India defers on nuclear liability bill

Finland Shadow Fleet Cable Investigation details suspected Russia-linked sabotage of Baltic Sea undersea cables, AIS dark activity, and false-flag tactics threatening critical infrastructure, prompting NATO and EU vigilance against hybrid warfare across Northern Europe.

Key Points

Finland probes suspected sabotage of undersea cables by a Russia-linked vessel using flag of convenience and AIS off.

✅ Undersea cable damage in Baltic Sea sparks security alerts

✅ Suspected shadow fleet ship ran AIS dark under false flag

✅ NATO and EU boost maritime surveillance, critical infrastructure

In December 2024, Finland launched an investigation into a ship allegedly linked to Russia’s “shadow fleet” following a series of incidents involving damage to undersea cables. The investigation has raised significant concerns in Finland and across Europe, as it suggests possible sabotage or other intentional acts related to the disruption of vital communication and energy infrastructure in the Baltic Sea region. This article explores the key details of the investigation, the role of Russia’s shadow fleet, and the broader geopolitical implications of this event.

The "Shadow Fleet" and Its Role

The term “shadow fleet” refers to a collection of ships, often disguised or operating under false flags, that are believed to be part of Russia's covert maritime operations. These vessels are typically used for activities such as smuggling, surveillance, and potentially military operations, mirroring the covert hacker infrastructure documented by researchers in related domains. In recent years, the "shadow fleet" has been under increasing scrutiny due to its involvement in various clandestine actions, especially in regions close to NATO member countries and areas with sensitive infrastructure.

Russia’s "shadow fleet" operates in the shadows of regular international shipping, often difficult to track due to the use of deceptive practices like turning off automatic identification systems (AIS). This makes it difficult for authorities to monitor their movements and assess their true purpose, raising alarm bells when one of these ships is suspected of being involved in damaging vital infrastructure like undersea cables.

The Cable Damage Incident

The investigation was sparked after damage was discovered to an undersea cable in the Baltic Sea, a vital link for communication, data transmission, and energy supply between Finland and other parts of Europe. These undersea cables are crucial for everything from internet connections to energy grid stability, with recent Nordic grid constraints underscoring their importance, and any disruption to them can have serious consequences.

Finnish authorities reported that the damage appeared to be deliberate, raising suspicions of potential sabotage. The timing of the damage coincides with a period of heightened tensions between Russia and the West, particularly following the escalation of the war in Ukraine, with recent strikes on Ukraine's power grid highlighting the stakes, and ongoing geopolitical instability. This has led many to speculate that the damage to the cables could be part of a broader strategy to undermine European security and disrupt critical infrastructure.

Upon further investigation, a vessel that had been in the vicinity at the time of the damage was identified as potentially being part of Russia’s "shadow fleet." The ship had been operating under a false flag and had disabled its AIS system, making it challenging for authorities to track its movements. The vessel’s activities raised red flags, and Finnish authorities are now working closely with international partners to ascertain its involvement in the incident.

Geopolitical Implications

The damage to undersea cables and the suspected involvement of Russia’s "shadow fleet" have broader geopolitical implications, particularly in the context of Europe’s security landscape. Undersea cables are considered critical infrastructure, akin to electric utilities where intrusions into US control rooms have been documented, and any deliberate attack on them could be seen as an act of war or an attempt to destabilize regional security.

In the wake of the investigation, there has been increased concern about the vulnerability of Europe’s energy and communication networks, which are increasingly reliant on these undersea connections, and as the Baltics pursue grid synchronization with the EU to reduce dependencies, policymakers are reassessing resilience measures. The European Union, alongside NATO, has expressed growing alarm over potential threats to this infrastructure, especially as tensions with Russia continue to escalate.

The incident also highlights the growing risks associated with hybrid warfare tactics, which combine conventional military actions with cyberattacks, including the U.S. condemnation of power grid hacking as a cautionary example, sabotage, and disinformation campaigns. The targeting of undersea cables could be part of a broader strategy by Russia to disrupt Europe’s ability to coordinate and respond effectively, particularly in the context of ongoing sanctions and diplomatic pressure.

Furthermore, the suspected involvement of a "shadow fleet" ship raises questions about the transparency and accountability of maritime activities in the region. The use of vessels operating under false flags or without identification systems complicates efforts to monitor and regulate shipping in international waters. This has led to calls for stronger maritime security measures and greater cooperation between European countries to ensure the safety and integrity of critical infrastructure.

Finland’s Response and Ongoing Investigation

In response to the cable damage incident, Finnish authorities have mobilized a comprehensive investigation, seeking to determine the extent of the damage and whether the actions were deliberate or accidental. The Finnish government has called for increased vigilance and cooperation with international partners to identify and address potential threats to undersea infrastructure, drawing on Symantec's Dragonfly research for insights into hostile capabilities.

Finland, which shares a border with Russia and has been increasingly concerned about its security in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, has ramped up its defense posture. The damage to undersea cables serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities that come with an interconnected global infrastructure, and Finland’s security services are likely to scrutinize the incident as part of their broader defense strategy.

Additionally, the incident is being closely monitored by NATO and the European Union, both of which have emphasized the importance of safeguarding critical infrastructure. As an EU member and NATO partner, Finland’s response to this situation could influence how Europe addresses similar challenges in the future.

The investigation into the damage to undersea cables in the Baltic Sea, allegedly linked to Russia’s "shadow fleet," has significant implications for European security. The use of covert operations, including the deployment of ships under false flags, underscores the growing threats to vital infrastructure in the region. With tensions between Russia and the West continuing to rise, the potential for future incidents targeting critical communication and energy networks is a pressing concern.

As Finland continues its investigation, the incident highlights the need for greater international cooperation and vigilance in safeguarding undersea cables and other critical infrastructure. In a world where hybrid warfare tactics are becoming increasingly common, ensuring the security of these vital connections will be crucial for maintaining stability in Europe. The outcome of this investigation may serve as a crucial case study in the ongoing efforts to protect infrastructure from emerging and unconventional threats.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Franco-German Nuclear Power Divide shapes EU energy policy, electricity market reform, and decarbonization strategies, as Paris backs reactors and state subsidies while Berlin prioritizes renewables, hydrogen, and energy security after Russian gas shocks.

Key Points

A policy rift over nuclear shaping EU market reform, subsidies, and the balance between reactors and renewables.

✅ Nuclear in EU targets vs. renewables-first strategy

✅ Market design disputes over long-term power prices

✅ Energy security after Russian gas; hydrogen definitions

Near the French village of Fessenheim, facing Germany across the Rhine, a nuclear power station stands dormant. The German protesters that once demanded the site’s closure have decamped, in a sign of Europe's nuclear decline, and the last watts were produced three years ago. 

But disagreements over how the plant from 1977 should be repurposed persist, speaking to a much deeper divide over nuclear power, which Eon chief's warning to Germany underscored, between the two countries on either side of the river’s banks.

German officials have disputed a proposal to turn it into a centre to treat metals exposed to low levels of radioactivity, Fessenheim’s mayor Claude Brender says. “They are not on board with anything that might in some way make the nuclear industry more acceptable,” he adds.

France and Germany’s split over nuclear power is a tale of diverging mindsets fashioned over decades, including since the Chernobyl disaster in USSR-era Ukraine. But it has now become a major faultline in a touchy relationship between Europe’s two biggest economies.

Their stand-off over how to treat nuclear in a series of EU reforms has consequences for how Europe plans to advance towards cleaner energy. It will also affect how the bloc secures power supplies as the region weans itself off Russian gas, even though nuclear would do little for the gas issue, and how it provides its industry with affordable energy to compete with the US and China. 

“There can be squabbles between partners. But we’re not in a retirement home today squabbling over trivial matters. Europe is in a serious situation,” says Eric-André Martin, a specialist in Franco-German relations at French think-tank IFRI. 

France, which produces two-thirds of its power from nuclear plants and has plans for more reactors, is fighting for the low-carbon technology to be factored into its targets for reducing emissions and for leeway to use state subsidies to fund the sector.

For Germany, which closed its last nuclear plants this year and, having turned its back on nuclear, has been particularly shaken by its former reliance on Russian gas, there’s concern that a nuclear drive will detract from renewable energy advances.

But there is also an economic subtext in a region still reeling from an energy crisis last year, reviving arguments for a needed nuclear option for climate in Germany, when prices spiked and laid bare how vulnerable households and manufacturers could become.

Berlin is wary that Paris would benefit more than its neighbours if it ends up being able to guarantee low power prices from its large nuclear output as a result of new EU rules on electricity markets, amid talk of a possible U-turn on the phaseout, people close to talks between the two countries say.

Ministers on both sides have acknowledged there is a problem. “The conflict is painful. It’s painful for the two governments as well as for our [EU] partners,” Sven Giegold, state secretary at the German economy and climate action ministry, where debates about whether a nuclear resurgence is possible persist, tells the Financial Times. 

Agnès Pannier-Runacher, France’s energy minister, says she wants to “get out of the realm of the emotional and move past the considerable misunderstandings that have accumulated in this discussion”.

In a joint appearance in Hamburg last week, German chancellor Olaf Scholz and French president Emmanuel Macron made encouraging noises over their ability to break the latest deadlock: a disagreement over the design of the EU’s electricity market. Ministers had been due to agree a plan in June but will now meet on October 17 to discuss the reform, aimed at stabilising long-term prices.

But the French and German impasse on nuclear has already slowed down debates on key EU policies such as rules on renewable energy and how hydrogen should be produced. Smaller member states are becoming impatient. The delay on the market design is “a big Franco-German show of incompetence again”, says an energy ministry official from another EU country who requested anonymity. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

La Romaine Hydroelectric Complex anchors Quebec's hydropower expansion, showcasing Hydro-Québec ingenuity, clean energy, electrification, and grid capacity gains along the North Shore's Romaine River to power industry and nearly 470,000 homes.

Key Points

A four-station, $7.4B hydro project on Quebec's Romaine River producing 8 TWh a year for electrification and industry.

✅ Generates 8 TWh yearly, powering about 470,000 homes

✅ Largest Quebec hydro build since James Bay project

✅ Key to clean energy, grid capacity, and electrification

Quebec Premier François Legault has inaugurated the la Romaine hydroelectric complex on the province's North Shore.

The newly inaugurated Romaine hydroelectric complex could serve as a model for future projects, such as the Carillon Generating Station investment now planned in the province, Legault said.

"It brings me a lot of pride. It is truly the symbol of Quebec ingenuity," he said as he opened the vast power plant.

Legault was accompanied at today's event by Jean Charest, who was Quebec premier when construction began in 2009, as well as Hydro-Québec president and CEO Michael Sabia. 

La Romaine is comprised of four power stations and is the largest hydro project constructed in the province since the Robert Bourassa generation facility, which was commissioned in 1979. It is the biggest hydro installation since the James Bay project, bolstering Hydro-Québec's hydropower capacity across the grid today.

The construction work for Romaine-4 was supposed to finish in 2020, but it was delayed the COVID-19 pandemic, the death of four workers due to security flaws and soil decomposition problems. 

The $7.4-billion la Romaine complex can produce eight terawatt hours of electricity per year, enough to power nearly 470,000 homes.

It generates its power from the Romaine River, located north of Havre-St-Pierre, Que., near the Labrador border, where long-standing Newfoundland and Labrador tensions over Quebec's projects sometimes resurface today.

Legault said that Quebec still doesn't have enough electricity to meet demand from industry, including recent allocations of electricity for industrial projects across the province, and Quebecers need to consider more ways to boost the province's ability to power future projects. The premier has said previously that demand is expected to surge by an additional 100 terawatt-hours by 2050 — half the current annual output of the provincially owned utility.

Legault's environmental plan of reducing greenhouse gases and achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 hinges on increased electrification and a strategy to wean off fossil fuels provincewide, so the electricity needs for transport and industry will be massive.

An updated strategic plan from Hydro-Quebec will be presented in November outlining those needs, president and CEO Michael Sabia told reporters on Thursday, after recent deals with NB Power underscored interprovincial demand.

Legault said the report will trigger a broader debate on energy transition and how the province can be a leader in the green economy. He said he wasn't ruling out any potential power sources — except for a return to nuclear power at this stage.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

TTC Winter E-Bike and E-Scooter Ban addresses lithium-ion battery safety, mitigating fire risk on Toronto public transit during cold weather across buses, subways, and streetcars, while balancing micro-mobility access, infrastructure gaps, and evolving regulations.

Key Points

A seasonal TTC policy limiting lithium-ion e-bikes and scooters on transit in winter to cut battery fire risk.

✅ Targets lithium-ion fire hazards in confined transit spaces

✅ Applies Nov-Mar across buses, subways, and streetcars

✅ Sparks debate on equity, accessibility, and policy alternatives

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) Board recently voted to implement a ban on lithium-ion-powered electric bikes (e-bikes) and electric scooters during the winter months, a decision that reflects growing safety concerns. This new policy has generated significant debate within the city, particularly regarding the role of these transportation modes in the lives of Torontonians, and the potential risks posed by the technology during cold weather.

A Growing Safety Concern

The move to ban lithium-ion-powered e-bikes and scooters from TTC services during the winter months stems from increasing safety concerns related to battery fires. Lithium-ion batteries, commonly used in e-bikes and scooters, are known to pose a fire risk, especially in colder temperatures, and as systems like Metro Vancouver's battery-electric buses expand, robust safety practices are paramount. In recent years, Toronto has experienced several high-profile incidents involving fires caused by these batteries. In some cases, these fires have occurred on TTC property, including on buses and subway cars, raising alarm among transit officials.

The TTC Board's decision was largely driven by the fear that the cold temperatures during winter months could make lithium-ion batteries more prone to malfunction, leading to potential fires. These batteries are particularly vulnerable to damage when exposed to low temperatures, which can cause them to overheat or fail during charging or use. Since public transit systems are densely populated and rely on close quarters, the risk of a battery fire in a confined space such as a bus or subway is considered too high.

The New Ban

The new rule, which is expected to take effect in the coming months, will prohibit e-bikes and scooters powered by lithium-ion batteries from being brought onto TTC vehicles, including buses, streetcars, and subway trains, even as the agency rolls out battery electric buses across its fleet, during the winter months. While the TTC had previously allowed passengers to bring these devices on board, it had issued warnings regarding their safety. The policy change reflects a more cautious approach to mitigating risk in light of growing concerns.

The winter months, typically from November to March, are when these batteries are at their most vulnerable. In addition to environmental factors, the challenges posed by winter weather—such as snow, ice, and the damp conditions—can exacerbate the potential for damage to these devices. The TTC Board hopes the new ban will prevent further incidents and keep transit riders safe.

Pushback and Debate

Not everyone agrees with the TTC Board's decision. Some residents and advocacy groups have expressed concern that this ban unfairly targets individuals who rely on e-bikes and scooters as an affordable and sustainable mode of transportation, while international examples like Paris's e-scooter vote illustrate how contentious rental devices can be elsewhere, adding fuel to the debate. E-bikes, in particular, have become a popular choice among commuters who want an eco-friendly alternative to driving, especially in a city like Toronto, where traffic congestion can be severe.

Advocates argue that instead of an outright ban, the TTC should invest in safer infrastructure, such as designated storage areas for e-bikes and scooters, or offer guidelines on how to safely store and transport these devices during winter, and, in assessing climate impacts, consider Canada's electricity mix alongside local safety measures. They also point out that other forms of electric transportation, such as electric wheelchairs and mobility scooters, are not subject to the same restrictions, raising questions about the fairness of the new policy.

In response to these concerns, the TTC has assured the public that it remains committed to finding alternative solutions that balance safety with accessibility. Transit officials have stated that they will continue to monitor the situation and consider adjustments to the policy if necessary.

Broader Implications for Transportation in Toronto

The TTC’s decision to ban lithium-ion-powered e-bikes and scooters is part of a broader conversation about the future of transportation in urban centers like Toronto. The rise of electric micro-mobility devices has been seen as a step toward reducing carbon emissions and addressing the city’s growing congestion issues, aligning with Canada's EV goals that push for widespread adoption. However, as more people turn to e-bikes and scooters for daily commuting, concerns about safety and infrastructure have become more pronounced.

The city of Toronto has yet to roll out comprehensive regulations for electric scooters and bikes, and this issue is further complicated by the ongoing push for sustainable urban mobility and pilots like driverless electric shuttles that test new models. While transit authorities grapple with safety risks, the public is increasingly looking for ways to integrate these devices into a broader, more holistic transportation system that prioritizes both convenience and safety.

The TTC’s decision to ban lithium-ion-powered e-bikes and scooters during the winter months is a necessary step to address growing safety concerns in Toronto's public transit system. Although the decision has been met with some resistance, it highlights the ongoing challenges in managing the growing use of electric transportation in urban environments, where initiatives like TTC's electric bus fleet offer lessons on scaling safely. With winter weather exacerbating the risks associated with lithium-ion batteries, the policy seeks to reduce the chances of fires and ensure the safety of all transit users. As the city moves forward, it will need to find ways to balance innovation with public safety to create a more sustainable and safe urban transportation network.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure 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

Nuclear Power Resilience During COVID-19 shows low-carbon electricity supporting renewables integration with grid flexibility, reliability, and inertia, sustaining decarbonization, stable baseload, and system security while prices fell and demand dropped across markets.

Key Points

It shows nuclear plants providing reliable, low-carbon power and supporting grid stability despite demand declines.

✅ Low prices challenge investment; lifetime extensions are cost-effective.

✅ Nuclear provides inertia, reliability, and dispatchable capacity.

✅ Market reforms should reward flexibility and grid services.

The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed the operation of power systems across the globe, including European responses that many argue accelerated the transition, and offered a glimpse of a future electricity mix dominated by low carbon sources.

The performance of nuclear power, in particular, demonstrates how it can support the transition to a resilient, clean energy system well beyond the COVID-19 recovery phase, and its role in net-zero pathways is increasingly highlighted by analysts today.

Restrictions on economic and social activity during the COVID-19 outbreak have led to an unprecedented and sustained decline in demand for electricity in many countries, in the order of 10% or more relative to 2019 levels over a period of a few months, thereby creating challenging conditions for both electricity generators and system operators (Fig. 1). The recent Sustainable Recovery Report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) projects a 5% reduction in global electricity usage for the entire year 2020, with a record 5.7% decline foreseen in the United States alone. The sustainable economic recovery will be discussed at today's IEA Clean Energy Transitions Summit, where Fatih Birol's call to keep options open will be prominent as IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi participates.

Electricity generation from fossil fuels has been hard hit, due to relatively high operating costs compared to nuclear power and renewables, as well as simple price-setting mechanisms on electricity markets. By contrast, low-carbon electricity prevailed during these extraordinary circumstances, with the contribution of renewable electricity rising in a number of countries as analyses see renewables eclipsing coal by 2025, due to an obligation on transmission system operators to schedule and dispatch renewable electricity ahead of other generators, as well as due to favourable weather conditions.

Nuclear power generation also proved to be resilient, reliable and adaptable. The nuclear industry rapidly implemented special measures to cope with the pandemic, avoiding the need to shut down plants due to the effects of COVID-19 on the workforce or supply chains. Nuclear generators also swiftly adapted to the changed market conditions. For example, EDF Energy was able to respond to the need of the UK grid operator by curtailing sporadically the generation of its Sizewell B reactor and maintain a cost-efficient and secure electricity service for consumers.

Despite the nuclear industry's performance during the pandemic, faced with significant decreases in demand, many generators have still needed to reduce their overall output appreciably, for example in France, Sweden, Ukraine, the UK and to a lesser extent Germany (Fig. 2), even as the nuclear decline debate continues in Europe. Declining demand in France up to the end of March already contributed to a 1% drop in first quarter revenues at EDF, with nuclear output more than 9% lower than in the year before. Similarly, Russia's Rosatom experienced a significant demand contraction in April and May, contributing to an 11% decline in revenues for the first five months of the year.

Overall, the competitiveness and resilience of low carbon technologies have resulted in higher market shares for nuclear, solar and wind power in many countries since the start of lockdowns (Fig. 3), and low-emissions sources to meet demand growth over the next three years. The share of nuclear generation in South Korea rose by almost 9 percentage points during the pandemic, while in the UK, nuclear played a big part in almost eliminating coal generation for a period of two months. For the whole of 2020, the US Energy Information Administration's Short-Term Energy Outlook sees the share of nuclear generation increasing by more than one percentage point compared to 2019. In China, power production decreased during January-February 2020 by more than 8% year on year: coal power decreased by nearly 9%, hydropower by nearly 12%. Nuclear has proved more resilient with a 2% reduction only. The benefits of these higher shares of clean energy in terms of reduced emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants have been on full display worldwide over the past months.

Challenges for the future

Despite the demonstrated performance of a cleaner energy system through the crisis - including the capacity of existing nuclear power plants to deliver a competitive, reliable, and low carbon electricity service when needed - both short- and long-term challenges remain.

In the shorter term, the collapse in electricity demand has accelerated recent falls in electricity prices, particularly in Europe (Fig. 4), from already economically unsustainable levels. According to Standard and Poor's Midyear Update, the large price drops in Europe result from not only COVID-19 lockdown measures but also collapsing demand due to an unusually warm winter, increased supply from renewables in a context of lower gas prices and CO2 allowances . Such low prices further exacerbate the challenging environment faced by many electricity generators, including nuclear plants. These may impede the required investments in the clean energy transition, with longer term consequences on the achievement of climate goals.

For nuclear power, maintaining and extending the operation of existing plants is essential to support and accelerate the transition to low carbon energy systems. With a supportive investment environment, a 10-20 year lifetime extension can be realized at an average cost of US $30-40/MW*h, making it among the most cost-effective low-carbon options, while also maintaining dispatchable capacity and lowering the overall cost of the clean energy transition. The IEA Sustainable Recovery report indicates that without such extensions 40% of the nuclear fleet in developed economies may be retired within a decade, adding around US$ 80 billion per year to electricity bills. The IEA note the potential for nuclear plant maintenance and extension programmes to support recovery measures by generating significant economic activity and employment.

The need for flexibility

New nuclear power projects can provide similar economic and environmental benefits and applications beyond electricity, but will be all the more challenging to finance without strong policy support and more substantive power market reforms, including improved frameworks for remunerating reliability, flexibility and other services. The need for flexibility in electricity generation and system operation - a trend accelerated by the crisis - will increasingly characterize future energy systems over the medium to longer term.

Looking further ahead, while generators and system operators successfully responded to the crisis, the observed decline in fossil fuel generation draws attention to additional grid stability challenges likely to emerge further into the energy transition. Heavy rotating steam and gas turbines provide mechanical inertia to an electricity system, thereby maintaining its balance. Replacing these capacities with variable renewables may result in greater instability, poorer power quality and increased incidence of blackouts. Large nuclear power plants along with other technologies can fill this role, alleviating the risk of supply disruptions in fully decarbonized electricity systems.

The challenges created by COVID-19 have also brought into focus the need to ensure resilience is built-in to future energy systems to cope with a broader range of external shocks, including more variable and extreme weather patterns expected from climate change.

The performance of nuclear power during the crisis provides a timely reminder of its ongoing contribution and future potential in creating a more sustainable, reliable, low carbon energy system.

Data sources for electricity demand, generation and prices: European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (Europe), Ukrenergo National Power Company (Ukraine), Power System Operation Corporation (India), Korea Power Exchange (South Korea), Operador Nacional do Sistema Eletrico (Brazil), Independent Electricity System Operator (Ontario, Canada), EIA (USA). Data cover 1 January to May/June.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News