The Green Grid expands global community

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

Ontario Global Adjustment Appeal spotlights Ontario's electricity fee, regulatory charge vs tax debate, FIT contracts, green energy policy, and constitutional challenge as National Steel Car contests soaring power costs before the Ontario Superior Court.

Key Points

Court challenge over Ontario's global adjustment fee, disputing its status as a regulatory charge instead of a tax.

✅ Challenges classification of global adjustment as tax vs regulatory charge.

✅ Focuses on FIT contracts, renewable energy payments, power cost impacts.

✅ Appeals Ontario ruling; implications for ratepayers and policy.

A manufacturer of steel rail cars is pursuing an appeal after its lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a major Ontario electricity fee was struck down earlier this year.

Lawyers for Hamilton, Ont.-based National Steel Car Ltd. filed a notice of appeal in July after Ontario Superior Court Justice Wendy Matheson ruled in June that an electricity fee known as the global adjustment charge was a regulatory charge, and not an unconstitutional tax used to finance policy goals, as National Steel Car alleges.

The company, the decision noted, began its legal crusade last year after seeing its electricity bills had “increased dramatically” since the Ontario government passed green energy legislation nearly a decade ago, and amid concerns that high electricity rates are hurting Ontario manufacturers.

Under that legislation, the judge wrote, “private suppliers of renewable energy were paid to ’feed in’ energy into Ontario’s electricity grid.” The contracts for these so-called “feed-in tariff” contracts, or FIT contracts, were the “primary focus” of the lawsuit.

“The applicant seeks a declaration that part of the amount it has paid for electricity is an unconstitutional tax rather than a valid regulatory charge,” the judge added. “More specifically, it challenges part of the Global Adjustment, which is a component of electricity pricing and incorporates obligations under FIT contracts.”

Chiefly representing the difference between Ontario’s market price for power and the guaranteed price owed to generators, global adjustment now makes up the bulk of the commodity cost of electricity in the province. The fee has risen over the past decade, amid calls to reject steep Nova Scotia rate hikes as well — costing electricity customers $37 billion in global adjustment from 2006 to 2014, according to the province’s auditor general — because of investments in the electricity grid and green-energy contracts, among other reasons.

National Steel Car argued the global adjustment is a tax, and an unconstitutional one at that because it violated a section of the Constitution Act requiring taxes to be authorized by the legislature. The company also said the imposition of the global adjustment broke an Ontario law requiring a referendum to be held for new taxes.

The province, Justice Matheson wrote, had argued “that it is plain and obvious that these applications will fail.” In a decision released in June, the judge granted motions to strike out National Steel Car’s applications.

“The Global Adjustment,” she added, “is not a tax because its purpose, in pith and substance, is not to tax, and it is a regulatory charge and therefore, again, not a tax.”

Now, National Steel Car is arguing that the judge erred in several ways, including in fact, “by finding that the FIT contracts must be paid, when they can be cancelled.”

There has been a change in government at Queen’s Park since National Steel Car first filed its lawsuit last year, and that change has put green energy contracts under fire. The Progressive Conservative government of new Premier Doug Ford has already made a number of decisions on the electricity file, such as moving to cancel and wind down more than 750 renewable energy contracts, as well as repealing the province’s Green Energy Act.

The Tories also struck a commission of inquiry into the province’s finances that warned the global adjustment “may be struck down as unconstitutional,” a warning delivered amid cases where Nova Scotia's regulator approved a 14% rate hike in a high-profile decision.

“There is a risk that a court may find the global adjustment is not a valid regulatory charge if shifting costs over a longer period of time inadvertently results in future ratepayers cross-subsidizing today’s ratepayers,” the commission’s report said.

A spokesperson for Ontario’s Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines said in an email that it would be “inappropriate to comment about the specifics of any case before the courts or currently under arbitration.”

National Steel Car is also prepared to fight its case all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, according to its lawyer.

“What is clear from our proceeding with the appeal is National Steel Car has every intention of seeing that lawsuit through to its conclusion if this government isn’t interested or prepared to reasonably settle it,” Jerome Morse said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Electricity Market faces energy-only vs capacity debate as transmission, distribution, and administration fees surge; rural rates rise amid a regulated duopoly of investor-owned utilities, prompting calls for competition, innovation, and lower bills.

Key Points

Alberta's electricity market is an energy-only system with rising delivery charges and limited rural competition.

✅ Energy-only design; capacity market scrapped

✅ Delivery charges outpace energy on monthly bills

✅ Rural duopoly limits competition and raises rates

Last week, Alberta’s new Energy Minister Sonya Savage announced the government, through its new electricity rules, would be scrapping plans to shift Alberta’s electricity to a capacity market and would instead be “restoring certainty in the electricity system.”

The proposed transition from energy only to a capacity market is a contentious subject as a market reshuffle unfolds across the province that many Albertans probably don’t know much about. Our electricity market is not a particularly glamorous subject. It’s complicated and confusing and what matters most to ordinary Albertans is how it affects their monthly bills.

What they may not realize is that the cost of their actual electricity used is often just a small fraction of their bill amid rising electricity prices across the province. The majority on an average electricity bill is actually the cost of delivering that electricity from the generator to your house. Charges for transmission, distribution and franchise and administration fees are quickly pushing many Alberta households to the limit with soaring bills.

According to data from Alberta’s Utilities Consumer Advocate (UCA), and alongside policy changes, in 2004 the average monthly transmission costs for residential regulated-rate customers was below $2. In 2018 that cost was averaging nearly $27 a month. The increase is equally dramatic in distribution rates which have more than doubled across the province and range wildly, averaging from as low as $10 a month in 2004 to over $80 a month for some residential regulated-rate customers in 2018.

Where you live determines who delivers your electricity. In Alberta’s biggest cities and a handful of others the distribution systems are municipally owned and operated. Outside those select municipalities most of Alberta’s electricity is delivered by two private companies which operate as a regulated duopoly. In fact, two investor-owned utilities deliver power to over 95 per cent of rural Alberta and they continue to increase their share by purchasing the few rural electricity co-ops that remained their only competition in the market. The cost of buying out their competition is then passed on to the customers, driving rates even higher.

As the CEO of Alberta’s largest remaining electricity co-op, I know very well that as the price of materials, equipment and skilled labour increase, the cost of operating follows. If it costs more to build and maintain an electricity distribution system there will inevitably be a cost increase passed on to the consumer. The question Albertans should be asking is how much is too much and where is all that money going with these private- investor-owned utilities, as the sector faces profound change under provincial leadership?

The reforms to Alberta’s electricity system brought in by Premier Klein in the late 1900s and early 2000s contributed to a surge in investment in the sector and led to an explosion of competition in both electricity generation and retail. 

More players entered the field which put downward pressure on electricity rates, encouraged innovation and gave consumers a competitive choice, even as a Calgary electricity retailer urged the government to scrap the overhaul. But the legislation and regulations that govern rural electricity distribution in Alberta continue to facilitate and even encourage the concentration of ownership among two players which is certainly not in the interests of rural Albertans.

It is also not in the spirit of the United Conservative Party platform commitment to a “market-based” system. A market-based system suggests more competition. Instead, what we have is something approaching a monopoly for many Albertans. The UCP promised a review of the transition to a capacity market that would determine which market would be best for Alberta, and through proposed electricity market changes has decided that we will remain an energy-only market.
Consumers in rural Alberta need electricity to produce the goods that power our biggest industries. Instead of regulating and approving continued rate increases from private multinational corporations, we need to drive competition and innovation that can push rates down and encourage growth and investment in rural-based industries and communities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Turkey Point Subsequent License Renewal seeks NRC approval for FP&L to extend Units 3 and 4, three-loop pressurized water reactors near Homestead, Miami; public review, docketing, and an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearing.

Key Points

The NRC is reviewing FP&L's request to extend Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 operating licenses by 20 years.

✅ NRC will docket if application is complete

✅ Public review and opportunity for adjudicatory hearing

✅ Units commissioned in 1972 and 1973, near Miami

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Thursday that it had made available the first-ever "subsequent license renewal application," amid milestones at nuclear power projects worldwide, which came from Florida Power and Light and applies to the company's Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station's Units 3 and 4.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently made available for public review the first-ever subsequent license renewal application, which Florida Power & Light Company submitted on Jan. 1.

In the application, FP&L requests an additional 20 years for the operating licenses of Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4, three-loop, pressurized water reactors located in Homestead, Florida, where the Florida PSC recently approved a municipal solid waste energy purchase, approximately 40 miles south of Miami.

The NRC approved the initial license renewal in June 2002, as new reactors at Georgia's Vogtle plant continue to take shape nationwide. Unit 3 is currently licensed to operate through July 19, 2032. Unit 4 is licensed to operate through April 10, 2033.

#google#

NRC staff is currently reviewing the application, while a new U.S. reactor has recently started up, underscoring broader industry momentum. If the staff determines the application is complete, they will docket it and publish a notice of opportunity to request an adjudicatory hearing before the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

The first-ever subsequent license renewal application, submitted by Florida Power & Light Company asks for an additional 20 years for the already-renewed operating licenses of Turkey Point, even as India moves to revive its nuclear program internationally, which are currently set to expire in July of 2032 and April of 2033. The two thee-loop, pressurized water reactors, located about 40 miles south of Miami, were commissioned in July 1972 and April 1973.

If the application is determined to be complete, the staff will docket it and publish a notice of opportunity to request an adjudicatory hearing before the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the agency said.

The application is available for public review on the NRC website. Copies of the application will be available at the Homestead Branch Library in Homestead, the Naraja Branch Library in Homestead and the South Dade Regional Library in Miami.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

UK Peak Power Prices surged as low wind speeds forced National Grid to rely on gas-fired plants and coal generation, amid soaring wholesale gas prices and weak wind generation during the energy crisis.

Key Points

UK Peak Power Prices are electricity costs at peak hours, driven by wind output, gas reliance, and market dynamics.

✅ Spikes when wind generation drops and demand rises.

✅ Driven by gas-fired plants, coal backup, and wholesale gas prices.

✅ Moderate as wind output recovers and interconnectors supply.

Low wind speeds pushed peak hour power prices to the second highest level for at least three years on Monday, a move consistent with UK electricity prices hitting a 10-year high earlier this year, as Britain’s grid was forced to increase its reliance on gas-fired power plants and draw on coal generation.

Calm weather this year has exacerbated the energy price crisis in the UK, as gas-fired power stations have had to pick up the slack from wind farms. Energy demand has surged as countries open up from pandemic restrictions, which together with lower supplies from Russia to western Europe, has sent wholesale gas prices soaring.

Power prices in the UK for the peak evening period between 5pm and 6pm on Monday surpassed £2,000 per megawatt hour, only the second time they have exceeded that level in recent years.

This was still below the levels reached at the height of the gas price crisis in mid-September, when they hit £2,500/MWh, according to the energy consultancy Cornwall Insight, whose records date back to 2018.

Low wind speeds were the main driver behind Monday’s price spike, although expectations of a pick-up in wind generation on Tuesday, after recent record wind generation days, should push them back down to similar levels seen in recent weeks, analysts said.

Despite the expansion of renewables, such as wind and solar, over the past decade, with instances of wind leading the power mix in recent months, gas remains the single biggest source of electricity generation in Britain, typically accounting for nearly 40 per cent of output.

At lunchtime on Monday, gas-fired power plants were producing nearly 55 per cent of electricity, while coal accounted for 3 per cent, reflecting more power from wind than coal in 2016 milestones. Britain’s wind farms were contributing 1.67 gigawatts or just over 4 per cent, according to data from the Drax Electrics Insights website. Over the past 12 months, wind farms have produced 21 per cent of the UK’s electricity on average.

National Grid, which manages the UK’s electricity grid, has been forced on a number of occasions in recent months to ask coal plants to fire up to help offset the loss of wind generation, after issuing a National Grid short supply warning to the market. The government announced in June that it planned to bring forward the closure of the remaining coal stations to the end of September 2024.

Ministers also committed this year to making Britain’s electricity grid “net zero carbon” by 2035, and milestones such as when wind was the main source underline the transition, although some analysts have pointed out that would not signal the end of gas generation.

Since the start of the energy crisis in August, 20 energy suppliers have gone bust as they have struggled to secure the electricity and gas needed to supply customers at record wholesale prices, with further failures expected in coming weeks.

Phil Hewitt, director of the consultancy EnAppSys, said Monday’s high prices would further exacerbate pressures on those energy suppliers that do not have adequate hedging strategies. “This winter is a good time to be a generator,” he added.

Energy companies including Orsted of Denmark and SSE of the UK have reported some of the lowest wind speeds for at least two decades this year, even though record output during Storm Malik highlighted the system's volatility.

According to weather modelling group Vortex, the strength of the wind blowing across northern Europe has fallen by as much as 15 per cent on average in places this year, which some scientists suggest could be due to climate change.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Renewables Overtake Coal in the US, as solar, wind, and hydro expand grid share; EIA data show an energy transition accelerated by COVID-19, slashing emissions, displacing fossil fuels, and reshaping electricity generation and climate policy.

Key Points

It refers to the milestone where US renewable energy generation surpassed coal, marking a pivotal energy transition.

✅ EIA data show renewables topped coal consumption in 2019.

✅ Solar, wind, and hydro displaced aging, costly coal plants.

✅ COVID-19 demand drop accelerated the energy transition.

Solar, wind and other renewable sources have toppled coal in energy generation in the United States for the first time in over 130 years, with the coronavirus pandemic accelerating a decline in coal that has profound implications for the climate crisis.

Not since wood was the main source of American energy in the 19th century has a renewable resource been used more heavily than coal, but 2019 saw a historic reversal, building on wind and solar reaching 10% of U.S. generation in 2018, according to US government figures.

Coal consumption fell by 15%, down for the sixth year in a row, while renewables edged up by 1%, even as U.S. electricity use trended lower. This meant renewables surpassed coal for the first time since at least 1885, a year when Mark Twain published The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and America’s first skyscraper was erected in Chicago.

Electricity generation from coal fell to its lowest level in 42 years in 2019, with the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasting that renewables will eclipse coal as an electricity source this year, while a global eclipse by 2025 is also projected. On 21 May, the year hit its 100th day in which renewables have been used more heavily than coal.

“Coal is on the way out, we are seeing the end of coal,” said Dennis Wamsted, analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. “We aren’t going to see a big resurgence in coal generation, the trend is pretty clear.”

The ongoing collapse of coal would have been nearly unthinkable a decade ago, when the fuel source accounted for nearly half of America’s generated electricity, even as a brief uptick in 2021 was anticipated. That proportion may fall to under 20% this year, with analysts predicting a further halving within the coming decade.

A rapid slump since then has not been reversed despite the efforts of the Trump administration, which has dismantled a key Barack Obama-era climate rule to reduce emissions from coal plants and eased requirements that prevent coal operations discharging mercury into the atmosphere and waste into streams.

Coal releases more planet-warming carbon dioxide than any other energy source, with scientists warning its use must be rapidly phased out to achieve net-zero emissions globally by 2050 and avoid the worst ravages of the climate crisis.

Countries including the UK and Germany are in the process of winding down their coal sectors, and in Europe renewables are increasingly crowding out gas as well, although in the US the industry still enjoys strong political support from Trump.

“It’s a big moment for the market to see renewables overtake coal,” said Ben Nelson, lead coal analyst at Moody’s. “The magnitude of intervention to aid coal has not been sufficient to fundamentally change its trajectory, which is sharply downwards.”

Nelson said he expects coal production to plummet by a quarter this year but stressed that declaring the demise of the industry is “a very tough statement to make” due to ongoing exports of coal and its use in steel-making. There are also rural communities with power purchase agreements with coal plants, meaning these contracts would have to end before coal use was halted.

The coal sector has been beset by a barrage of problems, predominantly from cheap, abundant gas that has displaced it as a go-to energy source. The Covid-19 outbreak has exacerbated this trend, even as global power demand has surged above pre-pandemic levels. With plunging electricity demand following the shutting of factories, offices and retailers, utilities have plenty of spare energy to choose from and coal is routinely the last to be picked because it is more expensive to run than gas, solar, wind or nuclear.

Many US coal plants are ageing and costly to operate, forcing hundreds of closures over the past decade. Just this year, power companies have announced plans to shutter 13 coal plants, including the large Edgewater facility outside Sheboygan, Wisconsin, the Coal Creek Station plant in North Dakota and the Four Corners generating station in New Mexico – one of America’s largest emitters of carbon dioxide.

The last coal facility left in New York state closed earlier this year.

The additional pressure of the pandemic “will likely shutter the US coal industry for good”, said Yuan-Sheng Yu, senior analyst at Lux Research. “It is becoming clear that Covid-19 will lead to a shake-up of the energy landscape and catalyze the energy transition, with investors eyeing new energy sector plays as we emerge from the pandemic.”

Climate campaigners have cheered the decline of coal but in the US the fuel is largely being replaced by gas, which burns more cleanly than coal but still emits a sizable amount of carbon dioxide and methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, in its production, whereas in the EU wind and solar overtook gas last year.

Renewables accounted for 11% of total US energy consumption last year – a share that will have to radically expand if dangerous climate change is to be avoided. Petroleum made up 37% of the total, followed by gas at 32%. Renewables marginally edged out coal, while nuclear stood at 8%.

“Getting past coal is a big first hurdle but the next round will be the gas industry,” said Wamsted. “There are emissions from gas plants and they are significant. It’s certainly not over.”
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News