U.S. adds wind energy to 400,000 homes

Australia-PNG Infrastructure Rollout delivers electricity and broadband expansion across PNG, backed by New Zealand, the US, Japan, and South Korea, enhancing telecom capacity, digital connectivity, and regional development ahead of the APEC summit.

Key Points

A multi-billion-dollar plan to expand power and broadband in PNG, covering 70% of users with allied support.

✅ Delivers internet to 70% of PNG households and communities

✅ Expands electricity grid, boosting reliability and access

✅ Backed by NZ, US, Japan, and S. Korea; complements APEC investments

Australia will lead a new multi-billion-dollar electricity and internet rollout in Papua New Guinea, with the PM rules out taxpayer-funded power plants stance underscoring its approach to energy policy.

The Australian newspaper reported New Zealand, the US, Japan, whose utilities' offshore wind deal in the UK signaled expanding energy interests, and South Korea are supporting the project, which will be PNG's largest ever development investment.

The project will deliver internet to 70 percent of PNG and improve access to power, even as clean energy investment in developing nations has slipped sharply, according to a recent report.

Both China and the US are also expected to announce new investments in the region at the APEC summit this week, and recent China-Cambodia nuclear energy cooperation underscores those energy ties.

Beijing will announce new mining and energy investments in PNG, echoing projects such as the Chinese-built electricity poles plant in South Sudan, and two Confucius Insitutes to be housed at PNG universities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

British Columbia Bomb Cyclone disrupts coastal travel with severe wind gusts, heavy rainfall, widespread power outages, ferry cancellations, flooding, and landslides across Vancouver Island, straining emergency services and transport networks during the early holiday season.

Key Points

A rapidly intensifying storm hitting B.C.'s coast, causing damaging winds, heavy rain, power outages, and ferry delays.

✅ Wind gusts over 100 km/h and well above normal rainfall

✅ Power outages, flooded roads, and downed trees across the coast

✅ Ferry cancellations isolating communities and delaying supplies

A powerful storm, dubbed a "bomb cyclone," recently struck the British Columbia coast, wreaking havoc across the region. This intense weather system led to widespread disruptions, including power outages affecting tens of thousands of residents and the cancellation of ferry services, crucial for travel between coastal communities. The bomb cyclone is characterized by a rapid drop in pressure, resulting in extremely strong winds and heavy rainfall. These conditions caused significant damage, particularly along the coast and on Vancouver Island, where flooding and landslides led to fallen trees blocking roads, further complicating recovery efforts.

The storm's ferocity was especially felt in coastal areas, where wind gusts reached over 100 km/h, and rainfall totals were well above normal. The Vancouver region, already susceptible to storms during the winter months, faced dangerous conditions as power lines were downed, and transportation networks struggled to stay operational. Emergency services were stretched thin, responding to multiple weather-related incidents, including fallen trees, damaged infrastructure, and local flooding.

The ferry cancellations further isolated communities, especially those dependent on these services for essential supplies and travel. With many ferry routes out of service, residents had to rely on alternative transportation methods, which were often limited. The storm's timing, close to the start of the holiday season, also created additional challenges for those trying to make travel arrangements for family visits and other festive activities.

As cleanup efforts got underway, authorities warned that recovery would take time, particularly due to the volume of downed trees and debris. Crews worked to restore power and clear roads, while local governments urged people to stay indoors and avoid unnecessary travel, and BC Hydro's winter payment plan provided billing relief during outages. For those without power, the storm brought cold temperatures, and record electricity demand in 2021 showed how cold snaps strain the grid, making it crucial for families to find warmth and supplies.

In the aftermath of the bomb cyclone, experts highlighted the increasing frequency of such extreme weather events, driven in part by climate change and prolonged drought across the province. With the potential for more intense storms in the future, the region must be better prepared for these rapid weather shifts. Authorities are now focused on bolstering infrastructure to withstand such events, as all-time high demand has strained the grid recently, and improving early warning systems to give communities more time to prepare.

In the coming weeks, as British Columbia continues to recover, lessons learned from this storm will inform future responses to similar weather systems. For now, residents are advised to remain vigilant and prepared for any additional weather challenges, with recent blizzard and extreme cold in Alberta illustrating how conditions can deteriorate quickly.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Texas PUC Electricity Market Reforms aim to boost grid reliability, support ERCOT resilience, pay standby generators, require capacity procurement, and mitigate blackout risk, though analysts warn higher consumer bills and winter reserve margin deficits.

Key Points

PUC proposals to bolster ERCOT reliability via standby capacity, capacity procurement, and measures to reduce blackout risk.

✅ Pays generators for standby capacity during grid stress

✅ Requires capacity procurement to meet forecast demand

✅ Could raise consumer bills despite reliability gains

The Public Utility Commission of Texas is discussing major reforms to the state’s electricity market with the purpose to avoid a repeat of the power failures and blackouts during the February 2021 winter storm, which led to the death of more than 100 people and left over 11 million residents without electricity for days.

The regulator is discussing at a meeting on Thursday around a dozen proposals to make the grid more stable and reliable in case of emergencies. Proposals include paying power generators that are on standby when the grid needs backup, and requiring companies to pre-emptively buy capacity to meet future demand.

It is not clear yet how many and which of the proposals for electricity market reforms PUC will endorse today, while Texans vote on funding to modernize electricity generation later this year.

Analysts and consumer protection bodies warn that the measures will raise the energy bills for consumers, as some electricity market bailout ideas shift costs to ratepayers as well.

“Customers will be paying for more, but will they be getting more reliability?” Michael Jewell, an attorney with Jewell & Associates PLLC who represents clients at PUC proceedings, told Bloomberg.

“This is going to take us further down a path that’s going to increase cost to consumers, we better be darn sure these are the right choices,” Tim Morstad, Associate State Director, AARP Texas, told FOX 4 NEWS.

Last month, a report by the North American Electric Reliability Corp warned that the Texas power grid remained vulnerable to blackouts in case of a repeat of this year’s February Freeze.

Beyond Texas, electricity blackout risks have been identified across the U.S., underscoring the stakes for grid planning.

According to the 2021-2022 Winter Reliability Assessment report, Texas risks a 37-percent reserve margin deficit in case of a harsh winter, with ERCOT moving to procure capacity to address winter concerns, NERC said.

A reserve margin is the reserve of power generation capacity comparative to demand. The expected reserve margin for Texas for this winter, according to NERC, is 41.9 percent. Yet if another cold spell hits the state, it would affect this spare capacity, pushing the margin deeply into negative territory.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

China 2060 Carbon-Neutral Energy Transition projects tripled electricity, rapid electrification, wind and solar dominance, scalable hydrogen, CCUS, and higher carbon pricing to meet net-zero goals while decarbonizing heavy industry and transport.

Key Points

Shell's outlook for China to reach net zero by 2060 via electrification, renewables, hydrogen, CCUS, and carbon pricing.

✅ Power supply to 60% of energy; generation triples by 2060.

✅ Wind and solar reach 80% of electricity; coal declines sharply.

✅ Hydrogen scales to 17 EJ; CCUS and carbon pricing expand.

China may triple electricity generation to supply 60 percent of the country's total energy under Beijing's carbon-neutral goal by 2060, up from the current 23 per cent, according to Royal Dutch Shell.

Shell is one of the largest global investors in China's energy sector, with business covering gas production, petrochemicals and a retail fuel network. A leading supplier of liquefied natural gas, it has recently expanded into low-carbon business such as hydrogen power and electric vehicle charging.

In a rare assessment of the country's energy sector by an international oil major, Shell said China needed to take quick action this decade to stay on track to reach the carbon-neutrality goal.

China has mapped out plans to reach peak emissions by 2030, and aims to reduce coal power production over the coming years, but has not yet revealed any detailed carbon roadmap for 2060.

This includes investing in a reliable and renewable power system, including compressed air generation, and demonstrating technologies that transform heavy industry using hydrogen, biofuel and carbon capture and utilization.

"With early and systematic action, China can deliver better environmental and social outcomes for its citizens while being a force for good in the global fight against climate change," Mallika Ishwaran, chief economist of Shell International, told a webinar hosted by the company's China business.

Shell expects China's electricity generation to rise three-fold to more than 60 exajoules (EJ) in 2060 from 20 EJ in 2020, even amid power supply challenges reported recently.

Solar and wind power are expected to surpass coal as the largest sources of electricity by 2034 in China, reflecting projections that renewables will eclipse coal globally by mid-decade, versus the current 10 percent, rising to 80 percent by 2060, Shell said.

Hydrogen is expected to scale up to 17 EJ, or equivalent to 580 million tonnes of coal by 2060, up from almost negligible currently, adding over 85 percent of the hydrogen will be produced through electrolysis, supported by PEM hydrogen R&D across the sector, powered by renewable and nuclear electricity, Shell said.

Hydrogen will meet 16 percent of total energy use in 2060 with heavy industry and long-distance transport as top hydrogen users, the firm added.

The firm also expects China's carbon price to rise to 1,300 yuan (CDN$256.36) per tonne in 2060 from 300 yuan in 2030.

Nuclear, on a steady development track, and biomass will have niche but important roles for power generation in the years to come, Shell said.

Electricity generated from biomass, combined with carbon, capture, utilization and storage (CCUS), provide a source of negative emissions for the rest of the energy system from 2053, it added.

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

Ontario-U.S. Energy Tariff Dispute highlights cross-border trade tensions, retaliatory tariffs, export surcharges, and White House negotiations as Doug Ford meets U.S. officials to de-escalate pressure over steel, aluminum, and energy supplies.

Key Points

A trade standoff over energy exports and tariffs, sparked by Ontario's surcharge and U.S. duties on steel and aluminum.

✅ 25% Ontario energy surcharge paused before White House talks

✅ U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs reduced from 50% to 25%

✅ Potential energy supply cutoff remains leverage in negotiations

Ontario Premier Doug Ford's recent high-stakes diplomatic trip to Washington, D.C., underscores the delicate trade tensions between Canada and the United States, particularly concerning energy exports and Canada's electricity exports across the border. Ford's potential use of tariffs or even halting U.S. energy supplies, amid Ontario's energy independence considerations, remains a powerful leverage tool, one that could either de-escalate or intensify the ongoing trade conflict between the two neighboring nations.

The meeting in Washington follows a turbulent series of events that began with Ontario's imposition of a 25% surcharge on energy exports to the U.S. This move came in retaliation to what Ontario perceived as unfair treatment in trade agreements, a step that aligned with Canadian support for tariffs at the time. In response, U.S. President Donald Trump's administration threatened its own set of tariffs, specifically targeting Canadian steel and aluminum, which further escalated tensions. U.S. officials labeled Ford's threat to cut off U.S. electricity exports and energy supplies as "egregious and insulting," warning of significant economic retaliation.

However, shortly after these heated exchanges, Trump’s commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, extended an invitation to Ford for a direct meeting at the White House. Ford described this gesture as an "olive branch," signaling a potential de-escalation of the dispute. In the lead-up to this diplomatic encounter, Ford agreed to pause the energy surcharge, allowing the meeting to proceed, amid concerns tariffs could spike NY energy prices, without further escalating the crisis. Trump's administration responded by lowering its proposed 50% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum to a more manageable 25%.

The outcome of the meeting, which is set to address these critical issues, could have lasting implications for trade relations between Canada and the U.S. If Ford and Lutnick can reach an agreement, the potential for tariff imposition on energy exports, though experts advise against cutting Quebec's energy exports due to broader risks, could be resolved. However, if the talks fail, it is likely that both countries could face further retaliatory measures, compounding the economic strain on both sides.

As Canada and the U.S. continue to navigate these complex issues, where support for Canadian energy projects has risen, the outcome of Ford's meeting with Lutnick will be closely watched, as it could either defuse the tensions or set the stage for a prolonged trade battle.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News