GE to host EV experience tour

Electricity System Climate Resilience underpins grid reliability amid heatwaves and drought, integrating solar, wind, hydropower, nuclear, storage, and demand response with efficient transmission, flexibility, and planning to secure power for homes, industry, and services.

Key Points

Power systems capacity to endure extreme weather and integrate clean energy, maintaining reliability and flexibility.

✅ Grid hardening, transmission upgrades, and digital forecasting.

✅ Flexible low-carbon supply: hydropower, nuclear, storage.

✅ Demand response, efficient cooling, and regional integration.

Summer is just half done in the northern hemisphere and yet we are already seeing electricity systems around the world struggling to cope with the severe strain of heatwaves and low rainfall.

These challenges highlight the urgent need for strong and well-planned policies and investments to improve the security of our electricity systems, which supply power to homes, offices, factories, hospitals, schools and other fundamental parts of our economies and societies. This means making our electricity systems more resilient to the effects of global warming – and more efficient and flexible as they incorporate rising levels of solar and wind power, as solar is now the cheapest electricity in history according to the IEA, which will be critical for reaching net-zero emissions in time to prevent even worse impacts from climate change.

A range of different countries, including the US, Canada and Iraq, have been hard hit by extreme weather recently in the form of unusually high temperatures. In North America, the heat soared to record levels in the Pacific Northwest. An electricity watchdog says that five US regions face elevated risks to the security of their electricity supplies this summer, underscoring US grid climate risks that could worsen, and that California’s risk level is even higher.

Heatwaves put pressure on electricity systems in multiple ways. They increase demand as people turn up air conditioning, driving higher US electricity bills for many households, and as some appliances work harder to maintain cool temperatures. At the same time, higher temperatures can also squeeze electricity supplies by reducing the efficiency and capacity of traditional thermal power plants, such as coal, natural gas and nuclear. Extreme heat can reduce the availability of water for cooling plants or transporting fuel, forcing operators to reduce their output. In some cases, it can result in power plants having to shut down, increasing the risk of outages. If the heat wave is spread over a wide geographic area, it also reduces the scope for one region to draw on spare capacity from its neighbours, since they have to devote their available resources to meeting local demand.

A recent heatwave in Texas forced the grid operator to call for customers to raise their thermostats’ temperatures to conserve energy. Power generating companies suffered outages at much higher rates than expected, providing an unwelcome reminder of February’s brutal cold snap when outages – primarily from natural gas power plants – left up to 5 million customers across the US without power over a period of four days.

At the same time, lower than average rainfall and prolonged dry weather conditions are raising concerns about hydropower’s electricity output in various parts of the world, including Brazil, China, India and North America. The risks that climate change brings in the form of droughts adds to the challenges faced by hydropower, the world’s largest source of clean electricity, highlighting the importance of developing hydropower resources sustainably and ensuring projects are climate resilient.

The recent spate of heatwaves and unusually long dry spells are fresh warnings of what lies ahead as our climate continues to heat up: an increase in the scale and frequency of extreme weather events, which will cause greater impacts and strains on our energy infrastructure.

Heatwaves will increase the challenge of meeting electricity demand while also decarbonizing the electricity supply. Today, the amount of energy used for cooling spaces – such as homes, shops, offices and factories – is responsible for around 1 billion tonnes of global CO2 emissions. In particular, energy for cooling can have a major impact on peak periods of electricity demand, intensifying the stress on the system. Since the energy demand used for air conditioners worldwide could triple by 2050, these strains are set to grow unless governments introduce stronger policy measures to improve the energy efficiency of air conditioning units.

Electricity security is crucial for smooth energy transitions
Many countries around the world have announced ambitious targets for reaching net-zero emissions by the middle of this century and are seeking to step up their clean energy transitions. The IEA’s recent Global Roadmap to Net Zero by 2050 makes it clear that achieving this formidable goal will require much more electricity, much cleaner electricity and for that electricity to be used in far more parts of our economies than it is today. This means electricity reaching much deeper into sectors such as transport (e.g. EVs), buildings (e.g. heat-pumps) and industry (e.g. electric-arc steel furnaces), and in countries like New Zealand's electrification plans it is accelerating broader efforts. As clean electricity’s role in the economy expands and that of fossil fuels declines, secure supplies of electricity become ever-more important. This is why the climate resilience of the electricity sector must be a top priority in governments’ policy agendas.

Changing climate patterns and more frequent extreme weather events can hit all types of power generation sources. Hydropower resources typically suffer in hot and dry conditions, but so do nuclear and fossil fuel power plants. These sources currently help ensure electricity systems have the flexibility and capacity to integrate rising shares of solar and wind power, whose output can vary depending on the weather and the time of day or year.

As governments and utilities pursue the decarbonization of electricity systems, mainly through growing levels of solar and wind, and carbon-free electricity options, they need to ensure they have sufficiently robust and diverse sources of flexibility to ensure secure supplies, including in the event of extreme weather events. This means that the possible decommissioning of existing power generation assets requires careful assessments that take into account the importance of climate resilience.

Ensuring electricity security requires long-term planning and stronger policy action and investment
The IEA is committed to helping governments make well-informed decisions as they seek to build a clean and secure energy future. With this in mind, here are seven areas for action for ensuring electricity systems are as resilient as possible to climate risks:

1. Invest in electricity grids to make them more resilient to extreme weather. Spending today is far below the levels needed to double the investment for cleaner, more electrified energy systems, particularly in emerging and developing economies. Economic recovery plans from the COVID-19 crisis offer clear opportunities for economies that have the resources to invest in enhancing grid infrastructure, but much greater international efforts are required to mobilize and channel the necessary spending in emerging and developing economies.

2. Improve the efficiency of cooling equipment. Cost-effective technology already exists in most markets to double or triple the efficiency of cooling equipment. Investing in higher efficiency could halve future energy demand and reduce investment and operating costs by $3 trillion between now and 2050. In advance of COP26, the Super-Efficient Equipment and Appliance Deployment (SEAD) initiative is encouraging countries to sign up to double the energy efficiency of equipment sold in their countries by 2030.

3. Enable the growth of flexible low-carbon power sources to support more solar and wind. These electricity generation sources include hydropower and nuclear, for countries who see a role for one or both of them in their energy transitions. Guaranteeing hydropower resilience in a warming climate will require sophisticated methods and tools – such as the ones implemented in Brazil – to calculate the necessary level of reserves and optimize management of reservoirs and hydropower output even in exceptional conditions. Batteries and other forms of storage, combined with solar or wind, can also provide important amounts of flexibility by storing power and releasing it when needed.

4. Increase other sources of electricity system flexibility. Demand-response and digital technologies can play an important role. The IEA estimates that only a small fraction of the huge potential for demand response in the buildings sector is actually tapped at the moment. New policies, which associate digitalization and financial behavioural incentives, could unlock more flexibility. Regional integration of electricity systems across national borders can also increase access to flexible resources.

5. Expedite the development and deployment of new technologies for managing extreme weather threats. The capabilities of electricity utilities in forecasting and situation awareness should be enhanced with the support of the latest information and communication technologies.

6. Make climate resilience a central part of policy-making and system planning. The interconnected nature of recent extreme weather events reminds us that we need to account for many contingencies when planning resilient power systems. Climate resilience should be integral to policy-making by governments and power system planning by utilities and relevant industries, and debates over Canadian climate policy underscore how grid implications must be considered. According to the recent IEA report on climate resilience, only nine out of 38 IEA member and association countries include concrete actions on climate adaptation and resilience for every segment of electricity systems.

7. Strengthen international cooperation on electricity security. Electricity underpins vital services and basic needs, such as health systems, water supplies and other energy industries. Maintaining a secure electricity supply is thus of critical importance. The costs of doing nothing in the face of growing climate threats are becoming abundantly clear. The IEA is working with all countries in the IEA family, as well as others around the world, by providing unrivalled data, analysis and policy advice on electricity security issues. It is also bringing governments together at various levels to share experiences and best practices, and identify how to hasten the shift to cleaner and more resilient energy systems.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Hornsea One Offshore Wind Farm delivers first power to the UK grid, scaling renewable energy with 1.2GW capacity, giant offshore turbines, and Yorkshire coast infrastructure to replace delayed nuclear and cut fossil fuel emissions.

Key Points

Hornsea One Offshore Wind Farm is a 1.2GW UK project delivering offshore renewable power to about 1 million homes.

✅ 174 turbines over 407 km2; Siemens Gamesa supply chain in the UK

✅ 1.2GW capacity can power ~1m homes; phases scale with 10MW+ turbines

✅ Supports UK grid, replaces delayed nuclear, cuts fossil generation

An offshore windfarm on the Yorkshire coast that will dwarf the world’s largest when completed is to supply its first power to the UK electricity grid this week, mirroring advances in tidal electricity projects delivering to the grid as well.

The Danish developer Ørsted, which has installed the first of 174 turbines at Hornsea One, said it was ready to step up its plans and fill the gap left by failed nuclear power schemes.

The size of the project takes the burgeoning offshore wind power sector to a new scale, on a par with conventional fossil fuel-fired power stations.

Hornsea One will cover 407 square kilometres, five times the size of the nearby city of Hull. At 1.2GW of capacity it will power 1m homes, making it about twice as powerful as today’s biggest offshore windfarm once it is completed in the second half of this year.

“The ability to generate clean electricity offshore at this scale is a globally significant milestone at a time when urgent action needs to be taken to tackle climate change,” said Matthew Wright, UK managing director of Ørsted, the world’s biggest offshore windfarm builder.

The power station is only the first of four planned in the area, with a green light and subsidies already awarded to a second stage due for completion in the early 2020s, and interest from Japanese utilities underscoring growing investor appetite.

The first two phases will use 7MW turbines, which are taller than London’s Gherkin building.

But the latter stages of the Hornsea development could use even more powerful, 10MW-plus turbines. Bigger turbines will capture more of the energy from the wind and should lower costs by reducing the number of foundations and amount of cabling firms need to put into the water, with developers noting that offshore wind can compete with gas in the U.S. as costs fall.

Henrik Poulsen, Ørsted’s chief executive, said he was in close dialogue with major manufacturers to use the new generation of turbines, some of which are expected to approach the height of the Shard in London, the tallest building in the EU.

The UK has a great wind resource and shallow enough seabed to exploit it, and could even “power most of Europe if it [the UK] went to the extreme with offshore”, he said.

Offshore windfarms could help ministers fill the low carbon power gap created by Hitachi and Toshiba scrapping nuclear plants, the executive suggested. “If nuclear should play less of a role than expected, I believe offshore wind can step up,” he said.

New nuclear projects in Europe had been “dramatically delayed and over budget”, he added, in comparison to “the strong track record for delivering offshore [wind]”.

The UK and Germany installed 85% of new offshore wind power capacity in the EU last year, according to industry data, with wind leading power across several markets. The average power rating of the turbines is getting bigger too, up 15% in 2018.

The turbines for Hornsea One are built and shipped from Siemens Gamesa’s factory in Hull, part of a web of UK-based suppliers that has sprung up around the growing sector, such as Prysmian UK's land cables supporting grid connections.

Around half of the project’s transition pieces, the yellow part of the structure that connects the foundation to the tower, are made in Teeside. Many of the towers themselves are made by a firm in Campbeltown in the Scottish highlands. Altogether, about half of the components for the project are made in the UK.

Ørsted is not yet ready to bid for a share of a £60m pot of further offshore windfarm subsidies, to be auctioned by the government this summer, but expects the price to reach even more competitive levels than those seen in 2017.

Like other international energy companies, Ørsted has put in place contingency planning in event of a no-deal Brexit – but the hope is that will not come to pass. “We want a Brexit deal that will facilitate an orderly transition out of the union,” said Poulsen.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Britain Electricity Demand During Lockdown is around 10 percent lower, as industrial consumers scale back. National Grid reports later morning peaks and continues balancing system frequency and voltage to maintain grid stability.

Key Points

Measured drop in UK power use, later morning peaks, and grid actions to keep frequency and voltage within safe limits.

✅ Daily demand about 10 percent lower since lockdown.

✅ Morning peak down nearly 18 percent and occurs later.

✅ National Grid balances frequency and voltage using flexible resources.

Daily electricity demand in Britain is around 10% lower than before the country went into lockdown last week due to the coronavirus outbreak, data from grid operator National Grid showed on Tuesday.

The fall is largely due to big industrial consumers using less power across sectors, the operator said.

Last week, Prime Minister Boris Johnson ordered Britons to stay at home to halt the spread of the virus, imposing curbs on everyday life without precedent in peacetime.

Morning peak demand has fallen by nearly 18% compared to before the lockdown was introduced and the normal morning peak is later than usual because the times people are getting up are later and more spread out with fewer travelling to work and school, a pattern also seen in Ottawa during closures, National Grid said.

Even though less power is needed overall, the operator still has to manage lower demand for electricity, as well as peaks, amid occasional short supply warnings from National Grid, and keep the frequency and voltage of the system at safe levels.

Last August, a blackout cut power to one million customers and caused transport chaos as almost simultaneous loss of output from two generators caused by a lightning strike caused the frequency of the system to drop below normal levels, highlighting concerns after the emergency energy plan stalled.

National Grid said it can use a number of tools to manage the frequency, such as working with flexible generators to reduce output or draw on storage providers to increase demand, and market conditions mean peak power prices have spiked at times.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Peterborough Distribution Inc. Sale to Hydro One delivers a $105 million deal pending Ontario Energy Board approval, a 1% distribution rate cut, five-year rate freeze, job protections, and a new operations centre and fleet facility.

Key Points

A $105M acquisition of PDI by Hydro One, with OEB review, rate freeze, job protections, and a new operations centre.

✅ $105 million purchase; Ontario Energy Board approval required

✅ 1% distribution rate cut and a five-year rate freeze

✅ New operations centre; PDI employees offered roles at Hydro One

The City of Peterborough said Wednesday it has agreed to sell Peterborough Distribution Inc. to Hydro One for $105 million, amid a period when Hydro One shares fell after leadership changes.

The deal requires approval from the Ontario Energy Board before it can proceed.

According to the city, the deal includes a one per cent distribution rate reduction and a five-year freeze in distribution rates for customers, plus:

• A second five-year period with distribution rate increases limited to inflation and an earnings sharing mechanism to offset rates in year 11 and onward
• Protections for PDI employees with employees receiving employment offers to move to Hydro One
• A sale price of $105 million
• An agreement to develop a regional operations centre and new fleet maintenance facility in Peterborough

“Hydro One was unique in its ability to offer new investment and job creation in our community through the addition of a new operations centre to serve customers throughout the broader region,” Mayor Daryl Bennett said.

“We’re surrounded by Hydro One territory — in fact, we already have Hydro One customers within the City of Peterborough and new subdivisions will be in Hydro One territory. Hydro One will be able to create efficiencies by better utilizing its existing infrastructure, benefiting customers and supporting growth.”

The sale comes after months of negotiations amid investor concerns about Hydro One’s uncertainties. At one point, it looked like the sale wouldn’t go through, after it was announced that Hydro One had walked away from the bargaining table.

City council approved the sale of PDI in December 2016, despite a strong public opposition and debate over proposals to make hydro public again among some parties.

Elsewhere in Canada, political decisions around utilities have also sparked debate, as seen when Manitoba Hydro faced controversy over policy shifts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business 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

Community Power Tariff UK delivers clean electricity from community energy projects, sourcing renewable energy from local wind and solar farms, with carbon offset gas, transparent provenance, fair pricing, and reinvestment in local generators across Britain.

Key Points

UK energy plan delivering 100% community renewable power with carbon-offset gas, sourced from local wind and solar.

✅ 100% community-generated electricity from UK wind and solar

✅ Fair prices with profits reinvested in local projects

✅ Carbon-offset gas and verified, transparent provenance

UK homes will soon be able to plug into community wind and solar farms from anywhere in the country through the first energy tariff to offer clean electricity exclusively from community projects.

The deal from Co-op Energy comes as green energy suppliers race to prove their sustainability credentials amid rising competition for eco-conscious customers and “greenwashing” in the market.

The energy supplier will charge an extra £5 a month over Co-op’s regular tariff to provide electricity from community energy projects and gas which includes a carbon offset in the price.

Co-op, which is operated by Octopus Energy after it bought the business from the Midcounties Co-operative last year, will source the clean electricity for its new tariff directly from 90 local renewable energy generation projects across the UK, including the Westmill wind and solar farms in Oxfordshire. It plans to use all profits to reinvest in maintaining the community projects and building new ones.

Phil Ponsonby, the chief executive of Midcounties Co-operative, said the tariff is the UK’s only one to be powered by 100% community-generated electricity and would ensure a fair price is paid to community generators too, amid a renewable energy auction boost that supports wider deployment.

Customers on the Community Power tariff will be able to “see exactly where it is being generated at small scale sites across the UK, and, with new rights to sell solar power back to energy firms, they know it is benefiting local communities”, he said.

Co-op, which has about 300,000 customers, has set itself apart from a rising number of energy supply deals which are marked as 100% renewable, but are not as green as they seem, even as many renewable projects are on hold due to grid constraints.

Consumer group Which? has found that many suppliers offer renewable energy tariffs but do not generate renewable electricity themselves or have contracts to buy any renewable electricity directly from generators.

Instead, the “pale green” suppliers exploit a loophole in the energy market by snapping up cheap renewable energy certificates, without necessarily buying energy from renewables projects.

The certificates are issued by the regulator to renewable energy developers for each megawatt generated, but these can be sold separately from the electricity for a fraction of the price.

A survey conducted last year found that one in 10 people believe that a renewables tariff means that the supplier generates at least some of its electricity from its own renewable energy projects.

Ponsonby said the wind and solar schemes that generate electricity for the Community Power tariff “plough the profits they make back into their neighbourhoods or into helping other similar projects get off the ground”.

Greg Jackson, the chief executive of Octopus Energy, said being able to buy locally-sourced clean, green energy is “a massive jump in the right direction” which will help grow the UK’s green electricity capacity nationwide.

“Investing in more local energy infrastructure and getting Britain’s homes run by the sun when it’s shining and wind energy when it’s blowing can end our reliance on dirty fossil fuels sooner than we hoped,” he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News