ago. 

“Our strategy focuses on allocating significant capital to high-quality core infrastructure assets with lower risks and stable inflation-linked cash flows,” Dale Burgess, senior managing director of infrastructure and natural resources at Ontario Teachers, said in a statement. “Electricity transmission businesses are particularly attractive given their importance in facilitating a transition to a low-carbon economy.” 

The pension fund has invested in other electricity distribution companies recently. In March, Ontario Teachers’ took a 40% stake in Finland’s Caruna, and agreed to acquire a 25% stake in SSEN Transmission in the UK grid. For more than a decade, it has maintained a 50% stake in Chile-based transmission firm Saesa. 

The investment into Evoltz demonstrates Ontario Teachers’ growing portfolio in Brazil and Latin America, while activity in Ontario such as the Peterborough Distribution sale reflects ongoing utility consolidation. In 2016, the firm, with the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), invested in toll roads in Mexico. They took a 49% stake with Latin American infrastructure group IDEAL. 

Evoltz, which delivers renewable energy, will also help decarbonize the pension fund’s portfolio. In January, the fund pledged to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Last year, Ontario Teachers’ issued its first green bond offering. The $890 million 10-year bond will help the retirement system fund sustainable investments aligned with policy measures like Ontario's subsidized hydro plan during COVID-19. 

However, Ontario Teachers’ has also received criticism for its investment into parts of Abu Dhabi’s gas pipeline network, and investor concerns about Hydro One highlight sector uncertainties. Last summer, it joined other institutional investors in investing $10.1 billion for a 49% stake. 

As of December, Ontario Teachers’ reached a portfolio with C$221.2 billion (US$182.5 billion) in assets. Since 1990, the fund has maintained a 9.6% annualized return. Last year, it missed its benchmark with an 8.6% return, with examples such as Hydro One shares fall after shake-up underscoring market volatility.

The pension fund expects the deal will close later this fall, pending closing conditions and regulatory approvals, including decisions such as the OEB combined T&D rates ruling that shape utility economics. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Electricity Security and Firm Capacity underpin reliable supply, balancing variable renewables with grid flexibility via gas plants, nuclear power, hydropower, battery storage, and demand response, safeguarding telework, e-commerce, and critical healthcare operations.

Key Points

Ability to meet demand by combining firm generation and flexible resources, keeping grids stable as renewables grow.

✅ Balances variable renewables with dispatchable generation

✅ Rewards flexibility via capacity markets and ancillary services

✅ Enhances grid stability for critical loads during low demand

The huge disruption caused by the coronavirus crisis, and the low-carbon electricity lessons drawn from it, has highlighted how much modern societies rely on electricity and how firm capacity, such as that provided by nuclear power, is a crucial element in ensuring supply, International Energy Agency (IEA) Executive Director Fatih Birol said.

In a commentary posted on LinkedIn, Birol said: "The coronavirus crisis reminds us of electricity's indispensable role in our lives. It's also providing insights into how that role is set to expand and evolve in the years and decades ahead."

Reliable electricity supply is crucial for teleworking, e-commerce, operating ventilators and other medical equipment, among all its other uses, he said, adding that the hundreds of millions of people who live without any access to electricity are far more vulnerable to disease and other dangers.

"Although new forms of short-term flexibility such as battery storage are on the rise, and initiatives like UK home virtual power plants are emerging, most electricity systems rely on natural gas power plants - which can quickly ramp generation up or down at short notice - to provide flexibility, underlining the critical role of gas in clean energy transitions," Birol said.

"Today, most gas power plants lose money if they are used only from time to time to help the system adjust to shifts in demand. The lower levels of electricity demand during the current crisis are adding to these pressures. Hydropower, an often forgotten workhorse of electricity generation, remains an essential source of flexibility.

"Firm capacity, including nuclear power in countries that have chosen to retain it as an option, is a crucial element in ensuring a secure electricity supply even as soaring electricity and coal use complicate transitions. Policy makers need to design markets that reward different sources for their contributions to electricity security, which can enable them to establish viable business models."

In most economies that have taken strong confinement measures in response to the coronavirus - and for which the IEA has available data - electricity demand has declined by around 15%, largely as a result of factories and businesses halting operations, and in New York City load patterns were notably reshaped during lockdowns. If electricity demand falls quickly while weather conditions remain the same, the share of variable renewables like wind and solar can become higher than normal, and low-emissions sources are set to cover almost all near-term growth.

"With weaker electricity demand, power generation capacity is abundant. However, electricity system operators have to constantly balance demand and supply in real time. People typically think of power outages as happening when surging electricity demand overwhelms supply. But in fact, some of the most high-profile blackouts in recent times took place during periods of low demand," Birol said.

"When electricity from wind and solar is satisfying the majority of demand, and renewables poised to eclipse coal by 2025 are reshaping the mix, systems need to maintain flexibility in order to be able to ramp up other sources of generation quickly when the pattern of supply shifts, such as when the sun sets. A very high share of wind and solar in a given moment also makes the maintenance of grid stability more challenging."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Massachusetts Energy Code Updates align DOER regulations with BBRS standards, advancing Stretch Code and Specialized Code beyond the Base Energy Code to accelerate net-zero construction, electrification, and high-efficiency building performance across municipal opt-in communities.

Key Points

They are DOER-led changes to Base, Stretch, and Specialized Codes to drive net-zero, electrified, efficient buildings.

✅ Updates apply Base, Stretch, or opt-in Specialized Code.

✅ Targets net-zero by 2050 with electrification-first design.

✅ Municipalities choose code path via City Council or Town Meeting.

Massachusetts will soon see significant updates to the energy codes that govern the construction and alteration of buildings throughout the Commonwealth.

As required by the 2021 climate bill, the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) has recently finalized regulations updating the current Stretch Energy Code, previously promulgated by the state's Board of Building Regulations and Standards (BBRS), and establishing a new Specialized Code geared toward achieving net-zero building energy performance.

The final code has been submitted to the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy for review as required under state law, amid ongoing Connecticut market overhaul discussions that could influence regional dynamics.

Under the new regulations, each municipality must apply one of the following:

Base Energy Code - The current Base Energy Code is being updated by the BBRS as part of its routine updates to the full set of building codes. This base code is the default if a municipality has not opted in to an alternative energy code.

Stretch Code - The updated Stretch Code creates stricter guidelines on energy-efficiency for almost all new constructions and alterations in municipalities that have adopted the previous Stretch Code, paralleling 100% carbon-free target in Minnesota and elsewhere to support building decarbonization. The updated Stretch Code will automatically become the applicable code in any municipality that previously opted-in to the Stretch Code.

Specialized Code - The newly created Specialized Code includes additional requirements above and beyond the Stretch Code, designed to get to ensure that new construction is consistent with a net-zero economy by 2050, similar to Canada's clean electricity regulations that set a 2050 decarbonization pathway. Municipalities must opt-in to adopt the Specialized Code by vote of City Council or Town Meeting.

The new codes are much too detailed to summarize in a blog post. You can read more here. Without going into those details here, it is worth noting a few significant policy implications of the new regulations:

With roughly 90% of Massachusetts municipalities having already adopted the prior version of the Stretch Code, the Commonwealth will effectively soon have a new base code that, even if it does not mandate zero-energy buildings, is nonetheless very aggressive in pushing new construction to be as energy-efficient as possible, as jurisdictions such as Ontario clean electricity regulations continue to reshape the power mix.

Although some concerns have been raised about the cost of compliance, particularly in a period of high inflation, and amid solar demand charge debates in Massachusetts, our understanding is that many developers have indicated that they can work with the new regulations without significant adverse impacts.

Of course, the success of the new codes depends on the success of the Commonwealth's efforts to transition quickly to a zero-carbon electrical grid, supported by initiatives like the state's energy storage solicitation to bolster reliability. If the cost of doing so is higher than expected, there could well be public resistance. If new transmission doesn't get built out sufficiently quickly or other problems occur, such that the power is not available to electrify all new construction, that would be a much more significant problem - for many reasons!

In short, the new regulations unquestionably set the Commonwealth on a course to electrify new construction and squeeze carbon emissions out of new buildings. However, as with the rest of our climate goals, there are a lot of moving pieces, including proposals for a clean electricity standard shaping the power sector that are going to have to come together to make the zero-carbon economy a reality.

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

Indonesia Coal Production Cuts reflect weaker China demand, COVID-19 impacts, falling HBA reference prices, and DMO sales to PLN, pressuring thermal coal output, miner budgets, and investment plans under the 2020 RKAB.

Key Points

Planned 2020 coal output reductions from China demand slump, lower HBA prices, and DMO constraints impacting miners.

✅ China demand drop reduces exports and thermal coal shipments.

✅ HBA reference price decline pressures margins and cash flow.

✅ DMO sales to PLN limit revenue; investment plans may slow.

The Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) Ministry is considering lowering the coal production target this year as demand from China has shown a significant decline, with China power demand drops reported, since the start of the outbreak of the novel coronavirus in the country late last year, a senior ministry official has said.

The ministry’s coal and mineral director general Bambang Gatot Ariyono said in Jakarta on March 12 that the decline in the demand had also caused a sharp drop in coal prices on the world market, and China's plan to reduce coal power has further weighed on sentiment, which could cause the country’s miners to reduce their production.

The 2020 minerals and coal mining program and budget (RKAB) has set a current production goal of 550 million tons of coal, a 10 percent increase from last year’s target. As of March 6, 94.7 million tons of coal had been mined in the country in the year.

“With the existing demand, revision to this year’s production is almost certain,” he said, adding that the drop in demand had also caused a decline in coal prices.

Indonesia’s thermal coal reference price (HBA) fell by 26 percent year-on-year to US$67.08 per metric ton in March, according to a Standards & Poor press release on March 5.  At home, the coal price is also unattractive for local producers. Under the domestic market obligation (DMO) policy, miners are required to sell a quarter of their production to state-owned electricity company PLN at a government-set price, even as imported coal volumes rise in some markets. This year’s coal reference price is $70 per metric ton, far below the internal prices before the coronavirus outbreak hit China.

The ministry’s expert staff member Irwandy Arif said China had reduced its coal demand by 200,000 tons so far, as six of its coal-fired power plants had suspended operation due to the significant drop in electricity demand. Many factories in the country were closed as the government tried to halt the spread of the new coronavirus, which caused the decline in energy demand and created electric power woes for international supply chains.

“At present, all mines in Indonesia are still operating normally, while India is rationing coal supplies amid surging electricity demand. But we have to see what will happen in June,” he said.

The ministry predicted that the low demand would also result in a decline in coal mining investment, as clean energy investment has slipped across many developing nations.

The ministry set a $7.6 billion investment target for the mining sector this year, up from $6.17 billion last year, even as Israel reduces coal use in its power sector, which may influence regional demand. The year’s total investment realization was $192 million as of March 6, or around 2.5 percent of the annual target. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News