Report foresees carbon tax on polluting countries

ABO Wind Tunisia 10MW Solar Project will build a photovoltaic park in Gabes with a STEG PPA, fixed tariff, 2,500 m grid connection, producing 18 million kWh annually, targeted for 2020 commissioning with local partners.

Key Points

A 10MW photovoltaic park in Gabes with a 20-year STEG PPA and fixed tariff, slated for 2020 commissioning.

✅ 18 million kWh/year; 2,500 m grid tie, 20-year fixed tariff

✅ Electricity supplied to STEG under PPA; 2020 commissioning

✅ Located in Gabes; built with local partners, 10MW capacity

ABO Wind has received a permit and a tariff for a 10MW photovoltaic project in Tunisia, amid global activity such as Spain's 90MW wind project now underway, which it plans to build and commission in 2020.

The solar park, in the governorate of Gabes, is 400km south of the country’s capital Tunis and aligns with renewable funding initiatives seen across developing markets.

The developer said it plans to build the project next year in close cooperation with local partners, as regional markets from North Africa to the Gulf expand, with Saudi Arabia boosting wind capacity as well.

ABO Wind department head Nicolas Konig said: “The solar park will produce more than 18 million kilowatt hours of electricity per year and will feed it into the grid at a distance of 2500 metres.”

The developer will conclude an electricity supply contract with the state-owned energy supplier (Societe tunisienne de l’electricite et du gaz (STEG), which will provide a fixed remuneration over 20 years, a model echoed by Germany's wind-solar tender for the electricity fed into the grid.

Earlier this year, ABO Wind had already secured a tariff for a wind farm with a capacity of 30MW in a tender, 35km south-east of Tunis, underscoring Tunisia's wind investments under its long-term plan.

The company is working on half a dozen Tunisian wind and solar projects, as institutions like the World Bank support wind growth in developing countries.

“We are making good progress on our way to assemble a portfolio of several ready-to-build wind and solar projects attractive to investors, as Saudi clean energy targets continue to expand globally,” said ABO Wind general manager responsible for international business development Patrik Fischer.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

NB Power Smart Meter Opt-Out Fees reflect cost causation principles set before the Energy and Utilities Board, covering meter reading charges, transmitter-disable options, rollout targets, and education plans across New Brunswick's smart metering program.

Key Points

Fees NB Power may apply to customers opting out of smart meters, reflecting cost causation and meter-reading costs.

✅ Based on cost causation and meter reading expenses

✅ BC and Quebec charge monthly opt-out surcharges

✅ Policy finalized during rollout after EUB review

NB Power customers who do not want a smart meter installed on their home could be facing a stiff fee for that decision, but so far the utility is not saying how much it might be.  

"It will be based on the principles of cost causation, but we have not gotten into the detail of what that fee would be at this point," said NB Power Senior Vice President of Operations Lori Clark at Energy and Utilities Board hearings on Friday.

In other jurisdictions that have already adopted smart meters, customers not wanting to participate have faced hundreds of dollars in extra charges, while Texas utilities' pullback from smart-home networks shows approaches can differ.

In British Columbia, power customers are charged a meter reading fee of $32.40 per month if they refuse a smart meter, or $20 per month if they accept a smart meter but insist its radio transmitter be turned off. That's a cost of between $240 and $388.80 per year for customers to opt out.

In Quebec, smart meters were installed beginning in 2012. Customers who refused the devices were initially charged $98 to opt out plus a meter reading fee of $17 per month. That was eventually cut by Quebec's energy board in 2014 to a $15 refusal fee and a $5 per month meter reading surcharge.

NB Power said it may be a year or more before it settles on its own fee.

"The opt out policy will be developed and implemented as part of the roll out.  It will be one of the last things we do," said Clark.

Customers need to be on board

NB Power is in front of the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board seeking permission to spend $122.7 million to install 350,000 smart meters province wide, as neighboring markets grapple with major rate increases that heighten affordability concerns.  

The meters are capable of transmitting consumption data of customers back to NB Power in real time, which the utility said will allow for a number of innovations in pricing and service, and help address old meter inaccuracies that affected some households.

The meters require near universal adoption by customers to maximize their financial benefit — like eliminating more than $20 million a year NB Power currently spends to read meters manually. The utility has said the switch will not succeed if too many customers opt out.

"We certainly wouldn't be looking at making an investment of this size without having the customer with us," said Clark.

On Thursday, Kent County resident Daniel LeBlanc, who along with Roger Richard, is opposing the introduction of smart meters for health reasons, predicted a cool reception for the technology in many parts of the province, given concerns that include health effects and billing disputes in Nova Scotia reported elsewhere.

"If one were to ask most of the people in the rural areas, I'm not sure you would get a lot of takers for this infrastructure," said LeBlanc, who is concerned with the long-term effect microwave frequencies used by the meters to transmit data may have on human health.

That issue is before the EUB next week.

Haven't tested the waters

NB Power acknowledged it has not measured public opinion on adopting smart meters but is confident it can convince customers it is a good idea for them and the utility, even as seasonal rate proposals in New Brunswick have prompted consumer backlash.

"People don't understand what the smart meter is," said Clark. "We need to educate our customers first to allow them to make an informed decision so that will be part of the roll out plan."

Clark noted that smart meters, helped by stiff opting out penalties, were eventually accepted by 98 per cent of customers in British Columbia and by 97.4 per cent of customers in Quebec.

"We will check and adjust along the way if there are issues with customer uptake," said Clark.

"This is very similar to what has been done in other jurisdictions and they haven't had those challenges."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

UK Net Zero Policy Delay shifts EV sales ban to 2035, eases boiler phase-outs, keeps ZEV mandate, backs North Sea oil and gas, accelerates onshore wind and grid upgrades while targeting 2050 emissions goals.

Key Points

Delay moves EV and heating targets to 2035, tweaks mandates, and shifts energy policy, keeping the 2050 net zero goal.

✅ EV sales ban shifts to 2035; ZEV mandate trajectory unchanged

✅ Heat pump grants rise to £7,500; boiler phase-out eased

✅ North Sea oil, onshore wind, grid and nuclear plans advance

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has said he would delay targets for changing cars and domestic heating to maintain the consent of the British people in the switch to net zero as part of the global energy transition under way.

Sunak said Britain was still committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2050, similar to Canada's race to net zero goals, and denied watering down its climate targets.

Here are some of the current emissions targets for Britain's top polluting sectors and how the announcement impacts them.

TRANSPORTATION
Transport accounts for more than a third (34%) of Britain's total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the most of any sector.

Sunak announced a delay to introducing a ban on new petrol and diesel cars and vans. It will now come into force in 2035 rather than in 2030.

There were more than 1.1 million electric cars in use on UK roads as of April - up by more than half from the previous year to account for roughly one in every 32 cars, according to the country's auto industry trade body.

The current 2030 target was introduced in November 2020 as a central part of then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson's plans for a "green revolution". As recently as Monday, transport minister Mark Harper restated government support for the policy.

Britain’s independent climate advisers, the Climate Change Committee, estimated a 2030 phase out of petrol, diesel and hybrid vehicles could save up to 110 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions compared with a 2035 phase out.

ohnson's policy already allowed for the continued sale of hybrid cars and vans that can drive long stretches without emitting carbon until 2035.

The transition is governed by a zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate, a shift echoed by New Zealand's electricity transition debates, which means manufacturers must ensure an increasing proportion of the vehicles they sell in the UK are electric.

The current proposal is for 22% of a car manufacturer's sales to be electric in 2024, rising incrementally each year to 100% in 2035.

The government said on Wednesday that all sales of new cars from 2035 would still be zero emission.

Sunak said that proposals that would govern how many passengers people should have in a car, or proposals for new taxes to discourage flying, would be scrapped.

RESIDENTIAL
Residential emissions, the bulk of which come from heating, make up around 17% of the country's CO2 emissions.

The government has a target to reduce Britain's energy consumption from buildings and industry by 15% by 2030, and had set a target to phase out installing new and replacement gas boilers from 2035, as the UK moves towards heat pumps, amid an IEA report on Canada's power needs noting more electricity will be required.

Sunak said people would have more time to transition, and the government said that off-gas-grid homes could continue to install oil and liquefied petroleum gas boilers until 2035, rather than being phased out from 2026.

However, his announcements that the government would not force anyone to rip out an existing boiler and that people would only have to make the switch when replacing one from 2035 restated existing policy.

He also said there would be an exemption so some households would never have to switch, but the government would increase an upgrade scheme that gives people cash to replace their boilers by 50% to 7,500 pounds ($9,296.25).

Currently almost 80% of British homes are heated by gas boilers. In 2022, 72,000 heat pumps were installed. The government had set a target of 600,000 heat pump installations per year by 2028.

A study for Scottish Power and WWF UK in June found that 6 million homes would need to be better insulated by 2030 to meet the government's target to reduce household energy consumption, but current policies are only expected to deliver 1.1 million.

The study, conducted by Frontier Economics, added that 1.5 million new homes would still need heat pumps installed by 2030.

Sunak said that the government would subsidise people who wanted to make their homes energy efficient but never force a household to do it.

The government also said it was scrapping policies that would force landlords to upgrade the energy efficiency of their properties.

ENERGY
The energy sector itself is a big emitter of greenhouse gases, contributing around a quarter of Britain's emissions, though the UK carbon tax on coal has driven substantial cuts in coal-fired electricity in recent years.

In July, Britain committed to granting hundreds of licences for North Sea oil and gas extraction as part of efforts to become more energy independent.

Sunak said he would not ban new oil and gas in the North Sea, and that future carbon budgets for governments would have to be considered alongside the plans to meet them.

He said the government would shortly bring forward new plans for energy infrastructure to improve Britain's grid, including the UK energy plan, while speeding up planning.

Offshore wind power developers warned earlier this month that Britain's climate goals could be at risk, even as efforts like cleaning up Canada's electricity highlight the importance of power-sector decarbonization, after a subsidy auction for new renewable energy projects did not attract any investment in those planned off British coasts.

Britain is aiming to develop 50 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind capacity by 2030, up from around 14 GW now.

Sunak highlighted that Britain is lifting a ban on onshore wind, investing in carbon capture and building new nuclear power stations.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

U.S. Residential Electricity Bills rose on stronger demand, inflation, and fuel costs, with higher retail prices, kWh consumption, and extreme weather driving 2022 spikes; forecasts point to stable summer usage and slight price increases.

Key Points

They are average household power costs shaped by prices, kWh use, weather, and upstream fuel costs.

✅ 2022 bills up 13% nominal, 5% real vs. 2021

✅ Retail price rose 11%; consumption up 2% to 907 kWh

✅ Fuel costs to plants up 34%, pressuring rates

In nominal terms, the average monthly electricity bill for residential customers in the United States increased 13% from 2021 to 2022, rising from $121 a month to $137 a month. After adjusting for inflation—which reached 8% in 2022, a 40-year high—electricity bills increased 5%. Last year had the largest annual increase in average residential electricity spending since we began calculating it in 1984. The increase was driven by a combination of more extreme temperatures, which increased U.S. consumption of electricity for both heating and cooling, and higher fuel costs for power plants, which drove up retail electricity prices nationwide.

Residential electricity customers’ monthly electricity bills are based on the amount of electricity consumed and the retail electricity price. Average U.S. monthly electricity consumption per residential customer increased from 886 kilowatthours (kWh) in 2021 to 907 kWh in 2022, even as U.S. electricity sales have declined over the past seven years. Both a colder winter and a hotter summer contributed to the 2% increase in average monthly electricity consumption per residential customer in 2022 because customers used more space heating during the winter and more air conditioning during the summer, with some states, such as Pennsylvania, facing sharp winter rate increases.

Although we don’t directly collect retail electricity prices, we do collect revenues from electricity providers that allow us to determine prices by dividing by consumption, and industry reports show major utilities spending more on electricity delivery than on power production. In 2022, the average U.S. residential retail electricity price was 15.12 cents/kWh, an 11% increase from 13.66 cents/kWh in 2021. After adjusting for inflation, U.S. residential electricity prices went up by 2.5%.

Higher fuel costs for power plants drove the increase in residential retail electricity prices. The cost of fossil fuels—including natural gas prices, coal, and petroleum—delivered to U.S. power plants increased 34%, from $3.82 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) in 2021 to $5.13/MMBtu in 2022. The higher fuel costs were passed along to residential customers and contributed to higher retail electricity prices, and Germany power prices nearly doubled over a year in a related trend.

In the first three months of 2023, the average U.S. residential monthly electricity bill was $133, or 5% higher than for the same time last year, according to data from our Electric Power Monthly. The increase was driven by a 13% increase in the average U.S. residential retail electricity price, which was partly offset by a 7% decrease in average monthly electricity consumption per residential customer, and industry outlooks also see U.S. power demand sliding 1% on milder weather. This summer, we expect that typical household electricity bills will be similar to last year’s, with customers paying about 2% more on average. The slight increase in electricity costs forecast for this summer stems from higher retail electricity prices but similar consumption levels as last summer.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Freedom Cannabis solar array powers an Acheson cannabis facility with 4,574 rooftop panels, a 1,830-kilowatt system by Enmax, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, lowering energy costs, and advancing renewable energy, sustainability, and operational efficiency in Edmonton.

Key Points

A 1,830-kW rooftop solar system with 4,574 panels, cutting GHG emissions and energy costs at the Acheson facility.

✅ 1,830-kW array offsets 1,000+ tonnes GHG annually

✅ Supplies ~8% of annual power; saves $200k-$300k per year

✅ 4,574 rooftop panels installed by Enmax in Acheson

Electricity consumption is one of the biggest barriers to going green in the cannabis industry, where the energy demands of cannabis cultivation often complicate sustainability, but an Edmonton-area pot producer has come up with a sunny solution.

Freedom Cannabis unveiled the largest rooftop solar system used by a cannabis facility in Canada at its 126,000-square foot Acheson location, 20 kilometres west of Edmonton, as solar power in Alberta continues to surge, on Tuesday.

The "state-of-the-art" 1,830-kilowatt solar array—made up of 4,574 panels—was supplied by Enmax and will offset more than 1,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year, reflecting how new Alberta solar facilities are undercutting natural gas on price, the company said.

The state-of-the-art solar array—made up of 4,574 panels—was supplied by Enmax and will offset more than 1,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions at Freedom Cannabis every year. Nov. 12, 2019. (Freedom Cannabis)

That will supply roughly eight per cent of the building's annual power consumption and reduce costs by $200,000 to $300,000 annually.

"This strategy will supplement our operating costs for power by up to eight to 10 per cent, so it is something that in time will save us costs on power requirements," said Troy Dezwart, co-founder of Freedom Cannabis.

Dezwart said sustainability was an important issue to the company from its outset, aligning with an Alberta renewable energy surge that is expected to power thousands of jobs.

"We're fortunate enough to be able to have these types of options and pursue them," said Dezwart.

The entire system cost Freedom Cannabis $2.6 million to build, but nearly a million of that came from a provincial rebate program that has since been cancelled by the UCP government, even as a federal green electricity deal with an Edmonton company signals ongoing support.

The company cited a 2017 report that found cannabis growers in the U.S. used enough electricity to power 1.7-million homes, and said cannabis-related power consumption is expected to increase by 1,250 per cent in Ontario over the next five years, even though Canadian solar demand has been lagging overall.

“It’s more important than ever for businesses to manage their energy footprint, and solar is an important part of that solution,” Enmax director Jason Atkinson, said. “This solar installation will help reduce operating costs and offset a significant portion of GHG emissions for decades to come.”

Freedom says it has other initiatives underway to reduce its footprint, in a region planning the Edmonton airport solar farm among other projects, including water remediation and offering 100 per cent recyclable cannabis packaging tins.

The company's first crops are expected to go to market in December.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy 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