The hybrid effect on power distribution

El Salvador Geothermal Expansion boosts renewable energy with a 7 MW Berlin binary ORC plant, upgrades at Ahuachapan, and pipeline projects, strengthening clean power capacity, grid reliability, and sustainable growth in Central America.

Key Points

A national push adding binary-cycle capacity at Berlin and Ahuachapan, boosting geothermal supply and advancing sites.

✅ 7 MW Berlin binary ORC plant entering service.

✅ Ahuachapan upgrade adds 2 MW, total geothermal 204 MW.

✅ Next: Chinameca, San Miguel, San Vicente, World Bank backed.

El Salvador is set to expand its renewable energy capacity with the inauguration of the 7-MW Berlin binary geothermal power plant, slated to go online later this year. This new addition marks a significant milestone in the country’s geothermal energy development, highlighting its commitment to sustainable energy solutions. The plant, which has already been installed and is currently undergoing testing, is expected to boost the nation’s geothermal capacity, contributing to its growing renewable energy portfolio.

The Role of Geothermal Energy in El Salvador’s Energy Mix

Geothermal energy plays a pivotal role in El Salvador's energy landscape. With the combined output from the Ahuachapan and Berlin geothermal plants, geothermal energy now accounts for about 21% of the country's net electricity supply. This makes geothermal the second-largest source of energy generation in El Salvador, underscoring its importance as a reliable and sustainable energy resource alongside emerging options like advanced nuclear microreactor technologies in the broader low-carbon mix.

In addition to the Berlin plant, El Salvador has made significant improvements to its Ahuachapan geothermal power plant. Recent upgrades have increased its generation capacity by 2 MW, further enhancing the country’s geothermal energy output. Together, the Ahuachapan and Berlin plants bring the total installed geothermal capacity to 204 MW, positioning El Salvador as a regional leader in geothermal energy development.

The Berlin Binary Geothermal Plant: A Technological Milestone

The Berlin binary geothermal power plant is especially noteworthy for several reasons. It is the first geothermal power plant to be constructed in El Salvador since 2007, marking a significant step in the country's ongoing efforts to expand its renewable energy infrastructure while reinforcing attention to risk management in light of Hawaii geothermal safety concerns reported elsewhere. The plant utilizes a binary cycle geothermal system, which is known for its efficiency in extracting energy from lower temperature geothermal resources, making it an ideal solution for regions like Berlin, where geothermal resources are abundant but at lower temperatures.

The plant was built by Turboden, an Italian company specializing in organic Rankine cycle (ORC) technology. The binary cycle system operates by transferring heat from the geothermal fluid to a secondary fluid, which then drives a turbine to generate electricity. This system allows for the efficient use of geothermal resources that might otherwise be too low in temperature for traditional geothermal plants, enabling pairing with thermal storage demonstration solutions to optimize output.

Future Geothermal Developments in El Salvador

El Salvador is not stopping with the Berlin geothermal plant. The country is actively working on other geothermal projects, including those in Chinameca, San Miguel, and San Vicente. These developments are expected to add 50 MW of additional capacity in their first phase, reflecting a broader shift as countries pursue hydrogen-ready power plants to reduce emissions, with a second phase, supported by the World Bank, planned to add another 100 MW.

The Chinameca, San Miguel, and San Vicente projects represent the next wave of geothermal development in El Salvador. When completed, these plants will significantly increase the country’s geothermal capacity, further diversifying its energy mix and reducing reliance on fossil fuels, and will require ongoing grid upgrades, a task complicated elsewhere by Germany grid expansion challenges highlighted in Europe.

International Support and Collaboration

El Salvador’s geothermal development efforts are supported by various international partners, including the World Bank, which has been instrumental in financing the expansion of geothermal projects, as utilities such as SaskPower geothermal plans in Canada explore comparable pathways. This collaboration highlights the global recognition of El Salvador’s potential in geothermal energy and its efforts to position itself as a hub for geothermal energy development in Central America.

Additionally, the country’s expertise in geothermal energy, especially in binary cycle technology, has attracted international attention. El Salvador’s progress in the geothermal sector could serve as a model for other countries in the region that are looking to harness their geothermal resources to reduce energy costs and promote sustainable energy development.

The upcoming launch of the Berlin binary geothermal power plant is a testament to El Salvador’s commitment to sustainable energy. As the country continues to expand its geothermal capacity, it is positioning itself as a leader in renewable energy in the region. The binary cycle technology employed at the Berlin plant not only enhances energy efficiency but also demonstrates El Salvador’s ability to adapt and innovate within the renewable energy sector.

With the continued development of projects in Chinameca, San Miguel, and San Vicente, and ongoing international collaboration, El Salvador’s geothermal energy sector is set to play a crucial role in the country’s energy future. As global demand for clean energy grows, exemplified by U.S. solar capacity additions this year, El Salvador’s investments in geothermal energy are helping to build a more sustainable, resilient, and energy-independent future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

TCS AI Partnership Paris Marathon integrates predictive analytics, digital twin simulations, real-time runner tracking, and sustainability solutions to elevate logistics, athlete performance, and immersive spectator engagement across the Schneider Electric Marathon de Paris ecosystem.

Key Points

AI-driven TCS partnership enhancing Paris logistics, performance, engagement, and sustainability for three years.

✅ Predictive analytics and digital twins optimize race-day ops

✅ Real-time runner tracking and health insights

✅ Sustainable resource management and waste reduction

Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) has officially become the AI & Technology Partner for the Schneider Electric Marathon de Paris, marking the start of a three-year collaboration with one of the world’s most prestigious running events. This partnership, announced on April 1, 2025, aims to revolutionize the marathon experience by integrating cutting-edge technology, artificial intelligence (AI), and data analytics, and modern AI data centers to power scalable capabilities, enhancing both the runner's journey and the spectator experience.

The Schneider Electric Marathon de Paris, which attracts over 55,000 runners from across the globe, is a renowned event that not only challenges athletes but also captivates a worldwide audience. As the Official AI & Technology Partner, TCS is set to bring its deep expertise in AI, digital innovation, and data-driven insights to this iconic event, drawing on adjacent domains such as substation automation training to strengthen operations. With more than 30 years of presence in France and its significant partnerships with French corporations, TCS is uniquely positioned to merge its global technology capabilities with local knowledge, thus adding immense value to this prestigious marathon.

The collaboration will primarily focus on enhancing the race logistics, improving athlete performance, and creating a personalized experience for both runners and spectators. Using advanced AI tools, predictive analytics, and digital twin technologies, TCS will streamline various aspects of the event. For example, AI-powered predictive models, reflecting progress recognized by European electricity prediction specialists in forecasting, will be used to track and monitor runners in real-time, providing insights into their performance and well-being during the race. Additionally, the implementation of digital twin technology will enable TCS to create accurate virtual models of the event, improving logistics and supporting better decision-making.

One of the key goals of the partnership is to improve the sustainability of the marathon. By utilizing advanced AI solutions, including AI for energy savings approaches, TCS will help optimize race-day operations, ensuring efficient management of resources, reducing waste, and minimizing environmental impact. This aligns with the growing trend of incorporating sustainability into large-scale events, ensuring that such iconic marathons not only provide an exceptional experience for participants but also contribute to global environmental goals.

TCS’s PacePort™ innovation hub in Paris will play a pivotal role in the collaboration. This innovation center will serve as the testing ground for new AI-powered solutions and tools aimed at improving runner performance and creating a more engaging race experience. Early priorities for the project include the development of personalized AI-based training programs for runners, real-time tracking systems for athlete health monitoring, and advanced analytics to support better training and recovery strategies, drawing on insights from EU smart meter analytics to inform personalization.

Additionally, TCS will introduce new technologies to enhance spectator engagement. Digital experiences, such as virtual race tracking and immersive content, will bring spectators closer to the event, even if they are not physically present at the marathon. This will allow fans worldwide to engage with the race in more interactive ways, enhancing the global reach and excitement surrounding the event.

TCS’s role in the Schneider Electric Marathon de Paris is part of its broader strategy to leverage technology in the realm of sports. The company already supports several major global marathons, including those in New York, London, where projects like the London electricity tunnel showcase infrastructure innovation, and Mumbai, contributing to their operational success and social impact. In fact, marathons supported by TCS raised nearly $280 million for charitable causes in 2024 alone, demonstrating the company’s commitment to blending innovation with social responsibility.

The strategic partnership with the Paris marathon also underscores TCS’s continued commitment to its French operations, and aligns with Schneider Electric’s Notre Dame restoration initiatives that highlight local impact, reinforcing its role as a leader in AI and digital technology. Through this collaboration, TCS aims to not only support the marathon’s logistical and technological needs but also to contribute to the broader development of digital sports experiences.

This partnership promises to deliver a more dynamic, sustainable, and engaging marathon experience, benefiting runners, spectators, and the broader event ecosystem. With TCS’s cutting-edge technology and commitment to enhancing the marathon, the Schneider Electric Marathon de Paris is poised to set new standards for global sports events, blending athletic performance with digital innovation in unprecedented ways.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

California Managed Decline of Fossil Fuels aligns oil phaseout with carbon neutrality, leveraging ZEV adoption, solar and wind growth, severance taxes, drilling setbacks, fracking oversight, CARB rules, and CalGEM regulation to deliver a just transition.

Key Points

California's strategy to phase out oil and gas while meeting carbon-neutral goals through policy, regulation, and equity.

✅ Severance taxes fund clean energy and workforce transition.

✅ Setbacks restrict drilling near schools, homes, and hospitals.

✅ CARB and CalGEM tighten fracking oversight and ZEV targets.

California’s energy past is on a collision course with its future. Think of major oil-producing U.S. states, and Texas, Alaska or North Dakota probably come to mind. Although its position relative to other states has been falling for 20 years, California remains the seventh-largest oil-producing state, with 162 million barrels of crude coming up in 2018, translating to tax revenue and jobs.

At the same time, California leads the nation in solar rooftops and electric vehicles on the road by a wide margin and ranking fifth in installed wind capacity. Clean energy is the state’s future, and the state is increasingly exporting its energy policies across the West, influencing regional markets. By law, California must have 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045, and an executive order signed by former Governor Jerry Brown calls for economywide carbon-neutrality by the same year.

So how can the state reconcile its divergent energy path? How should clean-energy-minded lawmakers wind down California’s oil and gas sector in a way that aligns with the state’s long-term climate targets while providing a just transition for the industry’s workforce?

Any efforts to reduce fossil fuel supply must run parallel to aggressive demand-reduction measures such as California’s push to have 5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2030, said Ethan Elkind, director of Berkeley Law's climate program, especially amid debates over keeping the lights on without fossil fuels in the near term. After all, if oil demand in California remains strong, crude from outside the state will simply fill the void.

“If we don’t stop using it, then that supply is going to get here, even if it’s not produced in-state,” Elkind said in an interview.

Lawmakers have a number of options for policies that would draw down and eventually phase out fossil fuel production in California, according to a new report from the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment at the UC Berkeley School of Law, co-authored by Elkind and Ted Lamm.

They could impose a higher price on California's oil production through a "severance" tax or carbon-based fee, with the revenue directed to measures that wean the state from fossil fuels. (California, alone among major oil-producing states, does not have an oil severance tax.)

Lawmakers could establish a minimum drilling setback from schools, playgrounds, homes and other sensitive sites. They could push the state's oil and gas regulator, the California Geologic Energy Management Division, to prioritize environmental and climate concerns.

A major factor holding lawmakers back is, of course, politics, including debates over blackouts and climate policy that shape public perception. Given the state’s clean-energy ambitions, it might surprise non-Californians that the oil and gas industry is one of the Golden State’s most powerful special interest groups.

Overcoming a "third-rail issue" in California politics
The Western States Petroleum Association, the sector’s trade group in California's capital of Sacramento, spent $8.8 million lobbying state policymakers in 2019, more than any other interest group. Over the last five years, the group, which cultivates both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, has spent $43.3 million on lobbying, nearly double the total of the second-largest lobbying spender.

Despite former Governor Brown’s reputation as a climate champion, critics say he was unwilling to forcefully take on the oil and gas industry. However, things may take a different turn under Brown's successor, Governor Gavin Newsom.

In May 2019, when Newsom released California's midyear budget revision (PDF), the governor's office noted the need for "careful study and planning to decrease demand and supply of fossil fuels, while managing the decline in a way that is economically responsible and sustainable.”

Related reliability concerns surfaced as blackouts revealed lapses in power supply across the state.

Writing for the advocacy organization Oil Change International, David Turnbull observed, “This may mark the first time that a sitting governor in California has recognized the need to embark upon a managed decline of fossil fuel supply in the state.”

“It is significant because typically this is one of those third-rail issues, kind of a hot potato that governors don’t even want to touch at all — including Jerry Brown, to a large extent, who really focused much more on the demand side of fuel consumption in the state,” said Berkeley Law’s Elkind.

California's revised budget included $1.5 million for a Transition to a Carbon-Neutral Economy report, which is being prepared by University of California researchers for the California Environmental Protection Agency. In an email, a CalEPA spokesperson said the report is due by the end of this year.

Winding down oil and gas production
Since the release of the revised budget last May, Newsom has taken initial steps to increase oversight of the oil and gas industry. In July 2019, he fired the state’s top oil and gas regulator for issuing too many permits to hydraulically fracture, or frack, wells.

Later in the year, he appointed new leadership to oversee oil and gas regulation in the state, and he signed a package of bills that placed constraints on fossil fuel production. The next month, Newsom halted the approval of new fracking operations until pending permits could be reviewed by a panel of scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) did not resume issuing fracking permit approvals until April of this year.

Not all steps have been in the same direction. This month Newsom dropped a proposal to add dozens of analysts, engineers and geologists at CalGEM, citing COVID-related economic pressure. The move would have increased regulatory oversight on fossil fuel producers and was opposed by the state's oil industry.

Ultimately, more durable measures to wind down fossil fuel supply and demand will require new legislation, even as regulators weigh whether the state needs more power plants to maintain reliability.

A 2019 bill by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance), AB 345, would have codified the minimum 2,500-foot setback for new oil and gas wells. However, before the final vote in the Assembly, the bill’s buffer requirement was dropped and replaced with a requirement for CalGEM “to consider a setback distance of 2,500 feet.” The bill passed the Assembly in January over "no" votes from several moderate Democrats; it now awaits action in the Senate.

A bill previously introduced by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), AB 1745, didn’t even make it that far. Ting’s bill would have required that all new passenger cars registered in the state after January 1, 2040, be zero-emission vehicles (ZEV). The bill died in committee without a vote in April 2018.

But the backing of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), one of the world's most powerful air-quality regulators, could change the political conversation. In March, CARB chair Mary Nichols said she now supports consideration of California establishing a 100 percent zero-emission vehicle sales target by 2030, as policymakers also consider a revamp of electricity rates to clean the grid.

“In the past, I’ve been skeptical about whether that would do more harm than good in terms of the backlash by dealers and others against something that sounded so un-California like,” Nichols said during an online event. “But as time has gone on, I’ve become more convinced that we need to send the longer-term signal about where we’re headed.”

Another complicating factor for California’s political leaders is the lack of a willing federal partner — at least in the short term — in winding down oil and gas production, amid warnings about a looming electricity shortage that could pressure the grid.

Under the Trump administration, the Bureau of Land Management, which oversees 15 million acres of federal land in California, has pushed to open more than 1 million acres of public and private land across eight counties in Central California to fracking. In January 2020, California filed a federal lawsuit to block the move.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Electricity COVID-19 Recovery Rate sets a fixed price of 12.8 cents/kWh, replacing time-of-use billing and aligning costs across off-peak, mid-peak, and on-peak periods per Ontario Energy Board guidance through Oct. 31.

Key Points

A flat 12.8 cents/kWh electricity price in Ontario that temporarily replaces time-of-use rates from June 1 to Oct. 31.

✅ Fixed 12.8 cents/kWh, all hours, June 1 to Oct. 31

✅ Higher than off-peak 10.1, lower than mid/on-peak

✅ Based on Ontario Energy Board average cost

Ontario residents will now have to pay a fixed electricity price that is higher than the off-peak hydro rate many in the province have been allowed to pay so far due to the pandemic. 

The announcement, which was made in a news release on Saturday, comes after the Ontario government suspended the normal “time-of-use” billing system on March 24 and as electricity rates are about to change across Ontario. 

The government moved all customers onto the lowest winter rate in response to the pandemic as emergency measures meant more people would be at home during the middle of the day when electricity costs are the highest. 

Now, the government has introduced a new “COVID-19 recovery rate” of 12.8 cents per kilowatt hour at all times of the day. The fixed price will be in place from June 1 to Oct. 31. 

The fixed price is higher than the winter off-peak price, which stood at 10.1 per kilowatt hour. However, it is lower than the mid-peak rate of 14.4 per kilowatt hour and the high-peak rate of 20.8 per kilowatt hour, even though typical bills may rise as fixed pricing ends for many households. 

“Since March 24, 2020, we have invested just over $175 million to deliver emergency rate relief to residential, farm and small business electricity consumers by suspending time-of-use electricity pricing,” Greg Rickford, the minister of energy, northern development and mines, said in a news release. 

“This investment was made to protect the people of Ontario from a marked increase in electricity rates as they did their part by staying home to prevent the further spread of the virus.”

Rickford said that the COVID-19 recovery rate is based on the average cost of electricity set by the Ontario Energy Board. 

“This fixed rate will continue to suspend time-of-use prices in a fiscally responsible manner,” he said. "Consumers will have greater flexibility to use electricity when they need it without paying on-peak and mid-peak prices, and some may benefit from ultra-low electricity rates under new time-of-use options."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Substation Maintenance Training delivers live online instruction on testing switchgear, circuit breakers, transformers, protective relays, batteries, and SCADA systems, covering safety procedures, condition assessment, predictive maintenance, and compliance for utility substations.

Key Points

A live online course on testing and maintaining substation switchgear, breakers, transformers, relays, and batteries.

✅ Live instructor-led, 12-hour web-based training

✅ Covers testing: insulation resistance, contact resistance, TLI

✅ Includes 7 days of post-course email mentoring

Our Substation Maintenance Training course is a 12-Hour Live online instruction-led course that will cover the maintenance and testing requirements for common substation facilities, and complements VFD drive training for professionals managing motor control systems.

Electrical Transformer Maintenance Training

Substation Maintenance Training

Request a Free Training Quotation

Electrical Substation maintenance is a key component of any substation owner's electrical maintenance program. It has been well documented that failures in key procedures such as racking mechanisms, meters, relays and busses are among the most common source of unplanned outages. Electrical transmission, distribution and switching substations, as seen in BC Hydro's Site C transmission line work milestone, generally have switching, protection and control equipment and one or more transformers.Our electrical substation maintenance course focuses on maintenance and testing of switchgear, circuit breakers, batteries and protective relays.

This Substation Maintenance Training course will cover the maintenance and testing requirements for common substation devices, including power transformers, oil, air and vacuum circuit breakers, switchgear, ground grid systems aligned with NEC 250 grounding and bonding guidance, batteries, chargers and insulating liquids. This course focuses on what to do, when to do it and how to interpret the results from testing and maintenance. This Substation Maintenance course will deal with all of these important issues.

You Can Access The Live Online Training Through Our Web-Based Platform From Your Own Computer. You Can See And Hear The Instructor And See His Screen Live.

You Can Interact And Ask Questions, similar to our motor testing training sessions delivered online. The Cost Of The Training Also Includes 7 Days Of Email Mentoring With The Instructor.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

• Substation Types, Applications, Components And lightning protection systems safety procedures
• Maintenance And Testing Methods For Medium-Voltage Circuit Breakers
• How To Perform Insulation Resistance, Contact Resistance On Air, Oil And Vacuum Breakers, And Tank Loss Index On Oil Circuit Breaker And Vacuum Bottle Integrity Tests On Vacuum Breaker
• Switchgear Arrangement, Torque Requirements, Insulation Systems, grounding guidelines And Maintenance Intervals
• How To Perform Switchgear Inspection And Maintenance

WHO SHOULD ATTEND

This course is designed for engineering project managers, engineers, and technicians from utilities who have built or are considering building or retrofitting substations or distribution systems with SCADA and substation integration and automation equipment, and for teams focused on electrical storm safety in the field.

Complete Course Details Here:

https://electricityforum.com/electrical-training/substation-maintenance-training

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D 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