A dying industry turns to the Volt

Germany's Economic Downturn reflects an energy crisis, deindustrialization risks, export weakness, and manufacturing stress, amid Russia gas loss, IMF and EU recession forecasts, and debates over electricity price caps and green transition.

Key Points

An economic contraction from energy price shocks, export weakness, and bottlenecks in manufacturing and digitization.

✅ Energy shock after loss of cheap Russian gas

✅ Exports slump amid China slowdown and weak demand

✅ Policy gridlock on power price cap and permits

Germany went from envy of the world to the worst-performing major developed economy. What happened?

For most of this century, Germany racked up one economic success after another, dominating global markets for high-end products like luxury cars and industrial machinery, selling so much to the rest of the world that half the economy ran on exports.

Jobs were plentiful, the government’s financial coffers grew as other European countries drowned in debt, and books were written about what other countries could learn from Germany.

No longer. Now, Germany is the world’s worst-performing major developed economy, with both the International Monetary Fund and European Union expecting it to shrink this year.

It follows Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the loss of Moscow’s cheap Russian gas that underpinned industry — an unprecedented shock to Germany’s energy-intensive industries, long the manufacturing powerhouse of Europe.

The sudden underperformance by Europe’s largest economy has set off a wave of criticism, handwringing and debate about the way forward.

Germany risks “deindustrialization” as high energy costs and government inaction on other chronic problems threaten to send new factories and high-paying jobs elsewhere, said Christian Kullmann, CEO of major German chemical company Evonik Industries AG.

From his 21st-floor office in the west German town of Essen, Kullmann points out the symbols of earlier success across the historic Ruhr Valley industrial region: smokestacks from metal plants, giant heaps of waste from now-shuttered coal mines, a massive BP oil refinery and Evonik’s sprawling chemical production facility.

These days, the former mining region, where coal dust once blackened hanging laundry, is a symbol of the energy transition, as the power sector’s balancing act continues with wind turbines and green space.

The loss of cheap Russian natural gas needed to power factories “painfully damaged the business model of the German economy,” Kullmann told The Associated Press. “We’re in a situation where we’re being strongly affected — damaged — by external factors.”

After Russia cut off most of its gas to the European Union, spurring an energy crisis in the 27-nation bloc that had sourced 40% of the fuel from Moscow, the German government asked Evonik to turn to coal by keeping its 1960s coal-fired power plant running a few months longer.

The company is shifting away from the plant — whose 40-story smokestack fuels production of plastics and other goods — to two gas-fired generators that can later run on hydrogen amid plans to become carbon neutral by 2030 and following the nuclear phase-out of recent years.

One hotly debated solution: a government-funded cap on industrial electricity prices to get the economy through the renewable energy transition, amid an energy crisis that even saw a temporary nuclear extension to stabilize supply.

The proposal from Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck of the Greens Party has faced resistance from Chancellor Olaf Scholz, a Social Democrat, and pro-business coalition partner the Free Democrats. Environmentalists say it would only prolong reliance on fossil fuels, while others advocate a nuclear option to meet climate goals.

Kullmann is for it: “It was mistaken political decisions that primarily developed and influenced these high energy costs. And it can’t now be that German industry, German workers should be stuck with the bill.”

The price of gas is roughly double what it was in 2021, with a senior official arguing nuclear would do little to solve that gas issue, hurting companies that need it to keep glass or metal red-hot and molten 24 hours a day to make glass, paper and metal coatings used in buildings and cars.

A second blow came as key trade partner China experiences a slowdown after several decades of strong economic growth.

These outside shocks have exposed cracks in Germany’s foundation that were ignored during years of success, including lagging use of digital technology in government and business and a lengthy process to get badly needed renewable energy projects approved.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

India Industrial Output Slowdown deepens as power demand slumps, IIP contracts, and electricity, manufacturing, and mining weaken; capital goods plunge while RBI rate cuts struggle to lift GDP growth, infrastructure, and fuel demand.

Key Points

A downturn where IIP contracts as power demand, manufacturing, mining, and capital goods fall despite RBI rate cuts.

✅ IIP fell 4.3% in Sep, worst since Feb 2013.

✅ Power demand dropped for a third month, signaling weak industry.

✅ Capital goods output plunged 20.7%, highlighting weak investment.

India's power demand fell at the fastest pace in at least 12 years in October, signalling a continued decline in the industrial output, mirroring how China's power demand dropped when plants were shuttered, according to government data. Electricity has about 8% weighting in the country's index for industrial production.

India needs electricity to fuel its expanding economy and has at times rationed coal supplies when demand surged, but a third decline in power consumption in as many months points to tapering industrial activity in a nation that aims to become a $5 trillion economy by 2024.

India's industrial output fell at the fastest pace in over six years in September, adding to a series of weak indicators that suggests that the country’s economic slowdown is deep-rooted and interest rate cuts alone may not be enough to revive growth.

Annual industrial output contracted 4.3% in September, government data showed on Monday. It was the worst performance since a 4.4% contraction in February 2013, according to Refinitiv data.

Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast industrial output to fall 2% for the month.

“A contraction of industrial production by 4.3% in September is serious and indicative of a significant slowdown as both investment and consumption demand have collapsed,” said Rupa Rege Nitsure, chief economist of L&T Finance Holdings.

The industrial output figure is the latest in a series of worrying economic data in Asia's third largest economy, which is also the world's third-largest electricity producer as well.

Economists say that weak series of data could mean economic growth for July-September period will remain near April-June quarter levels of 5%, which was a six-year low, and some analysts argue for rewiring India's electricity to bolster productivity. The Indian government is likely to release April-September economic growth figures by the end of this month.

Subdued inflation and an economic slowdown have prompted the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to cut interest rates by a total of 135 basis points this year, while coal and electricity shortages eased in recent months.

“These are tough times for the RBI, as it cannot do much about it but there will be pressures on it to act ...Blunt tools like monetary policy may not be effective anymore,” Nitsure said.

Data showed in September mining sector fell 8.5%, while manufacturing and electricity fell 3.9% and 2.6% respectively, even as imported coal volumes rose during April-October. Capital goods output during the month fell 20.7%, indicating sluggish demand.

“IIP (Index of Industrial Production) growth in October 2019 is also likely to be in negative territory and only since November 2019 one can expect mild IIP expansion, said Devendra Kumar Pant, Chief Economist and Senior Director, Public Finance, India Ratings & Research (Fitch Group).

Infrastructure output, which comprises eight main sectors, in September showed a contraction of 5.2%, the worst in 14 years, even as global daily electricity demand fell about 15% during pandemic lockdowns.

India's fuel demand fell to its lowest in more than two years in September, with consumption of diesel to its lowest levels since January 2017. Diesel and gasoline together make up over 7.4% of the IIP weightage.

In 2019/20 India's fuel demand — also seen as an indicator of economic and industrial activity — is expected to post the slowest growth in about six years.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Fukushima Daiichi decommissioning delay highlights TEPCO's revised timeline, spent fuel removal at Units 1 and 2, safety enclosures, decontamination, fuel debris extraction by robot arm, and contaminated water management under stricter radiation control.

Key Points

A government revised schedule pushing back spent fuel removal and decommissioning milestones at Fukushima Daiichi.

✅ TEPCO delays spent fuel removal at Units 1 and 2 for safety.

✅ Enclosures, decontamination, and robotics mitigate radioactive risk.

✅ Contaminated water cut target: 170 tons/day to 100 by 2025.

The Japanese government decided Friday to delay the removal of spent fuel from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant's Nos. 1 and 2 reactors by as much as five years, casting doubt on whether it can stick to its timeframe for dismantling the crippled complex.

The process of removing the spent fuel from the units' pools had previously been scheduled to begin in the year through March 2024.

In its latest decommissioning plan, the government said the plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc., will not begin the roughly two-year process (a timeline comparable to major reactor refurbishment programs seen worldwide) at the No. 1 unit at least until the year through March 2028 and may wait until the year through March 2029.

Work at the No. 2 unit is now slated to start between the year through March 2025 and the year through March 2027, it said.

The delay is necessary to take further safety precautions such as the construction of an enclosure around the No. 1 unit to prevent the spread of radioactive dust, and decontamination of the No. 2 unit, even as authorities have begun reopening previously off-limits towns nearby, the government said. It is the fourth time it has revised its schedule for removing the spent fuel rods.

"It's a very difficult process and it's hard to know what to expect. The most important thing is the safety of the workers and the surrounding area," industry minister Hiroshi Kajiyama told a press conference.

The government set a new goal of finishing the removal of the 4,741 spent fuel rods across all six of the plant's reactors by the year through March 2032, amid ongoing debates about the consequences of early nuclear plant closures elsewhere.

Plant operator TEPCO has started the process at the No. 3 unit and already finished at the No. 4 unit, which was off-line for regular maintenance at the time of the disaster. A schedule has yet to be set for the Nos. 5 and 6 reactors.

While the government maintained its overarching timeframe of finishing the decommissioning of the plant 30 to 40 years from the 2011 crisis triggered by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami, there may be further delays, even as milestones at other nuclear projects are being reached worldwide.

The government said it will begin removing fuel debris from the three reactors that experienced core meltdowns in the year through March 2022, starting with the No. 2 unit as part of broader reactor decommissioning efforts.

The process, considered the most difficult part of the decommissioning plan, will involve using a robot arm, reflecting progress in advanced reactors technologies, to initially remove small amounts of debris, moving up to larger amounts.

The government also said it will aim to reduce the pace at which contaminated water at the plant increases. Water for cooling the melted cores, mixed with underground water, amounts to around 170 tons a day. That number will be brought down to 100 tons by 2025, it said.

The water is being treated to remove the most radioactive materials and stored in tanks on the plant's grounds, but already more than 1 million tons has been collected and space is expected to run out by the summer of 2022.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Solar ITC Impact on U.S. Wind frames how a 30% solar investment tax credit could undercut wind PTC economics, shift corporate procurement, and, without transmission and storage, slow onshore builds despite offshore wind momentum.

Key Points

It is how a solar ITC extension may curb U.S. wind growth absent PTC parity, transmission, storage, and offshore backing.

✅ ITC at 30% risks shifting corporate procurement to solar.

✅ Post-PTC wind faces grid, transmission, and curtailment headwinds.

✅ Offshore wind, storage pairing, TOU demand could offset.

The booming U.S. wind industry, amid a wind power surge, faces an uncertain future in the 2020s. Few factors are more important than the fate of the solar ITC.

An extension of the solar investment tax credit (ITC) at its 30 percent value would be “devastating” to the future U.S. wind market, according to a new Wood Mackenzie report.

The U.S. is on track to add a record 14.6 gigawatts of new wind capacity in 2020, despite Covid-19 impacts, and nearly 39 gigawatts during a three-year installation boom from 2019 to 2021, according to Wood Mackenzie’s 2019 North America Wind Power Outlook.

But the market’s trajectory begins to look highly uncertain from the early 2020s onward, and solar is one of the main reasons why.

Since the dawn of the modern American renewables market, the wind and solar sectors have largely been allies on the national stage, benefiting from many of the same favorable government plans and sharing big-picture goals. Until recently, wind and solar companies rarely found themselves in direct competition.

But the picture is changing as solar catches up to wind on cost and the grid penetration of renewables surges. What was once a vague alliance between the two fastest growing renewables technologies could morph into a serious rivalry.

While many project developers are now active in both sectors, including NextEra Energy Resources, Invenergy and EDF, the country’s thriving base of wind manufacturers could face tougher days ahead.

The ITC's inherent advantage

At this point, wind remains solar’s bigger sibling in many ways.

The U.S. has nearly 100 gigawatts of installed wind capacity today, compared to around 67 gigawatts of solar. With their substantially higher capacity factors, wind farms generated four times more power for the U.S. grid last year than utility-scale solar plants, for a combined wind-solar share of 8.2 percent, according to government figures, even as renewables are projected to reach one-fourth of U.S. electricity generation. (Distributed PV systems further add to solar’s contribution.)

But it's long been clear that wind would lose its edge at some point. The annual solar market now regularly tops wind. The cost of solar energy is falling more rapidly, and appears to have more runway for further reduction. Solar’s inherent generation pattern is more valuable in many markets, delivering power during peak-demand hours, while the wind often blows strongest at night.

And then there’s the matter of the solar ITC.

In 2015, both wind and solar secured historic multi-year extensions to their main federal subsidies. The extensions gave both industries the longest period of policy clarity they’ve ever enjoyed, setting in motion a tidal wave of installations set to crest over the next few years.

Even back in 2015, however, it was clear that solar got the better deal in Washington, D.C.

While the wind production tax credit (PTC) began phasing down for new projects almost immediately, solar developers were given until the end of 2019 to qualify projects for the full ITC.

And critically, while the wind PTC drops to nothing after its sunset, commercially owned solar projects will remain eligible for a 10 percent ITC forever, based on the existing legislation. Over time, that amounts to a huge advantage for solar.

In another twist, the solar industry is now openly fighting for an extension of the 30 percent ITC, while the wind industry seemingly remains cooler on the prospect of pushing for a similar prolongation — having said the current PTC extension would be the last.

Plenty of tailwinds, too

Wood Mackenzie's report catalogues multiple factors that could work for or against the wind market in the "uncharted" post-PTC years, many of them, including the Covid-19 crisis, beyond the industry’s direct control.

If things go well, annual installations could bounce back to near-record levels by 2027 after a mid-decade contraction, the report says. But if they go badly, installations could remain depressed at 4 gigawatts or below from 2022 through most of the coming decade, and that includes an anticipated uplift from the offshore market.

An extension of the solar ITC without additional wind support would “severely compound” the wind market’s struggle to rebound in the 2020s, the report says. The already-evident shift in corporate renewables procurement from wind to solar could intensify dramatically.

The other big challenge for wind in the 2020s is the lack of progress on transmission infrastructure that would connect potentially massive low-cost wind farms in interior states with bigger population centers. A hoped-for national infrastructure package that might address the issue has not materialized.

Even so, many in the wind business remain cautiously optimistic about the post-PTC years, with a wind jobs forecast bolstering sentiment, and developers continue to build out longer-term project pipelines.

Turbine technology continues to improve. And an extension of the solar ITC is far from assured.

Other factors that could work in wind’s favor in the years ahead include:

The nascent offshore sector, which despite lingering regulatory uncertainty at the federal level looks set to blossom into a multi-gigawatt annual market by the mid-2020s, in line with an offshore wind forecast that highlights substantial growth potential. Lobbying efforts for an offshore wind ITC extension are gearing up, offering a potential area for cooperation between wind and solar.

The potential linkage of policy support for energy storage to wind projects, building on the current linkage with solar.

Growing electric vehicle sales and a shift toward time-of-use retail electricity billing, which could boost power demand during off-peak hours when wind generation is strong.

The land-use advantages wind farms have over solar in some agricultural regions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

TotalEnergies VSB Acquisition accelerates renewable energy growth, expanding wind and solar portfolios across Germany and Europe, advancing decarbonization, net-zero targets, and the energy transition through a US$1.65 billion strategic clean power investment.

Key Points

A US$1.65B deal: TotalEnergies acquires VSB to scale wind and solar in Europe and advance net-zero goals.

✅ US$1.65B purchase expands wind and solar pipeline

✅ Strengthens presence in Germany and wider Europe

✅ Advances net-zero, energy transition objectives

In a major move to expand its renewable energy portfolio, French energy giant TotalEnergies has announced its decision to acquire German renewable energy developer VSB for US$1.65 billion. This acquisition represents a significant step in TotalEnergies' strategy to accelerate its transition from fossil fuels to greener energy sources, aligning with the global push towards sustainability and carbon reduction, as reflected in Europe's green surge across key markets.

Strengthening TotalEnergies’ Renewable Energy Portfolio

TotalEnergies has long been one of the largest players in the global energy market, historically known for its oil and gas operations. However, in recent years, the company has made a concerted effort to diversify its portfolio and shift its focus toward renewable energy. The purchase of VSB, a leading developer of wind and solar energy projects, occurs amid rising European wind investment trends and is a clear reflection of TotalEnergies' commitment to this green energy transition.

VSB, based in Dresden, Germany, specializes in the development, construction, and operation of renewable energy projects, particularly wind and solar power. The company has a significant presence in Europe, with a growing portfolio of projects in countries like Germany, where clean energy accounts for 50% of electricity today, Poland, and the Czech Republic. The acquisition will allow TotalEnergies to bolster its renewable energy capacity, particularly in the wind and solar sectors, which are key components of its long-term sustainability goals.

By acquiring VSB, TotalEnergies is not only increasing its renewable energy output but also gaining access to a highly experienced team with a proven track record in energy project development. This move is expected to expedite TotalEnergies’ renewable energy ambitions, enabling the company to build on VSB’s strong market presence and established partnerships across Europe.

VSB’s Strategic Role in the Energy Transition

VSB’s expertise in the renewable energy sector makes it a valuable addition to TotalEnergies' green energy strategy. The company has been at the forefront of the energy transition in Europe, particularly in wind energy development, as offshore wind is set to become a $1 trillion business over the coming decades. Over the years, VSB has completed numerous large-scale wind projects, including both onshore and offshore installations.

The acquisition also positions TotalEnergies to better compete in the rapidly growing European renewable energy market, including the UK, where offshore wind is powering up alongside strong demand due to increased governmental focus on achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. Germany, in particular, has set ambitious renewable energy targets as part of its Energiewende initiative, which aims to reduce the country’s carbon emissions and increase the share of renewables in its energy mix. By acquiring VSB, TotalEnergies is not only enhancing its capabilities in Germany but also gaining a foothold in other European markets where VSB has operations.

With Europe increasingly shifting toward wind and solar power as part of its decarbonization efforts, including emerging solutions like offshore green hydrogen that complement wind buildouts, VSB’s track record of developing large-scale, sustainable energy projects provides TotalEnergies with a strong competitive edge. The acquisition will further TotalEnergies' position as a leader in the renewable energy space, especially in wind and solar power generation.

Financial and Market Implications

The US$1.65 billion deal marks TotalEnergies' largest renewable energy acquisition in recent years and underscores the growing importance of green energy investments within the company’s broader business strategy. TotalEnergies plans to use this acquisition to scale up its renewable energy assets and move closer to its target of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. The deal also positions TotalEnergies to capitalize on the expected growth of renewable energy across Europe, particularly in countries with aggressive renewable energy targets and incentives.

The transaction is also expected to boost TotalEnergies’ presence in the global renewable energy market. As the world increasingly turns to wind, solar, and other sustainable energy sources, TotalEnergies is positioning itself to be a major player in the global energy transition. The acquisition of VSB complements TotalEnergies' previous investments in renewable energy and further aligns its portfolio with international sustainability trends.

From a financial standpoint, TotalEnergies’ purchase of VSB reflects the growing trend of large energy companies investing heavily in renewable energy. With wind and solar power becoming more economically competitive with fossil fuels, this investment is seen as a prudent long-term strategy, one that is likely to yield strong returns as demand for clean energy continues to rise.

Looking Ahead: TotalEnergies' Green Transition

TotalEnergies' acquisition of VSB is part of the company’s broader strategy to diversify its energy offerings and shift away from its traditional reliance on oil and gas. The company has already made significant strides in renewable energy, with investments in solar, wind, and battery storage projects across the globe, as developments like France's largest battery storage platform underline this momentum. The VSB acquisition will only accelerate these efforts, positioning TotalEnergies as one of the foremost leaders in the clean energy revolution.

By 2030, TotalEnergies plans to allocate more than 25% of its total capital expenditure to renewable energies and electricity. The company has already set ambitious goals to reduce its carbon footprint and shift its business model to align with the global drive toward sustainability. The integration of VSB into TotalEnergies’ portfolio signals a firm commitment to these goals, ensuring the company remains at the forefront of the energy transition.

In conclusion, TotalEnergies’ purchase of VSB for US$1.65 billion marks a significant milestone in the company’s renewable energy journey. By acquiring a company with deep expertise in wind and solar power development, TotalEnergies is taking decisive steps to strengthen its position in the renewable energy market and further its ambitions of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. This acquisition will not only enhance the company’s growth prospects but also contribute to the ongoing global shift toward clean, sustainable energy sources.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News