NaiKun proposes offshore wind farm

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

Maryland Renewable Energy Violations highlight RPS compliance gaps as facilities selling renewable energy certificates, including waste-to-energy, biomass, and paper mills, face emissions and permit issues, prompting PSC and Attorney General scrutiny of environmental standards.

Key Points

Alleged RPS noncompliance by REC-eligible plants, prompting PSC review and potential decertification under Maryland law.

✅ Complaint targets waste-to-energy, biomass plants, and paper mills

✅ Facilities risk loss of REC certification for environmental violations

✅ PSC may investigate nonreporting; AG reviewing evidence

Many facilities that supply Maryland with renewable energy have exceeded pollution limits or otherwise broken environmental rules, violating a state law, according to a complaint sent by environmental groups to state energy and law enforcement officials.

Maryland law says that any company that contributes to a state renewable energy goal — half the state’s energy portfolio must come from renewable sources by 2030 — must “substantially comply” with rules on air and water quality and waste management. The complaint says more than two dozen power generators, including paper mills and trash incinerators, have records of formal or informal enforcement actions by environmental authorities.

For years, environmental groups have criticized Maryland policy that counts power plants that produce planet-warming carbon dioxide and health-threatening pollution as “renewable” energy generation, and similar tensions have emerged in California’s reliance on fossil fuels despite ambitious targets, but lawmakers concerned about protecting industrial jobs have resisted reforms. The renewable label qualifies the companies for subsidies drawn from energy bills across the state.

In a complaint filed this week, the groups asked the attorney general and Public Service Commission to step in.

“We’re subsidizing companies to produce dirty energy, but we’re also using ratepayer money to support companies that in many instances are paying environmental fines or just flouting the law,” said Timothy Whitehouse, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “There’s no one to hold them to account in Maryland.”

A spokeswoman for Attorney General Brian Frosh said his office would review the complaint, which was signed by Whitehouse and Mike Ewall, executive director of the Energy Justice Network.

Public Service Commission officials said the facilities must notify them if found out of compliance with environmental rules, while at the federal level FERC action on aggregated DERs is shaping market participation, and the commission can then revoke certification under the state renewable energy program. In a statement, commission officials said they would launch an investigation if any facility had failed to notify them of any environmental violations, and encouraged anyone with evidence of such a transgression to file a complaint.

Companies named in the document accused the groups of painting an inaccurate picture.

“This complaint is based on misleading arguments designed to halt waste-to-energy practices that have clear environmental benefits recognized by the global scientific community,” said Jim Connolly, vice president of environment, health and safety for Wheelabrator, which owns a Baltimore trash incinerator.

Maryland launched its renewable energy program in 2004, diversifying the state’s energy portfolio with more environmentally friendly sources of power, even as regional debates over a Maine-Québec transmission line highlight cross-border impacts. Under the program, separate from the electricity they generate and sell to the grid, renewable power facilities can sell what are known as renewable energy certificates. Utilities such as Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. are required to buy a growing number of the certificates each year, essentially subsidizing the renewable energy facilities with money from ratepayer bills.

A dozen types of power generation qualify to sell the certificates: Solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric plants, as well as “biomass” facilities that burn wood and other organic matter, waste-to-energy plants that burn household trash and paper mills that burn a byproduct known as black liquor.

The complaint focuses on waste incinerators, biomass plants and paper mills, all of which environmental groups have cast as counter to the renewable energy program’s environmental goals, even as ACORE criticized a coal and nuclear subsidy proposal in federal proceedings.

“By subsidizing these corporations, Maryland is diverting the hard-earned income of Maryland ratepayers to wealthy corporations with poor environmental compliance records and undermining the state’s transition to clean renewable energy,” Whitehouse and Ewall wrote.

For example, they note that the Wheelabrator plant in Southwest Baltimore has been fined for exceeding mercury limits in the past. That occurred in 2011, when the plant settled with state regulators for violations in 2010 and 2009.

Connolly said there is “no question” the facility complies with Maryland’s renewable energy law.

Incinerators in Montgomery County and in Fairfax County, Virginia, that are owned by Covanta and sell the energy certificates in Maryland have been cited for accidental fires inside both facilities. The Maryland incinerator violated emissions rules in 2014, the same year that New Jersey forbade the Virginia facility from selling energy certificates into that state’s renewable energy program over concerns it wasn’t following ash testing regulations.

James Regan, a spokesman for Covanta, said both facilities “have excellent compliance records and they operate well below their permitted limits.” He said the Virginia facility is complying with ash testing requirements, and that both facilities emit far lower levels of pollutants such as particulate matter than vehicles do.

“It’s clear to us there’s a lot of misleading and wrong information in this document," Regan said.

The Environmental Protection Agency endorsed waste-to-energy facilities under former President Barack Obama because, while burning household trash emits carbon dioxide, scientists said that still had a smaller impact on global warming than sending trash to landfills, even as industry groups have backed the EPA in a legal challenge to the ACE rule as regulatory approaches shifted.

Environmentalists and community groups say the facilities still are harmful because they emit high levels of pollutants such as mercury, nitrogen oxides and lead. The concerns prompted Baltimore City Council to pass an ordinance in February that tightened emissions limits on the Wheelabrator facility, even as the new EPA pollution limits for coal and gas plants are being proposed, so dramatically that the company said it would no longer be able to operate once the rules go into effect in 2022.

The complaint does not mention the century-old Luke paper mill in Western Maryland that long faced criticism for its participation in the renewable energy program, but which owner Verso Co. closed this year.

It does say several of paper company WestRock’s mills in North Carolina and Virginia have faced both formal and informal EPA enforcement actions for violation of the Clean Water Act, including evolving EPA wastewater limits for power plants and other facilities, and the Clean Air Act. A WestRock spokesperson could not be reached for comment.

The complaint also says a large biomass facility in South Boston, Virginia, owned by the Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative has a record of noncompliance with the Clean Air Act over three years.

John Rainey, the plant’s operations director, said it “experienced some small exceedances to its permit limits,” but that it addressed the issues with Virginia environmental officials and has installed new technology.

All those plants have sold credits in Maryland.

Whitehouse said the environmental groups’ goal is to clean up Maryland’s renewable energy program. They did not file a lawsuit because he said there was no clear cause of action to take the state to court, but said he hopes the complaint nonetheless spurs action.

“It’s not acceptable in a clean energy program that we’re subsidizing some of the most dirty sources of energy,” he said. “Those sources aren’t even in compliance with the law, and no one seems to care.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S. 100% Tariff on Chinese EVs aims to protect domestic manufacturing, counter subsidies, and reshape the EV market, but could raise prices, disrupt supply chains, invite retaliation, and complicate climate policy and trade relations.

Key Points

A 100% import duty on Chinese EVs to boost U.S. manufacturing, counter subsidies, and address supply chain risks.

✅ Protects domestic EV manufacturing and jobs

✅ Counters alleged subsidies and IP concerns

✅ May raise prices, limit choice, trigger retaliation

President Joe Biden's administration recently made headlines with its announcement of a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), marking a significant escalation in trade tensions between the two economic powerhouses. The decision, framed as a measure to protect American industries and promote domestic manufacturing, has sparked debates over its potential impact on the EV market, global supply chains, and bilateral relations between the United States and China.

The imposition of a 100% tariff on Chinese-made EVs reflects the Biden administration's broader efforts to revitalize the American automotive industry and promote the transition to electric vehicles as part of its climate agenda and tighter EPA emissions rules that could accelerate adoption. By imposing tariffs on imported EVs, particularly those from China, the administration aims to incentivize domestic production and create jobs in the growing green economy, and to secure critical EV metals through allied supply efforts. Additionally, the tariff is seen as a response to concerns about unfair trade practices, including intellectual property theft and market distortions, allegedly perpetuated by Chinese companies.

However, the announcement has triggered a range of reactions from various stakeholders, with both proponents and critics offering contrasting perspectives on the potential consequences of such a policy. Proponents argue that the tariff will help level the playing field for American automakers, who face stiff competition from Chinese companies benefiting from government subsidies and lower production costs. They contend that promoting domestic manufacturing of EVs will not only create high-quality jobs but also enhance national security by reducing dependence on foreign supply chains at a time when an EV inflection point is approaching.

On the other hand, critics warn that the 100% tariff on Chinese-made EVs could have unintended consequences, including higher prices for consumers, as seen in the UK EV prices and Brexit debate, disruptions to global supply chains, and retaliatory measures from China. Chinese EV manufacturers, such as NIO, BYD, and XPeng, have been gaining momentum in the global market, offering competitive products at relatively affordable prices. The tariff could limit consumer choice at a time when U.S. EV market share dipped in Q1 2024, potentially slowing the adoption of electric vehicles and undermining efforts to combat climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Moreover, the tariff announcement comes at a sensitive time for U.S.-China relations, which have been strained by various issues, including trade disputes, human rights concerns, and geopolitical tensions. The imposition of tariffs on Chinese-made EVs could further exacerbate bilateral tensions, potentially leading to retaliatory measures from China and escalating trade frictions. As the world's two largest economies, the United States and China have significant economic interdependencies, and any escalation in trade tensions could have far-reaching implications for global trade and economic stability.

In response to the Biden administration's announcement, Chinese officials have expressed concerns and called for dialogue to resolve trade disputes through negotiation and mutual cooperation. China has also emphasized its commitment to fair trade practices and compliance with international rules and regulations governing trade.

Moving forward, the Biden administration faces the challenge of balancing its domestic priorities with the need to maintain constructive engagement with China and other trading partners, even as EV charging networks scale under its electrification push. While promoting domestic manufacturing and protecting American industries are legitimate policy goals, achieving them without disrupting global trade and undermining diplomatic relations requires careful deliberation and strategic foresight.

In conclusion, President Biden's announcement of a 100% tariff on Chinese-made electric vehicles reflects his administration's commitment to revitalizing American industries and promoting domestic manufacturing. However, the decision has raised concerns about its potential impact on the EV market, global supply chains, and U.S.-China relations. As policymakers navigate these complexities, finding a balance between protecting domestic interests and fostering international cooperation will be crucial to achieving sustainable economic growth and addressing global challenges such as climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Poland Offshore Wind Energy accelerates as PGE exits nuclear leadership, PKN Orlen steps in, and Baltic Sea projects expand to cut coal reliance, meet EU emissions goals, attract investors, and bridge the power capacity gap.

Key Points

A shift from coal and nuclear to Baltic offshore wind to add capacity, cut EU emissions, and attract investment.

✅ PGE drops lead in nuclear; pivots $10bn to offshore wind.

✅ PKN Orlen may assume nuclear role; projects await approval.

✅ 6 GW offshore could add 60b zlotys and 77k jobs by 2030.

PGE, Poland’s biggest power group has decided to abandon a role in building the country’s first nuclear power plant and will instead focus investment on offshore wind energy.

Reuters reports state-run refiner PKN Orlen (PKN.WA) could take on PGE’s role, while the latter announces a $10bn offshore wind power project.

Both moves into renewables and nuclear represent a major change in Polish energy policy, diversifying away from the country’s traditional coal-fired power base, as regional efforts like the North Sea wind farms initiative expand, in a bid to fill an electricity shortfall and meet EU emission standards.

An unnamed source told the news agency, PGE could not fund both projects and cheap technology had swung the decision in favour of wind, with offshore wind competing with gas in some markets. PGE could still play a smaller role in the nuclear project which has been delayed and still needs government approval.

#google#

A proposed law is currently before the Polish parliament aiming at facilitating easy construction of wind turbines, mindful of Germany’s grid expansion challenges that have hindered rollout.

If the law is passed, as expected, several other wind farm projects could also proceed.

Polenergia has said it would like to build a wind farm in the Baltic by 2022. PKN Orlen is also considering building one.

PGE said in March that it wants to build offshore windfarms with a capacity of 2.5 gigawatts (GW) by 2030.

Analysts and investors say that offshore wind farms are the easiest and fastest way for Poland to fill the expected capacity gap from coal, with examples like the largest UK offshore wind farm coming online underscoring momentum, and reduce CO2 emissions in line with EU’s 2030 targets as Poland seeks improved ties with Brussels.

The decision to open up the offshore power industry could also draw in investors, as shown by Japanese utilities’ UK offshore investment attracting cross-border capital. Statoil said in April it would join Polenergia’s offshore project which has drawn interest from other international wind companies. “

The Polish Wind Energy Association (PWEA) estimates that offshore windfarms with a total capacity of 6 GW would help create around 77,000 new jobs and add around 60 billion zlotys to economic growth.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Clean Energy Expansion signals IESO-backed renewables, energy storage, and low-CO2 power to meet EV-driven demand, offset Pickering nuclear retirement, and balance interim gas-fired generation while advancing grid reliability, decarbonization, and net-zero targets.

Key Points

Ontario Clean Energy Expansion plans to grow renewables and storage, manage short-term gas, and meet rising demand.

✅ IESO long-term procurements for renewables and storage

✅ Interim reliance on gas to replace Pickering capacity

✅ Targets align with net-zero grid reliability goals

After cancelling hundreds of renewable power projects four years ago, the Doug Ford government appears set to expand clean energy to meet a looming electricity shortfall across the province.

Recent announcements from Ontario Energy Minister Todd Smith and the province’s electric grid management agency suggest the province plans to expand low-CO2 electricity with new wind and solar plans in the long-term, even as it ramps up gas-fired power over the next five years.

The moves are in response to an impending electricity shortfall as climate-conscious drivers switch to electric vehicles, farmers replace field crops with greenhouses and companies like ArcelorMittal Dofasco in Hamilton switch from CO2-heavy manufacturing to electricity-based production. Forecasters predict Canada will need to double its power supply by 2050.

While Ontario has a relatively low-CO2 power system, the province’s electricity supply will be reduced in 2025 when Ontario Power Generation closes the 50-year-old Pickering nuclear station, now near the end of its operating life. This will remove 3,100 megawatts of low-CO2 generation, about eight per cent of the province’s 40,000-megawatt total.

The impending closure has created a difficult situation for the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), the provincial agency managing Ontario’s grid. Last year, it forecasted it would need to sharply increase CO2-polluting natural gas-fired power to avoid widespread blackouts.

This would mean drivers switching to electric vehicles or companies like Dofasco cutting CO2 through electrification would end up causing higher power system emissions.

It would also fly in the face of the federal government’s ambition to create a net-zero national electricity system by 2035, a critical part of Canada’s pledge to reduce CO2 emissions to zero by 2050.

Yet the Ford government has appeared reluctant to expand clean energy. In the 2018 election, clean electricity was a key issue as it appealed to anti-turbine voters in rural Ontario and cancelled more than 700 renewable energy contracts shortly after taking office, taking 400 megawatts out of the system.

But there are signs the government is having a change of heart. IESO recently released a list of 55 companies approved to submit bids for 3,500 megawatts of long-term electricity contracts starting between 2025 and 2027, and the energy minister has outlined a plan to address growing energy needs as well.

The companies include a variety of potential producers, ranging from Canadian and global renewable companies to local utilities and small startups. Most are renewable power or energy storage companies specializing in low- or zero-emission power. IESO plans additional long-term bid offerings in the future.

This doesn’t mean gas generation will be turned off. IESO will contract yearly production from existing gas plants until 2028 (the annual contract in 2023 will be for about 2,000 megawatts). As well, IESO has issued contracts to four gas-fired producers, a small wind company and a storage company to begin production of about 700 megawatts to boost gas plant output starting between 2024 and 2026.

While this represents an expansion of existing gas-fired generation, Smith has asked IESO to report on a gas moratorium, saying he doesn’t believe new gas plants will be needed over the long term.

The NDP and Greens criticized the government for relying on gas in the near term. But clean energy advocates greeted the long-term plans positively.

The IESO process “will contribute to a clean, reliable and affordable grid,” said the Canadian Renewable Energy Association.

Rachel Doran, director of policy and strategy at Clean Energy Canada, said in an email the potential gas generation moratorium “is an encouraging step forward,” although she criticized the “unfortunate decision to replace near-term nuclear power capacity with climate-change-causing natural gas.”

There will have to be a massive clean energy expansion to green Ontario’s grid well beyond what has been announced in recent days for Ontario to meet its future energy needs (think a doubling of Ontario’s current 40,000-megawatt capacity by 2050).

But these first steps hold promise that Ontario is at least starting on the path to that goal, rather than scrambling to keep the lights on with CO2-polluting natural gas.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Canada Wind Energy Costs are plunging as renewable energy auctions, CfD contracts, and efficient turbines drive prices to 2-4 cents/kWh across Alberta and Saskatchewan, outcompeting grid power via competitive bidding and improved capacity factors.

Key Points

Averaging 2-4 cents/kWh via auctions, CfD support, and bigger turbines, wind is now cost-competitive across Canada.

✅ Alberta CfD bids as low as 3.9 cents/kWh.

✅ Turbine outputs rose from 1 MW to 3.3 MW per tower.

✅ Competitive auctions cut costs ~70% over nine years.

It's taken a decade of technological improvement and a new competitive bidding process for electrical generation contracts, but wind may have finally come into its own as one of the cheapest ways to create power.

Ten years ago, Ontario was developing new wind power projects at a cost of 28 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), the kind of above-market rate that the U.K., Portugal and other countries were offering to try to kick-start development of renewables. 

Now some wind companies say they've brought generation costs down to between 2 and 4 cents — something that appeals to provinces that are looking to significantly increase their renewable energy deployment plans.

The cost of electricity varies across Canada, by province and time of day, from an average of 6.5 cents per kWh in Quebec to as much as 15 cents in Halifax.

Capital Power, an Edmonton-based company, recently won a contract for the Whitla 298.8-megawatt (MW) wind project near Medicine Hat, Alta., with a bid of 3.9 cents per kWh, at a time when three new solar facilities in Alberta have been contracted at lower cost than natural gas, underscoring the trend. That price covers capital costs, transmission and connection to the grid, as well as the cost of building the project.

Jerry Bellikka, director of government relations, said Capital Power has been building wind projects for a decade, in the U.S., Alberta, B.C. and other provinces. In that time the price of wind generation equipment has been declining continually, while the efficiency of wind turbines increases.

Increased efficiency

"It used to be one tower was 1 MW; now each turbine generates 3.3 MW. There's more electricity generated per tower than several years ago," he said.

One wild card for Whitla may be steel prices — because of the U.S. and Canada slapping tariffs on one other's steel and aluminum products. Whitla's towers are set to come from Colorado, and many of the smaller components from China.

Canada introduces new surtaxes to curb flood of steel imports

"We haven't yet taken delivery of the steel. It remains to be seen if we are affected by the tariffs." Belikka said.

Another company had owned the site and had several years of meteorological data, including wind speeds at various heights on the site, which is in a part of southern Alberta known for its strong winds.

But the choice of site was also dependent on the municipality, with rural Forty Mile County eager for the development, Belikka said.

Alberta aims for 30% electricity from wind by 2030

Alberta wants 30 per cent of its electricity to come from renewable sources by 2030 and, as an energy powerhouse, is encouraging that with a guaranteed pricing mechanism in what is otherwise a market-bidding process.

While the cost of generating energy for the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) fluctuates hourly and can be a lot higher when there is high demand, the winners of the renewable energy contracts are guaranteed their fixed-bid price.

The average pool price of electricity last year in Alberta was 5 cents per kWh; in boom times it rose to closer to 8 cents. But if the price rises that high after the wind farm is operating, the renewable generator won't get it, instead rebating anything over 3.9 cents back to the government.

On the other hand, if the average or pool price is a low 2 cents kWh, the province will top up their return to 3.9 cents.

This contract-for-differences (CfD) payment mechanism has been tested in renewable contracts in the U.K. and other jurisdictions, including some U.S. states, according to AESO.

Competitive bidding in Saskatchewan

In Saskatchewan, the plan is to double its capacity of renewable electricity, to 50 per cent of generation capacity, by 2030, and it uses an open bidding system between the private sector generator and publicly owned SaskPower.

In bidding last year on a renewable contract, 15 renewable power developers submitted bids, with an average price of 4.2 cents per kWh.

One low bidder was Potentia with a proposal for a 200 MW project, which should provide electricity for 90,000 homes in the province, at less than 3 cents kWh, according to Robert Hornung of the Canadian Wind Energy Association.

"The cost of wind energy has fallen 70 per cent in the last nine years," he says. "In the last decade, more wind energy has been built than any other form of electricity."

Ontario remains the leading user of wind with 4,902 MW of wind generation as of December 2017, most of that capacity built under a system that offered an above-market price for renewable power, put in place by the previous Liberal government.

In June of last year, the new Conservative government of Doug Ford halted more than 700 renewable-energy projects, one of them a wind farm that is sitting half-built, even as plans to reintroduce renewable projects continue to advance.

The feed-in tariff system that offered a higher rate to early builders of renewable generation ended in 2016, but early contracts with guaranteed prices could last up to 20 years.

Hornung says Ontario now has an excess of generating capacity, as it went on building when the 2008-9 bust cut market consumption dramatically.

But he insists wind can compete in the open market, offering low prices for generation when Ontario needs new  capacity.

"I expect there will be competitive processes put in place. I'm quite confident wind projects will continue to go ahead. We're well positioned to do that."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News