TVA power production up, revenues down

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

Eletrobras Privatization Strike sparks a 72-hour CNE walkout by Brazil's electricity workers, opposing asset sell-offs and grid privatization while pledging essential services; unions target President Wilson Ferreira Jr. over energy-sector reforms.

Key Points

A 72-hour CNE walkout by Brazil's electricity workers opposing Eletrobras sell-offs, while keeping essential services.

✅ 72-hour strike led by CNE unions and federations

✅ Targets privatization plans and leadership at Eletrobras

✅ Essential services maintained to avoid consumer impact

Brazil's national electricity workers' collective (CNE) has called for a 72-hour strike to protest the privatization of state-run electric company Eletrobras and its subsidiaries.

The CNE, which gathers the electricity workers' confederation, federations, unions and associations, said the strike is to begin at Monday midnight (0300 GMT) and last through midnight Wednesday, even as some utilities elsewhere have considered asking staff to live on site to maintain operations.

Workers are demanding the ouster of Eletrobras President Wilson Ferreira Jr., who they say is the leading promoter of the privatization move.

Some 24,000 workers are expected to take part in the strike. However, the CNE said it will not affect consumers by ensuring essential services, a pledge echoed by utilities managing costs elsewhere such as Manitoba Hydro's unpaid days off during the pandemic.

#google#

Eletrobras accounts for 32 percent of Brazil's installed energy generation capacity, mainly via hydroelectric plants. Besides, it also operates nuclear and thermonuclear plants, and solar and wind farms, reflecting trends captured by young Canadians' interest in electricity jobs in recent years.

The company distributes electricity in six northern and northeastern states, and handles 47 percent of the nation's electricity transmission lines, even as a U.S. grid pandemic warning has highlighted reliability risks.

The government owns a 63-percent stake in the company, a reminder that public policy shapes the sector, similar to Canada's future-of-work investment initiatives announced recently.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

BC Hydro COVID-19 Relief offers electricity bill credits for laid-off workers and small business support, announced by Premier John Horgan, while FortisBC customers face deferrals and billing arrangements across Kelowna, Okanagan, and West Kootenay.

Key Points

BC Hydro COVID-19 Relief gives bill credits to laid-off residents; FortisBC offers deferrals and payment plans.

✅ Credit equals 3x average monthly bill for laid-off BC Hydro users

✅ Small businesses on BC Hydro get three months bill forgiveness

✅ FortisBC waives late fees, no disconnections, offers deferrals

On April 1, B.C. Premier John Horgan announced relief for BC Hydro customers who are facing bills after being laid-off during the economic shutdown due to the COVID-19 epidemic, while the utility also explores time-of-use rates to manage demand.

“Giving people relief on their power bills lets them focus on the essentials, while helping businesses and encouraging critical industry to keep operating,” he said.

BC Hydro residential customers in the province who have been laid off due to the pandemic will see a credit for three times their average monthly bill and, similar to Ontario's pandemic relief fund, small businesses forced to close will have power bills forgiven for three months.

But a large region of the province which gets its power from FortisBC will not have the same bail out.

FortisBC is the electricity provider to the tens of thousands who live and work in the Silmikameen Valley on Highway 3, the city of Kelowna, the Okanagan Valley south from Penticton, the Boundary region along the U.S. border. as well as West Kootenay communities.

“We want to make sure our customers are not worried about their FortisBC bill,” spokesperson Nicole Brown said.

FortisBC customers will still be on the hook for bills despite measures being taken to keep the lights on, even as winter disconnection pressures have been reported elsewhere.

Recent storm response by BC Hydro also highlights how crews have kept electricity service reliable during recent atypical events.

“We’ve adjusted our billing practices so we can do more,” she said. “We’ve discontinued our late fees for the time being and no customer will be disconnected for any financial reason.”

Brown said they will work one-on-one with customers to help find a billing arrangement that best suits their needs, aligning with disconnection moratoriums seen in other jurisdictions.

Those arrangement, she said, could include a “deferral, an equal payment plan or other billing options,” similar to FortisAlberta's precautions announced in Alberta.

Global News inquired with the Premier’s office why FortisBC customers were left out of Wednesday’s announcement and were deferred to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

The Ministry referred us back to FortisBC on the issue and offered no other comment, even as peak rates for self-isolating customers remained unchanged in parts of Ontario.

“We’re examining all options of how we can further help our customers and look forward to learning more about the program that BC Hydro is offering,” Brown said.

Disappointed FortisBC customers took to social media to vent about the disparity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Hydro-QuE9bec Class-Action Lawsuit alleges overbilling and monopoly abuse, citing RE9gie de l'E9nergie rate increases, Quebec Superior Court filings, and calls for refunds on 2008-2013 electricity bills to residential and business customers.

Key Points

Quebec class action alleging Hydro-QuE9bec overbilled customers in 2008-2013, seeking court-ordered refunds.

✅ Filed in Quebec Superior Court; certification pending.

✅ Alleges up to $1.2B in overcharges from 2008-2013.

✅ Questions RE9gie de l'E9nergie rate approvals and data.

A group representing Hydro-Québec customers has filed a motion for a class-action lawsuit against the public utility, alleging it overcharged customers over a five-year period.

Freddy Molima, one of the representatives of the Coalition Peuple allumé, accuses Hydro-Québec of "abusing its monopoly."

The motion, which was filed in Quebec Superior Court, claims Hydro-Québec customers paid more than they should have for electricity between 2008 and 2013, to the tune of nearly $1.2 billion, even as Hydro-Québec later refunded $535 million to customers in a separate case. 

The coalition has so far recruited nearly 40,000 participants online as part of its plan to sue the public utility.

A lawyer representing the group said Quebec's energy board, the Régie de l'énergie, also recently approved Hydro-Québec rate increases for residential and business customers without knowing all the facts, even as Manitoba Hydro hikes face opposition in regulatory hearings.

"There's certain information provided to the Régie that isn't true," said Bryan Furlong. "Hydro-Québec has not been providing the Régie the proper numbers."

In its motion, the group asks that overcharged clients be retroactively reimbursed.

Hydro-Québec denies allegations

Hydro-Québec, for its part, denies it ever overbilled any of its clients, while other utilities such as Hydro One plan to redesign bills to improve clarity.

"All our efficiencies have been returned to the government through our profits, and to Quebecers we have billed exactly what we agreed to bill," said spokesperson Serge Abergel, adding that the utility won't seek a rate hike next year according to its current plans.

Quebec Energy Minister Pierre Moreau also came to the public utility's defence, saying it has no choice but to comply with the  energy board's regulations, while customer protections are in focus as Hydro One moves to reconnect 1,400 customers in Ontario.

The group says the public utility has overbilled clients by up to $1.2 billion. (Radio-Canada)

It would be "shocking" if customers were charged too much money, he added.

"I know for a fact that Hydro-Québec is respecting the decision of this body," he said.

While the motion has been filed, the group cannot say how much each customer would receive if the class-action lawsuit goes ahead because it all depends on how much electricity was consumed by each client over that five-year period.

The coalition plans to present its motion to a judge next February.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Oil and Gas Profitability Decline reflects shale-driven oversupply, OPEC-Russia dynamics, LNG exports, renewables growth, and weak demand, signaling compressed margins for producers, stressed petrodollar budgets, and shifting energy markets post-Covid.

Key Points

A sustained squeeze on hydrocarbon margins from agile shale supply, weaker OPEC leverage, and expanding renewables.

✅ Shale responsiveness caps prices and erodes industry rents

✅ OPEC-Russia cuts face limited impact versus US supply

✅ Renewables and EVs slow long-term oil and gas demand

The oil-price crash of March 2020 will probably not last long. As in 2014, when the oil price dropped below $50 from $110 in a few weeks, this one will trigger a temporary collapse of the US shale industry. Unless the coronavirus outbreak causes Armageddon, cheap oil will also support policymakers’ efforts to help the global economy.

But there will be at least one important and lasting difference this time round — and it has major market and geopolitical implications.

The oil price crash is a foretaste of where the whole energy sector was going anyway — and that is down.

It may not look that way at first. Saudi Arabia will soon realise, as it did in 2015, that its lethal decision to pump more oil is not only killing US shale but its public finances as well. Riyadh will soon knock on Moscow’s door again. Once American shale supplies collapse, Russia will resume co-operation with Saudi Arabia.

With the world economy recovering from the Covid-19 crisis by then, and with electricity demand during COVID-19 shifting, moderate supply cuts by both countries will accelerate oil market recovery. In time, US shale producers will return too.

Yet this inevitable bounceback should not distract from two fundamental factors that were already remaking oil and gas markets. First, the shale revolution has fundamentally eroded industry profitability. Second, the renewables’ revolution will continue to depress growth in demand.

The combined result has put the profitability of the entire global hydrocarbon industry under pressure. That means fewer petrodollars to support oil-producing countries’ national budgets, including Canada's oil sector exposures. It also means less profitable oil companies, which traditionally make up a large segment of stock markets, an important component of so many western pension funds.

Start with the first factor to see why this is so. Historically, the geological advantages that made oil from countries such as Saudi Arabia so cheap to produce were unique. Because oil and gas were produced at costs far below the market price, the excess profits, or “rent”, enjoyed by the industry were very large.

Furthermore, collusion among low-cost producers has been a winning strategy. The loss of market share through output cuts was more than compensated by immediately higher prices. It was the raison d’être of Opec.

The US shale revolution changed all this, exposing the limits of U.S. energy dominance narratives. A large oil-producing region emerged with a remarkable ability to respond quickly to price changes and shrink its costs over time. Cutting back cheap Opec oil now only increases US supplies, with little effect on world prices.

That is why Russia refused to cut production this month. Even if its cuts did boost world prices — doubtful given the coronavirus outbreak’s huge shock to demand — that would slow the shrinkage of US shale that Moscow wants.

Shale has affected the natural gas industry even more. Exports of US liquefied natural gas now put an effective ceiling on global prices, and debates over a clean electricity push have intensified when gas prices spike.

On top of all this, there is also the renewables’ revolution, though a green revolution has not been guaranteed in the near term. Around the world, wind and solar have become ever-cheaper options to generate electricity. Storage costs have also dropped and network management improved. Even in the US, renewables are displacing coal and gas. Electrification of vehicle fleets will damp demand further, as U.S. electricity, gas, and EVs face evolving pressures.

Eliminating fossil fuel consumption completely would require sustained and costly government intervention, and reliability challenges such as coal and nuclear disruptions add to the complexity. That is far from certain. Meanwhile, though, market forces are depressing the sector’s usual profitability.

The end of oil and gas is not immediately around the corner. Still, the end of hydrocarbons as a lucrative industry is a distinct possibility. We are seeing that in dramatic form in the current oil price crash. But this collapse is merely a message from the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Iraq Nuclear Power Plan targets eight reactors and 11 GW to ease blackouts, curb emissions, and support desalination, with financing via partners like Rosatom and Kepco amid OPEC-linked demand growth and chronic grid shortages.

Key Points

A $40B push to build eight reactors adding 11 GW, easing blackouts, cutting emissions, and supporting desalination.

✅ $40B, 20-year payback via partner financing

✅ Talks with Rosatom, Kepco; U.S. and France consulted

✅ Parallel solar buildout to meet 2030 demand

Iraq is working on a plan to build nuclear reactors as the electricity-starved petrostate seeks to end the widespread blackouts that have sparked social unrest.

OPEC’s No. 2 oil producer – already suffering from power shortages and insufficient investment in aging plants – needs to meet an expected 50% jump in demand by the end of the decade. Building atomic plants could help to close the supply gap, though the country will face significant financial and geopolitical challenges in bringing its plan to fruition.

Iraq seeks to build eight reactors capable of producing about 11 gigawatts, said Kamal Hussain Latif, chairman of the Iraqi Radioactive Sources Regulatory Authority. It would seek funding from prospective partners for the $40 billion plan and pay back the costs over 20 years, he said, adding that the authority had discussed cooperation with Russian and South Korean officials, as Iran-Iraq energy cooperation progresses across the sector.

Plunging crude prices last year deprived Iraq of funds to maintain and expand its long-neglected electricity system, though grid rehabilitation deals have been finalized to support upgrades. The resulting outages triggered protests that threatened to topple the government.

“We have several forecasts that show that without nuclear power by 2030, we will be in big trouble,” Latif said in an interview at his office in Baghdad. Not only is there the power shortage and surge in demand to deal with, but Iraq is also trying to cut emissions and produce more water via desalination — “issues that raise the alarm for me.”

Raising financing will be a major task given that Iraq has suffered budgetary crises amid volatile oil prices. Even with crude at about $70 a barrel now, the country is only just balancing its budget, according to data from the International Monetary Fund.

The government will also have to tackle geopolitical concerns around the safety of atomic energy, which have stymied nuclear ambitions elsewhere in the region, even as Europe's nuclear decline underscores broader energy challenges.

Nuclear power, which doesn’t produce carbon dioxide, would help Gulf states’ efforts to cut emissions as governments worldwide, including India's nuclear push to expand capacity, look to become greener. The technology would also allow them to earmark more of their valuable hydrocarbons for export. Saudi Arabia, which is building a test reactor, burns as much as 1 million barrels of crude a day in power plants during its summer months when temperatures soar beyond 50 degrees Celsius (122 Fahrenheit).

The Iraqi cabinet is reviewing an agreement with Russia’s Rosatom Corp. to cooperate in building reactors, Latif said. South Korean officials this year said they wanted to help build the plants and offered the Iraqis a tour of UAE nuclear reactors run by Korea Electric Power Corp. Latif said the nuclear authority has also spoken with French and U.S. officials about the plan.

Kepco, Rosatom
Kepco, as the Korean energy producer is known, is not aware of Iraq’s nuclear plans and hasn’t been in touch with Iraqi officials or been asked to work on any projects there, a company spokesman said Tuesday. Rosatom didn’t immediately comment when asked about an agreement with Iraq.

Even if Iraq builds the planned number of power stations, that still won’t be sufficient to cover future consumption. The country already faces a 10-gigawatt gap between capacity and demand and expects to need an additional 14 gigawatts this decade, Latif said.

With this in mind, Iraq plans to build enough solar plants to generate a similar amount of power to the nuclear program by the end of the decade.
Iraq currently boasts 18.4 gigawatts of electricity, including 1.2 gigawatts imported from Iran into the grid. Capacity additions mean generation will rise to as much as 22 gigawatts by August, but that’s well short of notional demand that stands at almost 28 gigawatts under normal conditions. Peak usage during the hot summer months of July and August exceeds 30 gigawatts, according to the Electricity Ministry. Demand will hit 42 gigawatts by 2030, Latif said.

The nuclear authority has picked 20 potential sites for the reactors and Latif suggested that the first contracts could be signed in the next year.

It won’t be Iraq’s first attempt to go nuclear. Four decades ago, an Israeli air strike destroyed a reactor under construction south of Baghdad. The Israelis alleged the facility, called Osirak, was aimed at producing nuclear weapons for use against them. Iraq suffered more than a decade of violence and upheaval after the 2003 U.S. invasion, which was also motivated by allegations that Iraq wanted to develop weapons.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News