NRC seeks input on new nuclear design

U.S. Tariffs on Chinese EVs and Solar Cells target trade imbalances, subsidies, and intellectual property risks, bolstering domestic manufacturing, supply chains, and national security across clean energy, automotive technology, and renewable markets.

Key Points

Policy measures raising duties on Chinese EVs and solar cells to protect U.S. industry, IP, and national security.

✅ Raises duties to counter subsidies and IP risks

✅ Supports domestic EV and solar manufacturing jobs

✅ May reshape supply chains, prices, and trade flows

In a significant move aimed at bolstering domestic industries and addressing trade imbalances, the Biden administration has announced higher tariffs on Chinese-made electric cars and solar cells. This decision marks a strategic shift in U.S. trade policy, with market observers noting EV tariffs alongside industrial and financial implications across sectors today.

Tariffs on Electric Cars

The imposition of tariffs on Chinese electric cars comes amidst growing competition in the global electric vehicle (EV) market. U.S. automakers and policymakers have raised concerns about unfair trade practices, subsidies, and market access barriers faced by American EV manufacturers in China amid escalating trade tensions with key partners. The tariffs aim to level the playing field and protect U.S. interests in the burgeoning electric vehicle sector.

Impact on Solar Cells

Similarly, higher tariffs on Chinese solar cells address concerns regarding intellectual property theft, subsidies, and market distortions in the solar energy industry, where tariff threats have influenced investment signals across North American markets.

The U.S. solar sector, a key player in renewable energy development, has called for measures to safeguard fair competition and promote domestic manufacturing of solar technologies.

Economic and Political Implications

The tariff hikes underscore broader economic tensions between the United States and China, spanning trade, technology, and geopolitical issues. While aimed at protecting American industries, these tariffs could lead to retaliatory measures from China and impact global supply chains, particularly in renewable energy and automotive sectors, as North American electricity exports at risk add to uncertainty across markets.

Industry and Market Responses

Industry stakeholders have responded with mixed reactions to the tariff announcements. U.S. automakers and solar manufacturers supportive of the tariffs argue they will help level the playing field and encourage domestic production. However, critics warn of potential energy price spikes for consumers, supply chain disruptions, and unintended consequences for global clean energy goals.

Strategic Considerations

The Biden administration's tariff policy reflects a broader strategy to promote economic resilience, innovation, and national security in critical industries, even as cross-border electricity exports become flashpoints in trade policy debates today.

Efforts to strengthen domestic supply chains, invest in renewable energy infrastructure, and foster international partnerships remain central to U.S. economic competitiveness and climate objectives.

Future Outlook

Looking ahead, navigating U.S.-China trade relations will continue to be a complex challenge for policymakers. Balancing economic interests, diplomatic engagements, and environmental priorities, alongside regional public support for tariffs, will shape future trade policy decisions affecting electric vehicles, renewable energy, and technology sectors globally.

Conclusion

The Biden administration's decision to impose higher tariffs on Chinese electric cars and solar cells represents a strategic response to economic and geopolitical dynamics reshaping global markets. While aimed at protecting American industries and promoting fair trade practices, the tariffs signal a commitment to fostering competitiveness, innovation, and sustainability in critical sectors of the economy. As these measures unfold, stakeholders will monitor their impact on industry dynamics, supply chain resilience, and international trade relations in the evolving landscape of global commerce.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Texas Electricity Complaints surged to a three-year high, highlighting Public Utility Commission data on billing disputes, meter problems, and service issues in the competitive retail electricity market and consumer protection process.

Key Points

Consumer filings to Texas PUC about billing, service, and meters, with 2018 reaching a three-year high.

✅ 5,371 complaints/inquiries in FY2018; 43.8% involved billing disputes.

✅ Service issues 15.8% and meters 12.6%; PUC publishes complaint stats.

✅ Advocates urge monitoring to keep deregulated retail market healthy.

The number of electricity service-related complaints and inquiries filed with the state’s Public Utility Commission reached a three-year high this past fiscal year, an advocacy group said Tuesday.

According to the Texas Coalition for Affordable Power, a nonprofit that advocates for low electricity prices, Texans filed 5,371 complaints or inquiries with the commission between September 2017 and August of this year. That’s up from the 4,175 complaints or inquiries filed during the same period in 2017 and the 4,835 filed in 2016. The complaints and inquiries included concerns with billing, meters and service.

“This stark uptick in complaints is disappointing — especially after several years of generally improving numbers,” Jay Doegey, the coalition's executive director, said in a written statement. “In percentage terms, the year-to-year rise in complaints is the greatest in a decade. Clearly, many Texans remain frustrated with aspects of their electric service.”

The utility commission did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

While complaints and inquiries increased in 2018, the number of complaints and inquiries has generally decreased since 2009, when Texans filed 15,956 with the commission. That could be because there have been lower residential electricity prices and because Texans have become more familiar with the state’s competitive retail electricity system over the last decade, the coalition's report said.

And complaints from 2018 are well below 2003 levels, when the number of complaints and inquiries soared to more than 17,000, a year after Texas deregulated most of its electricity market structure at the time.

But Jake Dyer, a policy analyst at the coalition, said his group is closely watching the uptick in complaints this year as the Texas power grid faces recurring strains.

“We are invested in making sure the competition works,” Dyer said. “When you see an uptick like this, you should watch very closely to make sure the market remains healthy and to make sure there is not something else going on.”

However, Dyer said that it is too early to know what that something else that is going on might be.

According to the report, concerns about billing made up most of the complaints and inquiries filed this year at 43.8 percent. That’s up from 42.5 percent in fiscal year 2017. Concerns about the provision of electrical service and about electrical meters also ranked high, constituting 15.8 percent and 12.6 percent of the complaints and inquiries, respectively.

The Public Utility Commission publishes customer complaint statistics on its website. The Texas Coalition for Affordable Power takes into account both complaints and inquiries filed with the commission for its report in order “to gauge general consumer sentiment and to maintain a uniform methodology across the study period.”

Texans can file an official complaint with the the commission's Customer Protection Division. Under the complaint process, the complaint is sent to the electric company, which has 21 days to respond.

Some providers outside the competitive market, such as electric cooperatives, drew praise for performance during the 2021 winter storm.

Following the 2021 winter storm, Texas lawmakers proposed an electricity market bailout to stabilize costs and reliability.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

East-West Transmission Project Ontario connects Thunder Bay to Wawa, facing OEB bidding, Hydro One vs NextBridge, First Nations consultation, environmental assessment, Pukaskwa National Park route, and reliability needs for Northwestern Ontario industry and communities.

Key Points

A 450 km Thunder Bay-Wawa power line proposal facing OEB bidding, Hydro One competition, and First Nations consultation.

✅ Competing bids: Hydro One vs NextBridge under OEB rules

✅ First Nations cite duty to consult and environmental review gaps

✅ Route debate: Pukaskwa Park vs bypass; jobs and reliability at stake

Leaders of six First Nations are urging the Ontario government to "clean up" the bureaucratic process that determines who will build an "urgently needed" high-capacity power transmission line to service northern Ontario.

The proposed 450 kilometre East-West Transmission Project is set to stretch from Thunder Bay to Wawa, providing much-needed electricity to northern Ontario. NextBridge Infrastructure, in partnership with Bamkushwada Limited Partnership (BLP) — an entity the First Nations created in order to become co-owners and active participants in the economic development of the line — have been the main proponents of the project since 2012 and were awarded the right to construct.

In 2018, Hydro One appealed to the previous Liberal government with a proposal to build the transmission line with lower maintenance costs. On Dec. 20, the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) issued a decision that said it will issue the contract to construct the project to the company with the lowest bid, even as a Manitoba Hydro line delay followed a board recommendation in a comparable case.

The transmission regime in Ontario allows competing bids at the beginning of a project to designate a transmitter, and then again at the end of the project to award leave to construct.

As a result, the Hydro One was permitted to submit a competing bid, five years after it was first proposed. The chiefs of the six First Nations say that will delay the project by two years, impede their land and violate their rights. The former Liberal government under which the project was initiated "left the door open" for competition to enter this late in the construction, according to the community leaders.

"The former government created this mess and Hydro One has taken advantage of this loophole," Fort William First Nation Chief Peter Collins said in a Queen's Park news conference on Thursday. "Hydro One is an interloper coming in at the last minute, trying taking over the project and all the hard work that has been done, without doing the work it needs to do."

Mess will explode, says chief

According to Collins, the Ontario Energy Board is likely to choose Hydro One's late submission in February, "causing this mess to explode." The electricity and distribution utility has not completed any of the legal requirements demanded by a project of this magnitude, Collins said, including extensive consultations with First Nations, such as oral traditional evidence hearings that inform regulators, and thorough environment assessments. He speculated that by ignoring these two things, even though in B.C. Ottawa did not oppose a Site C work halt pending a treaty rights challenge, Hydro One's bid will be the lowest cost.

"Hydro One's interference is a big problem," said Collins. He was flanked by the leaders of the Pic Mobert First Nation, Opwaaganasiniing (also known as the Red Rock Indian Band), Michipicoten, Biigtigong Nishnaabeg — or Pic River First Nation — and Pays Plat First Nation.

Collins also highlighted that Hydro One's proposed route for the transmission line will go through Pukaskwa National Park on which there are Aboriginal title claims, and noted that an opponent of the Site C dam has been sharing concerns with northerners, underscoring the need for meaningful engagement. NextBridge's proposal, Collins said, will go around the park.

If Hydro One is awarded the construction project, at risk, too, are as many as 1,000 job opportunities in northern Ontario (including the Ring of Fire) that are expected from NextBridge's proposal, as well as the "many millions" in contracting opportunities for the communities, Collins said.

"That companies such as Hydro One can do this and dissolve all that has been developed by NextBridge and our [partnership] and all the opportunities we have created will signal to ... everyone in Ontario that Ontario's not open for business, at least fair business," Collins said.

Ontario Energy Minister 'disappointed' by OEB's decision

In an email statement to National Observer, Energy Minister Greg Rickford's press secretary said the government acknowledged the concerns of the First Nations leaders, and is "disappointed that the OEB continues to stall on this important project."

"The East-West Tie project is a priority for Ontario because it is needed to provide a reliable and adequate supply of electricity to northwestern Ontario to support economic growth," she wrote.

In October, Rickford wrote to the OEB outlining his expectation that a prompt decision would be made through an efficient and fair process.

Despite the minister’s request, the OEB delayed a decision on this project in December — as in B.C., a utilities watchdog has pressed for answers on Site C dam stability — pushing the service date back to at least 2021. In 2017, NextBridge said that, pending OEB approval, it would start construction in 2018, with completion scheduled for 2020.

Without the transmission line, the community faces a higher likelihood of power outages and less reliable electricity overall.

"Our government takes the duty to consult seriously and it is committed to ensuring that all Indigenous communities are properly consulted and kept informed regardless of the result of the OEB process," Rickford's office's statement said.

In a letter sent to Premier Doug Ford, Rickford and to Environment Minister Rod Phillips, all members of the Bamkushwada Limited Partnership said they will be compelled to appeal the OEB's decision if the right to construct is given to Hydro One.

The entire situation, they wrote in their letter, is "an undeniable mess" that requires government intervention.

"If the Ontario government can correct this looming outcome, it is incumbent on the Ontario government to do so," they wrote, urging the government to "take all legal means to prevent the OEB from rendering an unconstitutional and unjust decision."

"Our First Nations and the north have waited five long years for this transmission project," Collins said. "Enough is enough."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

BC Hydro Review Phase 2 Recommendations advance affordable electricity rates, clean energy adoption, electrification, and demand response, supporting heat pumps, EV charging, and low-income programs to cut emissions and meet CleanBC climate targets.

Key Points

Policies to keep rates affordable and accelerate clean electrification via heat pump, EV, and demand response incentives.

✅ Optional rates, heat pump and EV charging incentives

✅ Demand response via controllable devices lowers peak loads

✅ Expanded support for lower-income customers and affordability

The Province and BC Hydro have released recommendations from Phase 2 of the BC Hydro Review to keep rates affordable, including through a provincial rate freeze initiative that supported households, and encourage greater use of clean, renewable electricity to reduce emissions and achieve climate targets.

“Keeping life affordable for people is a key priority of our government,” said Bruce Ralston, Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. “Affordable electricity rates not only help British Columbians, they help ensure the price of electricity remains competitive with other forms of energy, supporting the transition away from fossil fuels to clean electricity in our homes and buildings, vehicles and businesses.”

While affordable rates have always been important to BC Hydro customers, amid proposals such as a modest rate increase under review, expectations are also changing as customers look to have more choice and control over their electricity use and opportunities to save money.

Guided by input from a panel of external energy industry experts, government and BC Hydro have developed recommendations under Phase 2 of the BC Hydro Review to reduce electricity costs for individuals and businesses, even as a 3.75% increase has been discussed, as envisioned by the CleanBC climate strategy. This is also in alignment with TogetherBC, the Province’s poverty reduction strategy, and its guiding principle of affordability.

“As we promote increased use of electricity in B.C. to achieve our climate targets, we need to continue to focus on keeping electricity rates affordable, especially for lower-income families,” said Nicholas Simons, Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction. “Through the BC Hydro Review, and continuing engagement with stakeholders and organizations to follow, we are committed to finding ways to keep rates affordable, so everyone has access to the benefits of B.C.’s clean, reliable electricity.”

Recommendations include having BC Hydro consider providing more support for lower-income BC Hydro customers, informed by a recent surplus report that highlighted funding opportunities. These include incentives and exploring optional rates for customers to adopt electric heat pumps, and facilitating customer adoption of controllable energy devices that provide BC Hydro the ability to offer incentives in return for helping to manage a customer’s electricity use. 

Electrification of B.C.’s economy helps customers reduce their carbon footprint and supports the Province’s CleanBC climate strategy, and is an important part of keeping electricity affordable even amid higher BC Hydro rates in recent periods. As more customers make the switch from fossil fuels to using clean electricity in their homes, vehicles and businesses, BC Hydro’s electricity sales will increase, providing more revenue that helps keep rates affordable for everyone.

“We’re making the transition to a cleaner future more affordable for people and businesses across British Columbia through our CleanBC plan,” said George Heyman, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. “By working with BC Hydro and other partners, we’re making sure everyone has access to clean, affordable electricity to power technologies like high-efficiency heat pumps and electric vehicles that will reduce harmful pollution and improve our homes, buildings and communities.”

Chris O’Riley, president and CEO, BC Hydro, said: “Given the impact of COVID-19 on British Columbians, affordability is more important than ever. That’s why we are committed to continuing to keep rates affordable and offering customers more options that allow them to save on their bills while using clean electricity.”

In July 2021, the Province announced a first set of recommendations from Phase 2 of the BC Hydro Review amid a 3% rate increase approved by regulators. The next announcement from Phase 2 will include recommendations to increase the number of electric vehicles on the road.

In addition, as part of the Draft Action Plan to advance the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, the Province is proposing to engage with Indigenous peoples to identify and support new clean energy opportunities related to CleanBC, the BC Hydro Review and the British Columbia Utilities Commission Indigenous Utilities Regulation Inquiry, and to consider lessons from Ontario's hydro policy experiences as appropriate.

B.C. is the cleanest electricity-generation jurisdiction in western North America, with an average of 98% of its electricity generation coming from clean or renewable resources.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

France Nuclear Power Outages threaten the grid as EDF reactors undergo stress corrosion inspections, maintenance delays, and staff shortages, driving electricity imports, peak-demand curtailment plans, and potential rolling blackouts during a cold snap across Europe.

Key Points

EDF maintenance and stress corrosion cut reactor output, forcing imports and blackouts as cold weather lifts demand.

✅ EDF inspects stress corrosion cracks in reactor piping

✅ Maintenance backlogs and skilled labor shortages slow repairs

✅ Government plans demand cuts, imports, and rolling blackouts

France is bracing for possible power outages in the coming days as falling temperatures push up demand while state-controlled nuclear group EDF struggles to bring more production on line.

WHY CAN'T FRANCE MEET DEMAND?
France is one of the most nuclear-powered countries in the world, with a significant role of nuclear power in its energy mix, typically producing over 70% of its electricity with its fleet of 56 reactors and providing about 15% of Europe's total power through exports.

However, EDF (EDF.PA) has had to take a record number of its ageing reactors offline for maintenance this year just as Europe is struggling to cope with cuts in Russian natural gas supplies used for generating electricity, with electricity prices surging across the continent this year.

That has left France's nuclear output at a 30-year low, and mirrors how Europe is losing nuclear power more broadly, forcing France to import electricity and prepare plans for possible blackouts as a cold snap fuels demand for heating.

WHAT ARE EDF'S MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS?
While EDF normally has a number of its reactors offline for maintenance, it has had far more than usual this year due to what is known as stress corrosion on pipes in some reactors, and during heatwaves river temperature limits have constrained output further.

At the request of France's nuclear safety watchdog, EDF is in the process of inspecting and making repairs across its fleet since detecting cracks in the welding connecting pipes in one reactor at the end of last year.

Years of under-investment in the nuclear sector mean that there is precious little spare capacity to meet demand while reactors are offline for maintenance, and environmental constraints such as limits on energy output during high river temperatures reduce flexibility.

France also lacks specialised welders and other workers in sufficient numbers to be able to make repairs fast enough to get reactors back online.

WHAT IS BEING DONE?
In the very short term, after a summer when power markets hit records as plants buckled in heat, there is little that can be done to get more reactors online faster, leaving the government to plan for voluntary cuts at peak demand periods and limited forced blackouts.

In the very short term, there is little that can be done to get more reactors online faster, leaving the government to plan for voluntary cuts at peak demand periods and limited forced blackouts.

Meanwhile, EDF and others in the French nuclear industry are on a recruitment drive for the next generation of welders, pipe-fitters and boiler makers, going so far as to set up a new school to train them.

President Emmanuel Macron wants a new push in nuclear energy, even as a nuclear power dispute with Germany persists, and has committed to building six new reactors at a cost his government estimates at nearly 52 billion euros ($55 billion).

As a first step, the government is in the process of buying out EDF's minority shareholders and fully nationalising the debt-laden group, which it says is necessary to make the long-term investments in new reactors.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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