StanChart eyes $800 million in renewable deals

Ofgem Renewables Obligations drive supplier payments for renewables fees, feed-in tariffs, and renewable generation, with non-payment risking supply licences amid the price cap and volatile wholesale prices across the UK energy market.

Key Points

Mandatory payments by suppliers funding renewables via feed-in tariffs; non-payment can trigger supply licence revoking.

✅ Covers Renewables Obligation and Feed-in Tariff scheme compliance.

✅ Non-payment can lead to Ofgem action and licence loss.

✅ Affected by price cap and wholesale price volatility.

Seven small British energy suppliers owe a total of 34 million pounds ($43.74 million) in renewables fees, amid a renewables backlog that has stalled projects, and could face losing their supply licences if they cannot pay, energy regulator Ofgem reports.

Under Britain’s energy market rules, suppliers of energy must meet so-called renewables obligations and feed-in tariffs, including households' ability to sell solar power back to energy firms, which are imposed on them by the government to help fund renewable power generation.

Several small energy companies have gone bust over the past two years, a trend echoed by findings from a global utility study on renewable priorities, as they struggled to pay the renewables fees and as their profits were affected by a price cap on the most commonly used tariffs and fluctuating wholesale prices, even as a 10 GW contract brings new renewable capacity onto the UK grid.

Ofgem has called on the companies to make necessary payments by Oct. 31, as moves to offer community-generated power to all UK customers progress.

“If they do not pay Ofgem could start the process of revoking their licences to supply energy,” it said in a statement, as offshore wind power continues to scale nationwide.

The seven suppliers are, amid debates over clean energy impacts, Co-Operative Energy Limited; Flow Energy Limited; MA Energy Limited; Nabuh Energy Limited; Robin Hood Energy Limited; Symbio Energy Limited and Tonik Energy Limited. ($1 = 0.7773 pounds)

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

U.S.-Canada Energy and Minerals Partnership strengthens energy security, critical minerals supply chains, and climate objectives with clean oil and gas, EV batteries, methane reductions, cross-border grid reliability, and allied trade, countering Russia and China dependencies.

Key Points

A North American alliance to secure energy, refine critical minerals, cut emissions, and fortify supply chains.

✅ Integrates oil, gas, and electricity trade for reliability

✅ Builds EV battery and critical minerals processing capacity

✅ Reduces methane, diversifies away from Russia and China

Today, U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, delivered the following remarks during a full committee hearing to examine ways to strengthen the energy and mineral partnership between the U.S. and Canada to address energy security and climate objectives.

The hearing also featured testimony from the Honorable Jason Kenney (Premier, Alberta, Canada), the Honorable Nathalie Camden (Associate Deputy Minister of Mines, Ministry of Energy and Natural Resource, Québec, Canada), the Honorable Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister, Natural Resources Canada) and Mr. Francis Bradley (President and CEO, Electricity Canada). Click here to read their testimony.

Chairman Manchin’s remarks can be viewed as prepared here or read below:

Today we’re welcoming our friends from the North, from Canada, to continue this committee’s very important conversation about how we pursue two critical goals – ensuring energy security and addressing climate change.

These two goals aren’t mutually exclusive, and it’s imperative that we address both.

We all agree that Putin has used Russia’s oil and gas resources as a weapon to inflict terrible pain on the Ukrainian people and on Europe.

And other energy-rich autocracies are taking note. We’d be fools to think Xi Jinping won’t consider using a similar playbook, leveraging China’s control over global critical minerals supply chains.

But Putin’s aggression is bringing the free world closer together, setting the stage for a new alliance around energy, minerals, and climate.
Building this alliance should start here in North America. And that’s why I’m excited to hear today about how we can strengthen the energy and minerals partnership between the U.S. and Canada.

I recently had the privilege of being hosted in Alberta by Premier Kenney, where I spent two days getting a better understanding of our energy, minerals, and manufacturing partnership through meetings with representatives from Alberta, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories, the federal government, and tribal and industry partners.

Canadians and Americans share a deep history and are natural partners, sharing the longest land border on the planet.

Our people fought side-by-side in two world wars. In fact, some of the uranium used by the Manhattan Project and broader nuclear innovation was mined in Canada’s Northwest Territories and refined in Ontario.

We have cultivated a strong manufacturing partnership, particularly in the automotive industry, with Canada today being our biggest export market for vehicles. Cars assembled in Canada contain, on average, more than 50% of U.S. value and parts.

Today we also trade over 58 terawatt hours of electricity, including green power from Canada across the border, 2.4 billion barrels of petroleum products, and 3.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas each year.

In fact, energy alone represents $120 billion of the annual trade between our countries. Across all sectors the U.S. and Canada trade more than $2 billion per day.
There is no better symbol of our energy relationship than our interconnected power grid and evolving clean grids that are seamless and integral for the reliable and affordable electricity citizens and industries in both our countries depend on.

And we’re here for each other during times of need. Electricity workers from both the U.S. and Canada regularly cross the border after extreme weather events to help get the power back on.

Canada has ramped up oil exports to the U.S. to offset Russian crude after members of our committee led legislation to cut off the energy purchases fueling Putin’s war machine.

Canada is also a leading supplier of uranium and critical minerals to the U.S., including those used in advanced batteries—such as cobalt, graphite, and nickel.
The U.S-Canada energy partnership is strong, but also not without its challenges, including tariff threats that affect projects on both sides. I’ve not been shy in expressing my frustration that the Biden administration cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline.

In light of Putin’s war in Ukraine and the global energy price surge, I think a lot of us wish that project had moved forward.

But to be clear, I’m not holding this hearing to re-litigate the past. We are here to advance a stronger and cleaner U.S.-Canada energy partnership for the future.
Our allies and trading partners in Europe are begging for North American oil and gas to offset their reliance on Russia.

There is no reason whatsoever we shouldn’t be able to fill that void, and do it cleaner than the alternatives.

That’s because American oil and gas is cleaner than what is produced in Russia – and certainly in Iran and Venezuela. We can do better, and learn from our Canadian neighbors.

On average, Canada produces oil with 37% lower methane emissions than the U.S., and the Canadian federal government has set even more aggressive methane reduction targets.

That’s what I mean by climate and security not being mutually exclusive – replacing Russian product has the added benefit of reducing the emissions profile of the energy Europe needs today.

According to the International Energy Agency, stationary and electric vehicle batteries will account for about half of the mineral demand growth from clean energy technologies over the next twenty years.

Unfortunately, China controls 80% of the world’s battery material processing, 60% of the world’s cathode production, 80% of the world’s anode production, and 75% of the world’s lithium ion battery cell production. They’ve cornered the market.

I also strongly believe we need to be taking national energy security into account as we invest in climate solutions.

It makes no sense whatsoever for us to so heavily invest in electric vehicles as a climate solution when that means increasing our reliance on China, because right now we’re not simultaneously increasing our mining, processing, and recycling capacity at the same rate in the United States.

The Canadians are ahead of us on critical minerals refining and processing, and we have much to learn from them about how they’re able to responsibly permit these activities in timelines that blow ours out of the water.

I’m sure our Canadian friends are happy to export minerals to us, but let me be clear, the United States also needs to contribute our part to a North American minerals alliance.

So I’m interested in discussing how we can create an integrated network for raw minerals to move across our borders for processing and manufacturing in both of our countries, and how B.C. critical minerals decisions may affect that.

I believe there is much we can collaborate on with Canada to create a powerful North American critical minerals supply chain instead of increasing China’s geopolitical leverage.

During this time when the U.S., Canada, and our allies and friends are threatened both by dictators weaponizing energy and by intense politicization over climate issues, we must work together to chart a responsible path forward that will ensure security and unlock prosperity for our nations.

We are the superpower of the world, and blessed with abundant energy and minerals resources. We cannot just sit back and let other countries fill the void and find ourselves in a more dire situation in the years ahead.

We must be leaning into the responsible production of all the energy sources we’re going to need, and strengthening strategic partnerships – building a North American Energy Alliance.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Utility Pandemic Preparedness strengthens grid resilience through continuity planning, critical infrastructure protection, DOE-DHS coordination, onsite sequestration, skeleton crews, and deferred maintenance to ensure reliable electric and gas service for commercial and industrial customers.

Key Points

Plans that sustain grid operations during outbreaks using staffing limits, access controls, and deferred maintenance.

✅ Deferred maintenance and restricted site access

✅ Onsite sequestering and skeleton crew operations

✅ DOE-DHS coordination and control center staffing

Commercial and industrial businesses can rest assured that the current pandemic poses no real threat to our utilities, with the U.S. grid remaining reliable for now, as disaster planning has been key to electric and gas utilities in recent years, writes Forbes. Beginning a decade ago, the utility and energy industries evolved detailed pandemic plans, outlining what to know about the U.S. grid during outbreaks, which include putting off maintenance and routine activities until the worst of the pandemic has passed, restricting site access to essential personnel, and being able to run on a skeleton crew as more and more people become ill, a capability underscored by FPL's massive Irma response when crews faced prolonged outages.

One possible outcome of the current situation is that the US electric industry may require essential staff to live onsite at power plants and control centers, similar to Ontario work-site lockdown plans under consideration, if the outbreak worsens; bedding, food and other supplies are being stockpiled, reflecting local response preparations many utilities practice, Reuters reported. The Great River Energy cooperative, for example, has had a plan to sequester essential staff in place since the H1N1 bird flu crisis in 2009. The cooperative, which runs 10 power plants in Minnesota, says its disaster planning ensured it has enough cots, blankets and other necessities on site to keep staff healthy.

Electricity providers are now taking part in twice-weekly phone calls with officials at the DOE, the Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies, as Ontario demand shifts are monitored, according to the Los Angeles Times. By planning for a variety of worst case scenarios, including weeks-long restorations after major storms, “I have confidence that the sector will be prepared to respond no matter how this evolves,” says Scott Aaronson, VP of security and preparedness for the Edison Electric Institute.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Germany Energy Transition faces offshore wind expansion, grid bottlenecks, and North-South transmission delays, while Nord Stream 2 boosts Russian gas reliance and lignite coal persists amid a nuclear phaseout and rising re-dispatch costs.

Key Points

Germanys shift to renewables faces grid delays, boosting gas via Nord Stream 2 and extending lignite coal use.

✅ Offshore wind grows, but grid congestion curtails turbines.

✅ Nord Stream 2 expands Russian gas supply to German industry.

✅ Lignite coal persists, raising emissions amid nuclear exit.

On a blazing hot August day on Germany’s Baltic Sea coast, a few hundred tourists skip the beach to visit the “Fascination Offshore Wind” exhibition, held in the port of Mukran at the Arkona wind park. They stand facing the sea, gawking at white fiberglass blades, which at 250 feet are longer than the wingspan of a 747 aircraft. Those blades, they’re told, will soon be spinning atop 60 wind-turbine towers bolted to concrete pilings driven deep into the seabed 20 miles offshore. By early 2019, Arkona is expected to generate 385 megawatts, enough electricity to power 400,000 homes.

“We really would like to give the public an idea of what we are going to do here,” says Silke Steen, a manager at Arkona. “To let them say, ‘Wow, impressive!’”

Had the tourists turned their backs to the sea and faced inland, they would have taken in an equally monumental sight, though this one isn’t on the day’s agenda: giant steel pipes coated in gray concrete, stacked five high and laid out in long rows on a stretch of dirt. The port manager tells me that the rows of 40-foot-long, 4-foot-thick pipes are so big that they can be seen from outer space. They are destined for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a colossus that, when completed next year, will extend nearly 800 miles from Russia to Germany, bringing twice the amount of gas that a current pipeline carries.

The two projects, whose cargo yards are within a few hundred feet of each other, provide a contrast between Germany’s dream of renewable energy and the political realities of cheap Russian gas. In 2010, Germany announced an ambitious goal of generating 80 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2050. In 2011, it doubled down on the commitment by deciding to shut down every last nuclear power plant in the country by 2022, as part of a broader coal and nuclear phaseout strategy embraced by policymakers. The German government has paid more than $600 billion to citizens and companies that generate solar and wind power. As a result, the generating capacity from renewable sources has soared: In 2017, a third of the nation’s electricity came from wind, solar, hydropower and biogas, up from 3.6 percent in 1990.

But Germany’s lofty vision has run into a gritty reality: Replacing fossil fuels and nuclear power in one of the largest industrial nations in the world is politically more difficult and expensive than planners thought. It has forced Germany to put the brakes on its ambitious renewables program, ramp up its investments in fossil fuels, amid a renewed nuclear option debate over climate strategy, and, to some extent, put its leadership role in the fight against climate change on hold.

The trouble lies with Germany’s electricity grid. Solar and wind power call for more complex and expensive distribution networks than conventional large power plants do. “What the Germans were good at was getting new technology into the market, like wind and solar power,” said Arne Jungjohann, author of Energy Democracy: Germany’s ENERGIEWENDE to Renewables. To achieve its goals, “Germany needs to overhaul its whole grid.”

The North-South Conundrum

The boom in wind power has created an unanticipated mismatch between supply and demand. Big wind turbines, especially offshore plants such as Arkona, produce powerful, concentrated gusts of energy. That’s good when the factory that needs that energy is nearby and the wind kicks up during working hours. It’s another matter when factories are hundreds of miles away. In Germany, wind farms tend to be located in the blustery north. Many of the nation’s big factories lie in the south, which also happens to be where most of the country’s nuclear plants are being mothballed.

Getting that power from north to south is problematic. On windy days, northern wind farms generate too much energy for the grid to handle. Power lines get overloaded. To cope, grid operators ask wind farms to disconnect their turbines from the grid—those elegant blades that tourists so admired sit idle. To ensure a supply of power, operators employ backup generators at great expense. These so-called re-dispatching costs ran to 1.4 billion euros ($1.6 billion) last year.

The solution is to build more power transmission lines to take the excess wind from northern wind farms to southern factories. A grid expansion project is underway to do exactly that. Nearly 5,000 miles of new transmission lines, at a cost of billions of euros, will be paid for by utility customers. So far, less than a fifth of the lines have been built.

The grid expansion is “catastrophically behind schedule,” Energy Minister Peter Altmaier told the Handelsblatt business newspaper in August. Among the setbacks: citizens living along the route of four high-voltage power lines have demanded the cables be buried underground, which has added to the time and expense. The lines won’t be finished before 2025—three years after Germany’s nuclear shutdown is due to be completed.

With this backlog, the government has put the brakes on wind power, reducing the number of new contracts for farms and curtailing the amount it pays for renewable energy. “In the past, we have focused too much on the mere expansion of renewable energy capacity,” Joachim Pfeiffer, a spokesman for the Christian Democratic Union, wrote to Newsweek. “We failed to synchronize this expansion of generation with grid expansion.”

Advocates of renewables are up in arms, accusing the government of suffocating their industry and making planning impossible. Thousands of people lost their jobs in the wind industry, according to Wolfram Axthelm, CEO of the German Wind Energy Association. “For 2019 and 2020, we see a highly problematic situation for the industry,” he wrote in an email.

Fueling the Gap

Nord Stream 2, by contrast, is proceeding according to schedule. A beige and black barge, Castoro 10, hauls dozens of lengths of giant pipe off Germany’s Baltic Sea coast, where a welding machine connects them for lowering onto the seabed. The $11 billion project is funded by Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom and five European investors, at no direct cost to the German taxpayer. It is slated to cross the territorial waters of five countries—Germany, Russia, Finland, Sweden and Denmark. All but Denmark have approved the route. “We have good reason to believe that after four governments said yes, that Denmark will also approve the pipeline,” says Nord Stream 2 spokesman Jens Mueller.

Construction of the pipeline off Finland began in September, and the gas is expected to start flowing in late 2019, giving Russia leverage to increase its share of the European gas market. It already provides a third of the gas used in the EU and will likely provide more after the Netherlands stops its gas production in 2030. President Donald Trump has called the pipeline “a very bad thing for NATO” and said that “Germany is totally controlled by Russia.” U.S. senators have threatened sanctions against companies involved in the project. Ukraine and Poland are concerned the new pipeline will make older pipelines in their territories irrelevant.

German leaders are also wary of dependence on Russia but are under considerable pressure to deliver energy to industry. Indeed, among the pipeline’s investors are German companies that want to run their factories, like BASF’s Wintershall subsidiary and Uniper, the German utility. “It’s not that Germany is naive,” says Kirsten Westphal, an energy expert at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. It’s just pragmatic. “Economically, the judgment is that yes, this gas will be needed, we have an import gap to fill.”

The electricity transmission problem has also opened an opportunity for lignite coal, as coal generation in Germany remains significant, the most carbon-intensive fuel available and the source for nearly a quarter of Germany’s power. Mining companies are expanding their operations in coal-rich regions to strip out the fuel while it is still relevant. In the village of Pödelwitz, 155 miles south of Berlin, most houses feature a white sign with the logo of Mibrag, the German mining giant, which has paid nearly all the 130 residents to relocate. The company plans to level the village and scrape lignite that lies below the soil.

A resurgence in coal helped raise carbon emissions in 2015 and 2016 (2017 saw a slight decline), maintaining Germany’s place as Europe’s largest carbon emitter. Chancellor Angela Merkel has scrapped her pledge to slash carbon emissions to 40 percent of 1990 levels by the year 2020. Several members have threatened to resign from her policy commission on coal if the government allows utility company RWE to mine for lignite in Hambach Forest.

Only a few years ago, during the Paris climate talks, Germany led the EU in pushing for ambitious plans to curb emissions. Now, it seems to be having second thoughts. Recently, the European Union’s climate chief, Miguel Arias Cañete, suggested EU nations step up their commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 45 percent of 1990 levels instead of 40 percent by 2030. “I think we should first stick to the goals we have already set ourselves,” Merkel replied, even as a possible nuclear phaseout U-turn is debated, “I don’t think permanently setting ourselves new goals makes any sense.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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

Great Britain electricity generation spans renewables and baseload: wind, solar, nuclear, gas, and biomass, supported by National Grid interconnectors, embedded energy estimates, and BMRS data for dynamic imports and exports across Europe.

Key Points

A diverse, weather-driven mix of renewables, gas, nuclear, and imports coordinated by National Grid.

✅ Baseload from nuclear and biomass; intermittent wind and solar

✅ Interconnectors trade zero carbon imports via subsea cables

✅ Data from BMRS and ESO covers embedded energy estimates

Great Britain has one of the most diverse ranges of electricity generation in Europe, with everything from windfarms off the coast of Scotland to a nuclear power station in Suffolk tasked with keeping the lights on. The increasing reliance on renewable energy sources, as part of the country’s green ambitions, also means there can be rapid shifts in the main source of electricity generation. On windy days, most electricity generation comes from record wind generation across onshore and offshore windfarms. When conditions are cold and still, gas-fired power stations known as peaking plants are called into action.

The electricity system in Great Britain relies on a combination of “baseload” power – from stable generators such as nuclear and biomass plants – and “intermittent” sources, such as wind and solar farms that need the right weather conditions to feed energy into the grid. National Grid also imports energy from overseas, through subsea cables known as interconnectors that link to France, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands. They allow companies to trade excess power, such as renewable energy created by the sun, wind and water, between different countries. By 2030 it is hoped that 90% of the energy imported by interconnectors will be from zero carbon energy sources, though low-carbon electricity generation stalled in 2019 for the UK.

The technology behind Great Britain’s power generation has evolved significantly over the last century, and at times wind has been the main source of electricity. The first integrated national grid in the world was formed in 1935 linking seven regions of the UK. In the aftermath of industrialisation, coal provided the vast majority of power, before oil began to play an increasingly important part in the 1950s. In 1956, the world’s first commercial nuclear reactor, Calder Hall 1 at Windscale (later Sellafield), was opened by Queen Elizabeth II. Coal use fell significantly in the 1990s while the use of combined cycle gas turbines grew, and in 2016 wind generated more electricity than coal for the first time. Now a combination of gas, wind, nuclear and biomass provide the bulk of Great Britain’s energy, with smaller sources such as solar and hydroelectric power also used. From October 2024, coal will no longer be used to generate electricity, following coal-free power records set in recent years.

Energy generation data is fetched from the Balancing Mechanism Reporting Service public feed, provided by Elexon – which runs the wholesale energy market – and is updated every five minutes, covering periods when wind led the power mix as well.

Elexon’s data does not include embedded energy, which is unmetered and therefore invisible to Great Britain’s National Grid. Embedded energy comprises all solar energy and wind energy generated from non-metered turbines. To account for these figures we use embedded energy estimates from the National Grid electricity system operator, which are published every 30 minutes.

Import figures refer to the net flow of electricity from the interconnectors with Europe and with Northern Ireland. A positive value represents import into the GB transmission system, while a negative value represents an export.

Hydro figures combine renewable run-of-the-river hydropower and pumped storage.

Biomass figures include Elexon’s “other” category, which comprises coal-to-biomass conversions and biomass combined heat and power plants.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News