SaskPower looks at peaking plant

Nuclear Energy Growth accelerates as nations pursue decarbonization, complement renewables, displace coal, and ensure grid reliability with firm, low-carbon baseload, benefiting from standardized builds, lower cost of capital, and learning-curve cost reductions.

Key Points

Expansion of nuclear capacity to cut CO2, complement renewables, replace coal, and stabilize grids at low-carbon cost.

✅ Complements renewables; displaces coal for faster decarbonization

✅ Cuts system costs via standardization and lower cost of capital

✅ Provides firm, low-carbon baseload and grid reliability

By Kirill Komarov, Chairman, World Nuclear Association.

As Europe and the wider world begins to wake up to the need to cut emissions, Dr Kirill Komarov argues that tackling climate change will see the use of nuclear energy grow in the coming years, not as a competitor to renewables but as a competitor to coal.

The nuclear industry keeps making headlines and spurring debates on energy policy, including the green industrial revolution agenda in several countries. With each new build project, the detractors of nuclear power crowd the bandwagon to portray renewables as an easy and cheap alternative to ‘increasingly costly’ nuclear: if solar and wind are virtually free why bother splitting atoms?

Yet, paradoxically as it may seem, if we are serious about policy response to climate change, nuclear energy is seeing an atomic energy resurgence in the coming decade or two.

Growth has already started to pick up with about 3.1 GW new capacity added in the first half of 2018 in Russia and China while, at the very least, 4GW more to be completed by the end of the year – more than doubling the capacity additions in 2017.

In 2019 new connections to the grid would exceed 10GW by a significant margin.

If nuclear is in decline, why then do China, India, Russia and other countries keep building nuclear power plants?

To begin with, the issue of cost, argued by those opposed to nuclear, is in fact largely a bogus one, which does not make a fully rounded like for like comparison.

It is true that the latest generation reactors, especially those under construction in the US and Western Europe, have encountered significant construction delays and cost overruns.

But the main, and often the only, reason for that is the ‘first-of-a-kind’ nature of those projects.

If you build something for the first time, be it nuclear, wind or solar, it is expensive. Experience shows that with series build, standardised construction economies of scale and the learning curve from multiple projects, costs come down by around one-third; and this is exactly what is already happening in some parts of the world.

Furthermore, those first-of-a-kind projects were forced to be financed 100% privately and investors had to bear all political risks. It sent the cost of capital soaring, increasing at one stroke the final electricity price by about one third.

While, according to the International Energy Agency, at 3% cost of capital rate, nuclear is the cheapest source of energy: on average 1% increase adds about US$6-7 per MWh to the final price.

When it comes to solar and wind, the truth, inconvenient for those cherishing the fantasy of a world relying 100% on renewables, is that the ‘plummeting prices’ (which, by the way, haven’t changed much over the last three years, reaching a plateau) do not factor in so-called system and balancing costs associated with the need to smooth the intermittency of renewables.

Put simply, the fact the sun doesn’t shine at night and wind doesn’t blow all the time means wind and solar generation needs to be backed up.

According to a study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, integration of intermittent renewables into the grid is estimated in some cases to be as expensive as power generation itself.

Delivering the highest possible renewable content means customers’ bills will have to cover: renewable generation costs, energy storage solutions, major grid updates and interconnections investment, as well as gas or coal peaking power plants or ‘peakers’, which work only from time to time when needed to back up wind and solar.

The expected cost for kWh for peakers, according to investment bank Lazard is about twice that of conventional power plants due to much lower capacity factors.

Despite exceptionally low fossil fuel prices, peaking natural gas generation had an eye-watering cost of $156-210 per MWh in 2017 while electricity storage, replacing ‘peakers’, would imply an extra cost of $186-413 per MWh.

Burning fossil fuels is cheaper but comes with a great deal of environmental concern and extensive use of coal would make net-zero emissions targets all but unattainable.

So, contrary to some claims, nuclear does not compete with renewables. Moreover, a recent study by the MIT Energy Initiative showed, most convincingly, that renewables and load following advanced nuclear are complementary.

Nuclear competes with coal. Phasing out coal is crucial to fighting climate change. Putting off decisions to build new nuclear capacities while increasing the share of intermittent renewables makes coal indispensable and extends its life.

Scientists at the Brattle group, a consultancy, argue that “since CO2 emissions persist for many years in the atmosphere, near-term emission reductions are more helpful for climate protection than later ones”.

The longer we hesitate with new nuclear build the more difficult it becomes to save the Earth.

Nuclear power accounta for about one-tenth of global electricity production, but as much as one-third of generation from low-carbon sources. 1GWe of installed nuclear capacity prevents emissions of 4-7 million metric tons of CO2 emissions per year, depending on the region.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that in order to limit the average global temperature increase to 2°C and still meet global power demand, we need to connect to the grid at least 20GW of new nuclear energy each year.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) sets the target even higher with the total of 1,000 GWe by 2050, or about 10 GWe per year before 2020; 25 GWe per year from 2021 to 2025; and on average 33 GWe from 2026 to 2050.

Regulatory and political challenges in the West have made life for nuclear businesses in the US and in Europe's nuclear sector very difficult, driving many of them to the edge of insolvency; but in the rest of the world nuclear energy is thriving.

Nuclear vendors and utilities post healthy profits and invest heavily in next-gen nuclear innovation and expansion. The BRICS countries are leading the way, taking over the initiative in the global climate agenda. From their perspective, it’s the opposite of decline.

Dr Kirill Komarov is first deputy CEO of Russian state nuclear energy operator Rosatom and chairman of the World Nuclear Association.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Canada Critical Infrastructure Cyber Risks include state-sponsored actors probing the electricity grid and ICS/OT, ransomware on utilities, and espionage targeting smart cities, medical devices, and energy networks, pre-positioning for disruptive operations.

Key Points

Nation-state and criminal cyber risks to Canada's power, water, and OT/ICS, aiming to disrupt, steal data, or extort.

✅ State-sponsored probing of power grid and utilities

✅ OT/ICS exposure grows as systems connect to IT networks

✅ Ransomware, espionage, and pre-positioning for disruption

State-sponsored actors are "very likely" trying to shore up their cyber capabilities to attack Canada's critical infrastructure — such as the electricity supply, as underscored by the IEA net-zero electricity report indicating rising demand for clean power, to intimidate or to prepare for future online assaults, a new intelligence assessment warns.

"As physical infrastructure and processes continue to be connected to the internet, cyber threat activity has followed, leading to increasing risk to the functioning of machinery and the safety of Canadians," says a new national cyber threat assessment drafted by the Communications Security Establishment.

"We judge that state-sponsored actors are very likely attempting to develop the additional cyber capabilities required to disrupt the supply of electricity in Canada, even as cleaning up Canada's electricity remains critical for climate goals."

Today's report — the second from the agency's Canadian Centre for Cyber Security wing — looks at the major cyber threats to Canadians' physical safety and economic security.

The CSE does say in the report that while it's unlikely cyber threat actors would intentionally disrupt critical infrastructure — such as water and electricity supplies — to cause major damage or loss of life, they would target critical organizations "to collect information, pre-position for future activities, or as a form of intimidation."

The report said Russia-associated actors probed the networks of electricity utilities in the U.S. and Canada last year and Chinese state-sponsored cyber threat actors have targeted U.S. utility employees. Other countries have seen their industrial control systems targeted by Iranian hacking groups and North Korean malware was found in the IT networks of an Indian power plant, it said.

The threat grows as more critical infrastructure goes high-tech.

In the past, the operational technology (OT) used to control dams, boilers, electricity and pipeline operations has been largely immune to cyberattacks — but that's changing as manufacturers incorporate newer information technology in their systems and products and as the race to net-zero drives grid modernization, says the report.

That technology might make things easier and lower costs for utilities already facing debates over electricity prices in Alberta amid affordability concerns, but it comes with risks, said Scott Jones, the head of the cyber centre.

"So that means now it is a target, it is accessible and it's vulnerable. So what you could see is shutting off of transmission lines, you can see them opening circuit breakers, meaning electricity simply won't flow to our homes to our business," he told reporters Wednesday.

While the probability of such attacks remains low, Jones said the goal of Wednesday's briefing is to send out the early warnings.

"We're not trying to scare people. We're certainly not trying to scare people into going off grid by building a cabin in the woods. We're here to say, 'Let's tackle these now while they're still paper, while they're still a threat we're writing down.'"

Steve Waterhouse, a former cybersecurity officer for the Department of National Defence who now teaches at Université de Sherbrooke, said a saving grace for Canada could be the makeup of its electrical systems.

"Since in Canada, they're very centralized, it's easier to defend, and debates about bridging Alberta and B.C. electricity aim to strengthen resilience, while down in the States, they have multiple companies all around the place. So the weakest link is very hard to identify where it is, but the effect is a cascading effect across the country ... And it could impact Canada, just like we saw in the big Northeastern power outage, the blackout of 2003," he said.

"So that goes to say, we have to be prepared. And I believe most energy companies have been taking extra measures to protect and defend against these type of attacks, even as Canada points to nationwide climate success in electricity to meet emissions goals."

In the future, attacks targeting so-called smart cities and internet-connected devices, such as personal medical devices, could also put Canadians at risk, says the report. 

Earlier this year, for example, Health Canada warned the public that medical devices containing a particular Bluetooth chip — including pacemakers, blood glucose monitors and insulin pumps — are vulnerable to cyber attacks that could crash them.

The foreign signals intelligence agency also says that while state-sponsored programs in China, Russia, Iran and North Korea "almost certainly" pose the greatest state-sponsored cyber threats to Canadian individuals and organizations, many other states are rapidly developing their own cyber programs.

Waterhouse said he was glad to see the government agency call out the countries by name, representing a shift in approach in recent years.

"To tackle on and be ready to face a cyber-attack, you have to know your enemy," he said.

"You have to know what's vulnerable inside of your organization. You have to know how ... vulnerable it is against the threats that are out there."

Commercial espionage continues
State-sponsored actors will also continue their commercial espionage campaigns against Canadian businesses, academia and governments — even as calls to make Canada a post-COVID manufacturing hub grow — to steal Canadian intellectual property and proprietary information, says the CSE.

"We assess that these threat actors will almost certainly continue attempting to steal intellectual property related to combating COVID-19 to support their own domestic public health responses or to profit from its illegal reproduction by their own firms," says the "key judgments" section of the report.

"The threat of cyber espionage is almost certainly higher for Canadian organizations that operate abroad or work directly with foreign state-owned enterprises."

The CSE says such commercial espionage is happening already across multiple fields, including aviation, technology and AI, energy and biopharmaceuticals.

While state-sponsored cyber activity tends to offer the most sophisticated threats, CSE said that cybercrime continues to be the threat most likely to directly affect Canadians and Canadian organizations, through vectors like online scams and malware.

"We judge that ransomware directed against Canada will almost certainly continue to target large enterprises and critical infrastructure providers. These entities cannot tolerate sustained disruptions and are willing to pay up to millions of dollars to quickly restore their operations," says the report.

Cybercrime becoming more sophisticated 
According to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, Canadians lost over $43 million to cybercrime last year. The CSE reported earlier this year that online thieves have been using the COVID-19 pandemic to trick Canadians into forking over their money — through scams like a phishing campaign that claimed to offer access to a Canada Emergency Response Benefit payment in exchange for the target's personal financial details.

Online foreign influence activities — a dominant theme in the CSE's last threat assessment briefing — continue and constitute "a new normal" in international affairs as adversaries seek to influence domestic and international political events, says the agency.

"We assess that, relative to some other countries, Canadians are lower-priority targets for online foreign influence activity," it said.

"However, Canada's media ecosystem is closely intertwined with that of the United States and other allies, which means that when their populations are targeted, Canadians become exposed to online influence as a type of collateral damage."

According to the agency's own definition, "almost certainly" means it is nearly 100 per cent certain in its analysis, while "very likely" means it is 80-90 per cent certain of its conclusions. The CSE says its analysis is based off of a mix of confidential and non-confidential intelligence and sources. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Renewable Energy Breakthroughs drive quantum dots solar efficiency, Air-gen protein nanowires harvesting humidity, and cellulose membranes for flow batteries, enabling printable photovoltaics, 24/7 clean power, and low-cost grid storage at commercial scale.

Key Points

Advances like quantum dot solar, Air-gen, and cellulose flow battery membranes that improve clean power and storage.

✅ Quantum dots raise solar conversion efficiency, are printable

✅ Air-gen harvests electricity from humidity with protein nanowires

✅ Cellulose membranes cut flow battery costs, aid grid storage

Science never sleeps. The quest to find new and better ways to do things continues in thousands of laboratories around the world. Today, the global economy is based on the use of electricity, and one analysis shows wind and solar potential could meet 80% of US demand, underscoring what is possible. If there was a way to harness all the energy from the sun that falls on the Earth every day, there would be enough of electricity available to meet the needs of every man, woman, and child on the planet with plenty left over. That day is getting closer all the time. Here are three reasons why.

Quantum Dots Make Better Solar Panels
According to Science Daily, researchers at the University of Queensland have set a new world record for the conversion of solar energy to electricity using quantum dots — which pass electrons between one another and generate electrical current when exposed to solar energy in a solar cell device. The solar devices they developed have beaten the existing solar conversion record by 25%.

“Conventional solar technologies use rigid, expensive materials. The new class of quantum dots the university has developed are flexible and printable,” says professor Lianzhou Wang, who leads the research team. “This opens up a huge range of potential applications, including the possibility to use it as a transparent skin to power cars, planes, homes and wearable technology. Eventually it could play a major part in meeting the United Nations’ goal to increase the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.”

“This new generation of quantum dots is compatible with more affordable and large-scale printable technologies,” he adds. “The near 25% improvement in efficiency we have achieved over the previous world record is important. It is effectively the difference between quantum dot solar cell technology being an exciting prospect and being commercially viable.” The research was published on January 20 in the journal Nature Energy.

Electricity From Thin Air
Science Daily also reports that researchers at UMass Amherst also have interesting news. They claim they created a device called an Air-gen, short for air powered generator. (Note: recently we reported on other research that makes electricity from rainwater.) The device uses protein nanowires created by a microbe called Geobacter. Those nanowires can generate electricity from thin air by tapping the water vapor present naturally in the atmosphere. “We are literally making electricity out of thin air. The Air-gen generates clean energy 24/7. It’s the most amazing and exciting application of protein nanowires yet,” researchers Jun Yao and Derek Lovely say. There work was published February 17 in the journal Nature.

The new technology developed in Yao’s lab is non-polluting, renewable, and low-cost. It can generate power even in areas with extremely low humidity such as the Sahara Desert. It has significant advantages over other forms of renewable energy including solar and wind, Lovley says, because unlike these other renewable energy sources, the Air-gen does not require sunlight or wind, and “it even works indoors,” a point underscored by ongoing grid challenges that slow full renewable adoption.

Yao says, “The ultimate goal is to make large-scale systems. For example, the technology might be incorporated into wall paint that could help power your home. Or, we may develop stand-alone air-powered generators that supply electricity off the grid, and in parallel others are advancing bio-inspired fuel cells that could complement such devices. Once we get to an industrial scale for wire production, I fully expect that we can make large systems that will make a major contribution to sustainable energy production. This is just the beginning of a new era of protein based electronic devices.”

Improved Membranes For Flow Batteries From Cellulose
Storing energy is almost as important to decarbonizing the environment as making it in the first place, with the rise of affordable solar batteries improving integration.  There are dozens if not hundreds of ways to store electricity and they all work to one degree or another. The difference between which ones are commercially viable and ones that are not often comes down to money.

Flow batteries — one approach among many, including fuel cells for renewable storage — use two liquid electrolytes — one positively charged and one negatively charged — separated by a membrane that allows electrons to pass back and forth between them. The problem is, the liquids are highly corrosive. The membranes used today are expensive — more than $1,300 per square meter.

Phys.org reports that Hongli Zhu, an assistant professor of mechanical and industrial engineering at Northeastern University, has successfully created a membrane for use in flow batteries that is made from cellulose and costs just $147.68 per square meter. Reducing the cost of something by 90% is the kind of news that gets people knocking on your door.

The membrane uses nanocrystals derived from cellulose in combination with a polymer known as polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene.  The naturally derived membrane is especially efficient because its cellular structure contains thousands of hydroxyl groups, which involve bonds of hydrogen and oxygen that make it easy for water to be transported in plants and trees.

In flow batteries, that molecular makeup speeds the transport of protons as they flow through the membrane. “For these materials, one of the challenges is that it is difficult to find a polymer that is proton conductive and that is also a material that is very stable in the flowing acid,” Zhu says.

Cellulose can be extracted from natural sources including algae, solid waste, and bacteria. “A lot of material in nature is a composite, and if we disintegrate its components, we can use it to extract cellulose,” Zhu says. “Like waste from our yard, and a lot of solid waste that we don’t always know what to do with.”

Flow batteries can store large amounts of electricity over long periods of time — provided the membrane between the storage tanks doesn’t break down. To store more electricity, simply make the tanks larger, which makes them ideal for grid storage applications where there is often plenty of room to install them. Slashing the cost of the membrane will make them much more attractive to renewable energy developers and help move the clean energy revolution forward.

The Takeaway
The fossil fuel crazies won’t give up easily. They have too much to lose and couldn’t care less if life on Earth ceases to exist for a few million years, just so long as they get to profit from their investments. But they are experiencing a death of a thousand cuts. None of the breakthroughs discussed above will end thermal power generation all by itself, but all of them, together with hundreds more just like them happening every day, every week, and every month, even as we confront clean energy's hidden costs across supply chains, are slowly writing the epitaph for fossil fuels.

And here’s a further note. A person of Chinese ancestry is the leader of all three research efforts reported on above. These are precisely the people being targeted by the United States government at the moment as it ratchets up its war on immigrants and anybody who cannot trace their ancestry to northern Europe. Imagine for a moment what will happen to America when researchers like them depart for countries where they are welcome instead of despised. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

ERCOT Winter Capacity RFP seeks up to 3,000 MW through generation and demand response to bolster Texas grid reliability during peak load, leveraging Reliability Must-Run, incentive factors, and EEA risk mitigation for the 2023-24 season.

Key Points

An ERCOT initiative to procure 3,000 MW of generation and demand response to reduce EEA risk and improve reliability.

✅ Targets 3,000 MW from generation and demand response

✅ Uses RMR-style contracts with flexible incentive factors

✅ Aims to lower EEA probability below 10% this winter

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) issued a request for proposals to stakeholders to procure up to 3,000 MW of generation or demand response capacity to meet load and reserve requirements during the winter 2023-24 peak load season (Dec. 1, 2023, through Feb. 29, 2024), amid ongoing Texas power grid challenges across the region.

ERCOT cited “several factors, including significant peak load growth since last winter, recent and proposed retirements of dispatchable Generation Resources, and recent extreme winter weather events, including Winter Storm Elliott in December 2022, Winter Storm Uri in February 2021, and the 2018 and 2011 winter storms, each of which resulted in abnormally high demand during winter weather.” It now seeks additional capacity under its “authority to prevent an anticipated Emergency Condition,” reflecting nationwide blackout risks identified by grid experts.

In its notice regarding the RFP, ERCOT identified a number of mothballed and recently decommissioned generation resources that may be eligible to offer capacity under the RFP. It further stated that offers must comport with the format of its “Reliability Must-Run” agreement but could include a proposed “Incentive Factor” that reflects the revenues the unit owners determine would be necessary to bring the unit back to operation. It added that the Incentive Factor is not necessarily limited to 10%. Providers of eligible demand response can submit offers based on similar principles that are not necessarily constrained by cost. The notice identifies potential acceptable sources of demand response, describes certain parameters for the kinds of demand response that are permitted to respond to the RFP, and outlines the time periods during which ERCOT must be able to deploy the demand response resources to improve electricity reliability across the system.

To meet the Dec. 1, 2023, service start date, ERCOT developed an aggressive timeline to solicit and evaluate proposals through the RFP. Responses to the RFP are due Nov. 6, 2023. ERCOT’s schedule provides that it will notify market participants that obtain awards on Nov. 23, 2023. Expect contracts to be executed by Nov. 30, 2023.

Unlike Regional Transmission Organizations in the Northeastern United States, ERCOT does not have a capacity market. Instead, ERCOT relies on a high price cap of $5,000 per MWh for its energy market (decreased from the $9,000 per MWh cap in effect during Winter Storm Uri) and an Operating Reserve Demand Curve adder that pays additional funds to generators supplying power and ancillary services, an area recently scrutinized for improper payments when supply conditions are tight. In the wake of Winter Storm Uri, some calls were made to have ERCOT adopt a capacity market for reliability reasons, and a number of legal battles continue to play out in the wake of Winter Storm Uri. (See recent McGuireWoods legal alert “Winter Storm Uri Power Dispute Reaches the Supreme Court of Texas.”) Though a capacity market was not adopted, the Texas Legislature approved a $7.2 billion loan program, widely described as an electricity market bailout for generators, to build up to 10,000 MW of dispatchable generation. The legislature also approved a version of the Public Utility Commission of Texas’ proposal to establish a “Performance Credit Mechanism,” but with a cost cap of $1 billion.

The loss of life and economic impacts of Winter Storm Uri in 2021, along with the energy crunches and calls for conservation this past summer, are driving changes to ERCOT’s “energy-only” market, including electricity market reforms under consideration. Texas policymakers are providing multiple financial incentives to promote investment in dispatchable on-demand generation, and voters will consider funding to modernize generation measures this year to make the Texas grid more reliable and able to deal with power demand from a growing economy and increased demand for electricity driven by weather. In the meantime, ERCOT’s plan to procure 3,000 MW through this RFP process is a stopgap measure intended to bolster reliability for the upcoming winter season and lower the probability of load shed in the event of severe winter weather.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

PG&E Camp Fire Guilty Plea underscores involuntary manslaughter charges as the utility admits sparking Paradise's wildfire; Butte County prosecution, CAL FIRE findings, bankruptcy oversight, victim compensation trust, and safety reforms shape accountability.

Key Points

The legal admission by PG&E to 84 involuntary manslaughter counts and unlawfully starting the 2018 Camp Fire.

✅ 84 involuntary manslaughter counts; unlawful ignition admitted.

✅ $3,486,950 fine, $500,000 DA costs; no prison terms.

✅ $13.5B victim trust, Paradise and Butte County payments.

California utility Pacific Gas and Electric Company pleaded guilty Tuesday to 84 counts of involuntary manslaughter and one count of unlawfully starting the Camp Fire, the deadliest blaze in the state's history.

Butte County District Attorney Michael L. Ramsey said the "historic moment" should be a signal that corporations will be held responsible for "recklessly endangering" lives.
The 84 people "did not need to die," Ramsey said. He said the deaths were "of the most unimaginable horror, being burned to death."

Before sentencing, survivors will testify Wednesday about the losses of their loved ones, and many have pursued lawsuits against the utility seeking accountability.

No individuals will be sent to prison, Ramsey said.

"This is the first time that PG&E or any major utility has been charged with homicide as the result of a reckless fire. It killed a town," Ramsey said, referring to Paradise, which was annihilated by the blaze.
According to court documents filed in March, the company will be fined "no more than $3,486,950," and it must reimburse the Butte County District Attorney's Office $500,000 for the costs of its investigation into the blaze, and under separate oversight a federal judge ordered dividends to be directed to wildfire risk reduction to prioritize safety.

Among other provisions, PG&E must establish a trust, compensating victims of the 2018 Camp Fire and other wildfires to the tune of $13.5 billion as part of its bankruptcy plan, according to the plea agreement included in a regulatory filing.
It has to pay hundreds of millions to the town of Paradise and Butte County and cooperate with prosecutors' investigation, the plea deal says.
PG&E also waived its right to appeal.

"I have heard the pain and the anguish of victims as they've described the loss they continue to endure, and the wounds that can't be healed," PG&E Corporation CEO and President Bill Johnson said after the plea. "No words from me could ever reduce the magnitude of such devastation or do anything to repair the damage. But I hope that the actions we are taking here today will help bring some measure of peace, including aid through a Wildfire Assistance Program the company announced."

Johnson was in court Tuesday, where Butte County Superior Court Judge Michael Deems read the names of each victim as their photos were shown on a screen, CNN affiliate KTLA reported.
Johnson said the utility would never put profits ahead of safety again. He told the judge that PG&E took responsibility for the devastation "with eyes wide open to what happened and to what must never happen again," KTLA reported.

In March, the utility and the state agreed to bankruptcy terms, which included an overhaul of PG&E's board selection process, financial structure and oversight, with rates expected to stabilize in 2025 as reforms take hold.
According to investigators with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, PG&E was responsible for the devastating Camp Fire.

Electrical lines owned and operated by PG&E started the fire November 8, 2018, CAL Fire said in a news release, after the company acknowledged its power lines may have started two fires that day.

"The tinder dry vegetation and Red Flag conditions consisting of strong winds, low humidity and warm temperatures promoted this fire and caused extreme rates of spread," CAL Fire said.
PG&E had previously said it was "probable" that its equipment started the Camp Fire but that it wasn't conclusive whether its lines ignited a second fire, as CAL Fire alleged.
The power company filed for bankruptcy in January 2019 as it came under pressure from billions of dollars in claims tied to deadly wildfires, and other utilities such as Southern California Edison have faced similar lawsuits.

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