Hybrid power plant on schedule

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

Lebanon-ENOC Fuel Swap secures Iraqi high sulphur fuel oil, Grade B fuel oil, and gasoil via tender, easing electricity generation shortfalls, diesel shortages, and grid outages amid Lebanon's energy crisis and power sector emergency.

Key Points

A tender-based exchange trading Iraqi HSFO for cleaner fuel oil and gasoil to stabilize Lebanon's electricity generation.

✅ Swaps 84,000t Iraqi HSFO for 30,000t Grade B fuel oil and 33,000t gasoil

✅ Supports state electricity generation during acute power shortages

✅ Tender won by ENOC under Lebanon-Iraq goods-for-fuel deal

Lebanon's energy ministry said it had picked Dubai's ENOC in a tender to swap 84,000 tonnes of Iraqi high sulphur fuel oil, as LNG export authorizations expand globally, with 30,000 tonnes of Grade B fuel oil and 33,000 tonnes of gasoil.

ENOC won the tender, part of a deal between the two countries that allows the cash-strapped Lebanese government, even as electricity tensions persist, to pay for 1 million tonnes of Iraqi heavy fuel oil a year in goods and services.

As Lebanon suffers what the World Bank has described as one of the deepest depressions of modern history, shortages of fuel this month have meant state-powered electricity, alongside ongoing electricity sector reform, has been available for barely a few hours a day if at all.

Residents turning to private generators for their power supply face diesel shortages, even as other countries roll out measures to secure electricity supplies to mitigate risks.

The swap tenders are essential as Iraqi fuel is unsuitable for Lebanese electricity generation, and regional projects like the Jordan-Saudi electricity linkage underscore broader grid strategies.

Lebanese caretaker Energy Minister Raymond Ghajar said in July the fuel from the Iraqi deal would be used for electricity generation by the state provider, even as France advances a new electricity pricing scheme in Europe, and was enough for around four months.

ENOC is set to receive the Iraq fuel between Sept. 3-5 and will deliver it to Lebanon two weeks after, the energy ministry said, following a recent deal on electricity prices abroad that could influence markets.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Tesla Supercharger Billing Update details kWh-based pricing that now includes HVAC, battery thermal management, and other HV loads during charging sessions, improving cost transparency across pay-per-use markets and extreme climate scenarios.

Key Points

Tesla's update bills for kWh used by HVAC, battery heating, and HV loads during charging, reflecting true energy costs.

✅ kWh charges now include HVAC and battery thermal management

✅ Expect 10-25 kWh increases in extreme climates during sessions

✅ Some regions still bill per minute due to regulations

Tesla has updated its Supercharger billing policy to add the cost of electricity use for things other than charging, like HVAC, battery thermal management, etc, while charging at a Supercharger station, a shift that impacts overall EV charging costs for drivers. 

For a long time, Tesla’s Superchargers were free to use, or rather the use was included in the price of its vehicles. But the automaker has been moving to a pay-to-use model over the last two years in order to finance the growth of the charging network amid the Biden-era charging expansion in the United States.

Not charging owners for the electricity enabled Tesla to wait on developing a payment system for its Supercharger network.

It didn’t need one for the first five years of the network, and now the automaker has been fine-tuning its approach to charge owners for the electricity they consume as part of building better charging networks across markets.

At first, it meant fluctuating prices, and now Tesla is also adjusting how it calculates the total power consumption.

Last weekend, Tesla sent a memo to its staff to inform them that they are updating the calculation used to bill Supercharging sessions in order to take into account all the electricity used:

The calculation used to bill for Supercharging has been updated. Owners will also be billed for kWhs consumed by the car going toward the HVAC system, battery heater, and other HV loads during the session. Previously, owners were only billed for the energy used to charge the battery during the charging session.

Tesla says that the new method should more “accurately reflect the value delivered to the customer and the cost incurred by Tesla,” which mirrors recent moves in its solar and home battery pricing strategy as well.

The automaker says that customers in “extreme climates” could see a difference of 10 to 25 kWh for the energy consumed during a charging session:

Owners may see a noticeable increase in billed kWh if they are using energy-consuming features while charging, e.g., air conditioning, heating etc. This is more likely in extreme climates and could be a 10-25 kWh difference from what a customer experienced previously, as states like California explore grid-stability uses for EVs during peak events.

Of course, this is applicable where Tesla is able to charge by the kWh for charging sessions. In some markets, regulations push Tesla to charge by the minute amid ongoing fights over charging control between utilities and private operators.

Electrek’s Take
It actually looks like an oversight from Tesla in the first place. It’s fair to charge for the total electricity used during a session, and not just what was used to charge your battery pack, since Tesla is paying for both, even as some states add EV ownership fees like the Texas EV fee that further shape costs.

However, I wish Tesla would have a clearer way to break down the charging sessions and their costs.

There have been some complaints about Tesla wrongly billing owners for charging sessions, and this is bound to create more confusion if people see a difference between the kWhs gained during charging and what is shown on the bill.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Automaker EV Fast-Charging Network will deploy 30,000 DC fast chargers across US and Canada, supporting CCS and NACS, integrating Tesla compatibility, easing range anxiety, and expanding highway and urban charging infrastructure with amenities and uptime.

Key Points

A $1B joint venture by seven automakers to build 30,000 DC fast chargers with CCS and NACS across the US and Canada.

✅ 30,000 DC fast chargers by 2030 across US and Canada

✅ Supports CCS and NACS; Tesla compatibility planned

✅ Launching mid-2024; focus on highways, urban hubs, amenities

Seven major automakers announced a plan on Wednesday to nearly double the number of fast chargers in the United States in an effort to address one of the main reasons that people hesitate to buy electric cars, even as the age of electric cars accelerates.

The carmakers — BMW Group, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes-Benz Group and Stellantis — will initially invest at least $1 billion in a joint venture that will build 30,000 charging ports on major highways and other locations in the United States and Canada.

The United States and Canada have about 36,000 fast chargers — those that can replenish a drained battery in 30 minutes or less. In some sparsely populated areas, such chargers can be hundreds of miles apart. Surveys show that fear about not being able to find a charger during longer journeys is a major reason that some car buyers are reluctant to buy electric vehicles.

Sales of electric vehicles have risen quickly in the United States as the market hits an inflection point, but there are signs that demand is softening. As a result, Tesla, Ford and other carmakers have cut prices in recent months and are offering incentives. Popular models that had long waiting lists last year are now available in a few days or weeks.

Major carmakers are investing billions of dollars to manufacture electric vehicles and batteries and to establish supplier networks. Having staked their futures on the technology, they have a strong incentive to ensure that electric vehicles catch on with car buyers, even as gas-electric hybrids help bridge the transition.

The chargers installed by the joint venture will have plugs designed for the connections used by most carmakers other than Tesla, as well as the standard developed by Tesla, amid fights for control over charging, that Ford, G.M. and other companies have said they intend to switch to in 2025.

“The better experience people have, the faster E.V. adoption will grow,” Mary T. Barra, the chief executive of General Motors, said in a statement.

The seven automakers plan to formalize the joint venture and announce its name by the end of the year, Chris Martin, a Honda spokesman, said. The first chargers will begin operating around the middle of 2024, he said, with all 30,000 in place by the end of the decade.

The joint venture is open to adding other partners, he said. Among major automakers, Ford was a notable absence from the announcement on Wednesday. The company said in a statement on Wednesday that it would continue to iThe partnership also does not include Volkswagen. The company is a majority shareholder of Electrify America, one of the largest fast-charging providers.

Tesla accounts for more than half the fast chargers in the United States and has said it will open its networks to other car brands, though, so far, it has only made fewer than 100 ports available. Owners of Ford and G.M. vehicles, among others, will be able to connect to 12,000 Tesla fast chargers using an adapter beginning next year. In 2025, Ford and G.M. plan to make models designed to take the Tesla plug without an adapter.

The decision by the seven carmakers to form the joint venture is an indication that they do not intend to rely solely on Tesla, which dominates sales of electric vehicles, for charging.

The chargers being built by the joint venture will be concentrated in urban areas and along major highways, especially those used most heavily by vacationers and other travelers, the companies said in a joint statement. Charging stations will be close to restrooms, restaurants and other amenities. The partners said they would try to take advantage of federal and state funds available for charging infrastructure amid questions about whether the U.S. has the power to charge it at scale.

Most electric vehicle owners charge at home and rarely need to use public chargers. Home chargers typically replenish batteries overnight. Most public chargers, about 125,000 in the United States and Canada, also operate relatively slowly — taking four to 10 hours to do the job.nvest in its own network, which allows Ford owners to charge from a variety of providers with one mobile phone app.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Rooftop solar grids transform urban infrastructure with distributed generation, photovoltaic panels, smart grid integration and energy storage, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, lowering utility costs, enabling net metering and community solar for low-carbon energy systems.

Key Points

Rooftop solar grids are PV systems on buildings that generate power, cut emissions, and enable smart grid integration.

✅ Lowers utility bills via net metering and demand offset

✅ Reduces greenhouse gases and urban air pollution

✅ Enables resiliency with storage, smart inverters, and microgrids

As urban areas expand and the climate crisis intensifies, cities are seeking innovative ways to integrate renewable energy sources into their infrastructure. One such solution gaining traction is the installation of rooftop solar grids. A recent CBC News article highlights the significant impact of these solar systems on urban environments, showcasing their benefits and the challenges they present.

Harnessing Unused Space for Sustainable Energy

Rooftop solar panels are revolutionizing how cities approach energy consumption and environmental sustainability. By utilizing the often-overlooked space on rooftops, these systems provide a practical solution for generating renewable energy in densely populated areas. The CBC article emphasizes that this approach not only makes efficient use of available space but also contributes to reducing a city's reliance on non-renewable energy sources.

The ability to generate clean energy directly from buildings helps decrease greenhouse gas emissions and, as scientists work to improve solar and wind power, promotes a shift towards a more sustainable energy model. Solar panels absorb sunlight and convert it into electricity, reducing the need for fossil fuels and lowering overall carbon footprints. This transition is crucial as cities grapple with rising temperatures and air pollution.

Economic and Environmental Advantages

The economic benefits of rooftop solar grids are considerable. For homeowners and businesses, installing solar panels can lead to substantial savings on electricity bills. The initial investment in solar technology is often balanced by long-term energy savings and financial incentives, such as tax credits or rebates, and evidence that solar is cheaper than grid electricity in Chinese cities further illustrates the trend toward affordability. According to the CBC report, these financial benefits make solar energy a compelling option for many urban residents and enterprises.

Environmentally, the advantages are equally compelling. Solar energy is a renewable and clean resource, and increasing the number of rooftop solar installations can play a pivotal role in meeting local and national renewable energy targets, as illustrated when New York met its solar goals early in a recent milestone. The reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel energy sources directly contributes to mitigating climate change and improving air quality.

Challenges in Widespread Adoption

Despite the clear benefits, the adoption of rooftop solar grids is not without its challenges. One of the primary hurdles is the upfront cost of installation. While prices for solar panels have decreased over time, the initial financial outlay remains a barrier for some property owners, and regions like Alberta have faced solar expansion challenges that highlight these constraints. Additionally, the effectiveness of solar panels can vary based on factors such as geographic location, roof orientation, and local weather patterns.

The CBC article also highlights the importance of supportive infrastructure and policies for the success of rooftop solar grids. Cities need to invest in modernizing their energy grids to accommodate the influx of solar-generated electricity, and, in the U.S., record clean energy purchases by Southeast cities have signaled growing institutional demand. Furthermore, policies and regulations must support solar adoption, including issues related to net metering, which allows solar panel owners to sell excess energy back to the grid.

Innovative Solutions and Future Prospects

The future of rooftop solar grids looks promising, thanks to ongoing technological advancements. Innovations in photovoltaic cells and energy storage solutions are expected to enhance the efficiency and affordability of solar systems. The development of smart grid technology and advanced energy management systems, including peer-to-peer energy sharing, will also play a critical role in integrating solar power into urban infrastructures.

The CBC report also mentions the rise of community solar projects as a significant development. These projects allow multiple households or businesses to share a single solar installation, making solar energy more accessible to those who may not have suitable rooftops for solar panels. This model expands the reach of solar technology and fosters greater community engagement in renewable energy initiatives.

Conclusion

Rooftop solar grids are emerging as a key element in the transition to sustainable urban energy systems. By leveraging unused rooftop space, cities can harness clean, renewable energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and, as developers learn that more energy sources make better projects, achieve long-term economic savings. While there are challenges to overcome, such as initial costs and regulatory hurdles, the benefits of rooftop solar grids make them a crucial component of the future energy landscape. As technology advances and policies evolve, rooftop solar grids will play an increasingly vital role in shaping greener, more resilient urban environments.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Alberta coal phaseout accelerates as utilities convert to natural gas, cutting emissions under TIER regulations and deploying hydrogen-ready, carbon capture capable plants, alongside new solar projects in a competitive, deregulated electricity market.

Key Points

A provincewide shift from coal to natural gas and renewables, cutting power emissions years ahead of the 2030 target.

✅ Capital Power, TransAlta converting coal units to gas

✅ TIER pricing drives efficiency, carbon capture readiness

✅ Hydrogen-ready turbines, solar projects boost renewables

Alberta is set to meet its goal to eliminate coal-fired electricity production years earlier than its 2030 target, amid a broader shift to cleaner energy in the province, thanks to recently announced utility conversion projects.

Capital Power Corp.’s plan to spend nearly $1 billion to switch two coal-fired power units west of Edmonton to natural gas, and stop using coal entirely by 2023, was welcomed by both the province and the Pembina Institute environmental think-tank.

In 2014, 55 per cent of Alberta’s electricity was produced from 18 coal-fired generators. The Alberta government announced in 2015 it would eliminate emissions from coal-fired electricity generation by 2030.

Dale Nally, associate minister of Natural Gas and Electricity, said Friday that decisions by Capital Power and other utilities to abandon coal will be good for the environment and demonstrates investor confidence in Alberta’s deregulated electricity market, where the power price cap has come under scrutiny.

He credited the government’s Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction (TIER) regulations, which put a price on industrial greenhouse gas emissions, as a key factor in motivating the conversions.

“Capital Power’s transition to gas is a great example of how private industry is responding effectively to TIER, as it transitions these facilities to become carbon capture and hydrogen ready, which will drive future emissions reductions,” Nally said in an email.

Capital Power said direct carbon dioxide emissions at its Genesee power facility near Edmonton will be about 3.4 million tonnes per year lower than 2019 emission levels when the project is complete.

It says the natural gas combined cycle units it’s installing will be the most efficient in Canada, adding they will be capable of running on 30 per cent hydrogen initially, with the option to run on 95 per cent hydrogen in future with minor investments.

In November, Calgary-based TransAlta Corp. said it will end operations at its Highvale thermal coal mine west of Edmonton by the end of 2021 as it switches to natural gas at all of its operated coal-fired plants in Canada four years earlier than previously planned.

The Highvale surface coal mine is the largest in Canada, and has been in operation on the south shore of Wabamun Lake in Parkland County since 1970.

The moves by the two utilities and rival Atco Ltd., which announced three years ago it would convert to gas at all of its plants by this year, mean significant emissions reduction and better health for Albertans, said Binnu Jeyakumar, director of clean energy for Pembina.

“Alberta’s early coal phaseout is also a great lesson in good policy-making done in collaboration with industry and civil society,” she said.

“As we continue with this transformation of our electricity sector, it is paramount that efforts to support impacted workers and communities are undertaken.”

She added the growing cost-competitiveness of renewable energy, such as wind power, makes coal plant retirements possible, applauding Capital Power’s plans to increase its investments in solar power.

In Ontario, clean power policy remains a focus as the province evaluates its energy mix.

The company announced it would go ahead with its 75-megawatt Enchant Solar power project in southern Alberta, investing between $90 million and $100 million, and that it has signed a 25-year power purchase agreement with a Canadian company for its 40.5-MW Strathmore Solar project now under construction east of Calgary.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News