Lobbyist spending in Kansas doubles amid coal fight

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

Baltic States EU Grid Synchronization strengthens energy independence and electricity security, ending IPS/UPS reliance. Backed by interconnectors like LitPol Link, NordBalt, and Estlink, it aligns with NATO interests and safeguards against subsea infrastructure threats.

Key Points

A shift by Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to join the EU grid, boosting energy security and reducing Russian leverage.

✅ Synchronized with EU grid on Feb 9, 2025 after islanding tests.

✅ New interconnectors: LitPol Link, NordBalt, Estlink upgrades.

✅ Reduces IPS/UPS risks; bolsters NATO and critical infrastructure.

In a landmark move towards greater energy independence and European integration, the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have officially disconnected from Russia's electricity grid, a path also seen in Ukraine's rapid grid link to the European system. This decisive action, completed in February 2025, not only ends decades of reliance on Russian energy but also enhances the region's energy security and aligns with broader geopolitical shifts.

Historical Context and Strategic Shift

Historically, the Baltic states were integrated into the Russian-controlled IPS/UPS power grid, a legacy of their Soviet past. However, in recent years, these nations have sought to extricate themselves from Russian influence, aiming to synchronize their power systems with the European Union (EU) grid. This transition gained urgency following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and further intensified after the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, as demonstrated by Russian strikes on Ukraine's grid that underscored energy vulnerability.

The Disconnection Process

The process culminated on February 8, 2025, when Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania severed their electrical ties with Russia. For approximately 24 hours, the Baltic states operated in isolation, conducting rigorous tests to ensure system stability and resilience, echoing winter grid protection efforts seen elsewhere. On February 9, they successfully synchronized with the EU's continental power grid, marking a historic shift towards European energy integration.

Geopolitical and Security Implications

This transition holds significant geopolitical weight. By disconnecting from Russia's power grid, the Baltic states reduce potential leverage that Russia could exert through energy supplies. The move also aligns with NATO's strategic interests, enhancing the security of critical infrastructure in the region, amid concerns about Russian hacking of US utilities that highlight cyber risks.

Economic and Technical Challenges

The shift was not without challenges. The Baltic states had to invest heavily in infrastructure to ensure compatibility with the EU grid and navigate regional market pressures such as a Nordic grid blockade affecting transmission capacity. This included constructing new interconnectors and upgrading existing facilities. For instance, the LitPol Link between Lithuania and Poland, the NordBalt cable connecting Lithuania and Sweden, and the Estlink between Estonia and Finland were crucial in facilitating this transition.

Impact on Kaliningrad

The disconnection has left Russia's Kaliningrad exclave isolated from the Russian power grid, relying solely on imports from Lithuania. While Russia claims to have measures in place to maintain power stability in the region, the long-term implications remain uncertain.

Ongoing Security Concerns

The Baltic Sea region has experienced heightened security concerns, particularly regarding subsea cables and pipelines. Increased incidents of damage to these infrastructures have raised alarms about potential sabotage, including a Finland cable damage investigation into a suspected Russian-linked vessel. Authorities continue to investigate these incidents, emphasizing the need for robust protection of critical energy infrastructure.

The successful disconnection and synchronization represent a significant step in the Baltic states' journey towards full integration with European energy markets. This move is expected to enhance energy security, promote economic growth, and solidify geopolitical ties with the EU and NATO. As the region continues to modernize its energy infrastructure, ongoing vigilance against security threats will be paramount, as recent missile and drone attacks on Kyiv's grid demonstrate.

The Baltic states' decision to disconnect from Russia's power grid and synchronize with the European energy system is a pivotal moment in their post-Soviet transformation. This transition not only signifies a break from historical dependencies but also reinforces their commitment to European integration and collective security. As these nations continue to navigate complex geopolitical landscapes, their strides towards energy independence serve as a testament to their resilience and strategic vision.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

UK Coal-Free Energy Transition highlights the West Burton A closure, accelerating renewable energy, wind, solar, nuclear, energy storage, smart grid upgrades, decarbonization, and net-zero goals while ensuring reliability, affordability, and a just transition for workers.

Key Points

A nationwide shift from coal power to renewables, storage, and nuclear to meet net-zero while maintaining reliability.

✅ West Burton A closure ends UK coal-fired generation

✅ Wind, solar, nuclear, storage strengthen grid resilience

✅ Government backs a just transition and worker retraining

The United Kingdom marks a historic turning point in its energy transition with the closure of the West Burton A Power Station in Nottinghamshire. This coal-fired power plant, once a symbol of the nation's industrial might, has now delivered its final watts of electricity to the grid, signalling the end of coal power generation in the UK.

A Landmark Shift Towards Clean Energy

The closure of West Burton A reflects a dramatic shift in the UK's energy landscape. Coal, the backbone of the UK's power generation for decades, is being phased out in favour of renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and nuclear. This transition aligns with the UK's ambitious net-zero emissions target, which aims to radically decarbonize the country's economy by 2050, though progress can falter, as when low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 amid changing market conditions.

Changing Energy Landscape

In the past, coal-fired power plants provided reliable, on-demand power. However, growing awareness of their significant environmental impact, particularly their contribution to climate change,  has accelerated the move away from coal. The UK government has set clear targets for eliminating coal power generation, and the industry has seen a steady decline as the share of coal fell to record lows in the electricity system.

Renewables Fill the Gap

The remarkable growth of renewable energy sources has enabled the transition away from coal. Wind and solar power, in particular, have experienced rapid development and falling costs, and in 2016 wind generated more electricity than coal for the first time. The UK now boasts substantial offshore and onshore wind farms and extensive solar installations. Additionally, investments in nuclear power and emerging energy storage technologies are increasing the reliability and diversity of the UK's power grid.

Economic and Social Impacts

The closure of the last coal-fired power station carries both economic and social impacts. While this change represents a victory for environmentalists, marked by milestones like a full week without coal power in Britain, the end of coal mining and power generation will lead to job losses in communities traditionally reliant on these industries.  The government has committed to supporting affected regions and facilitating a "just transition" for workers by retraining and creating new opportunities in the clean energy sector.

Global Implications

The UK's commitment to a coal-free future serves as a powerful example for other nations seeking to decarbonize their energy systems, including peers where Alberta's last coal plant closed recently. The nation's experience demonstrates that a transition to renewable energy sources is both possible and necessary. However, it also highlights the importance of careful planning and addressing the social and economic impacts of such a rapid energy revolution.

The Road Ahead

While the closure of West Burton A Power Station marks a historic milestone, the UK's transition to clean energy is far from complete. Maintaining a reliable and affordable energy supply, even as coal-free power records raise questions about energy bills, will require continued investment in renewable energy sources, energy storage, and advanced grid technologies.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Kenya Power token glitches, inflated bills disrupt prepaid meters via M-Pesa paybill 888880 and third-party vendors like Vendit and Dynamo, causing delays, fast-depleting tokens, and billing estimates; customers report weekend outages and business losses.

Key Points

Service failures delaying token generation and disputed charges from estimated meter readings and slow processing.

✅ Impacts M-Pesa paybill 888880 and authorized third-party vendors

✅ Causes delays, fast-depleting tokens, weekend business closures

✅ Linked to system downtime, billing estimates, meter reading gaps

Kenya Power is again on the spotlight following claims of inflated power bills and a glitch in its electronic payment system that made it impossible to top up tokens on prepaid meters.

Thousands of customers started experiencing the hitch in tokens generation on Friday evening, with the problem extending through the weekend.

Small businesses such as barber shops that top up multiple times a week were hardest hit.

“My business usually thrives during weekends but I was forced to close early in the evening due to lack of power although I had paid for the tokens that were never generated,” said Mr John Kamau, a fast food restaurant owner in Nairobi.

Kenya Power processes up to 200,000 electronic transactions per day for power users, with 85 per cent done through its Safaricom M-Pesa paybill number 888880.

The remaining share is handled by its authorised third party vendors such as Vendit (paybill number 501200) and Dynamo (800904), which charge a premium for the transaction.

The sole electricity distributor admitted its system encountered challenges that crippled token generation across all vendors, advising customers on prepaid meters to buy the units from Kenya Power banking halls across the country until normalcy returned.

STATEMENT

“The IT team is trying to figure out where the problem was before we issue a comprehensive statement on the issue,” the firm responded to Nation queries, adding that the issue had been resolved by yesterday afternoon.

Customers who use Vendit confirmed to Nation they had successfully bought tokens yesterday afternoon.

However, there have been complaints that third party vendors process tokens almost in real time, unlike Kenya Power which, despite indicating a 30 minute delay in its service promise, sometimes takes up to six hours.  

But other users complained of inflated power bills after being slapped with abnormally high charges.

TOKENS

The holder of account number 30624694, for instance, received a post-paid bill of Sh16,765 last month, up from Sh894 the previous month.

She indulged the company and ended up paying just over Sh1,000.

There have also been complaints of tokens getting depleted too fast. For instance, one customer who normally uses Sh4,000 per month complained of her credit running out in a week.

Kenya Power maintains it cannot read all post-paid meters across the country, compelling it to make estimates for a number of customers.

The company argues it is not cost-effective to have meter readers go to all homes. The firm recently indicated plans to put all domestic consumers on prepaid meters to reduce non-payment of electricity bills and cut operation costs on meter reading and postage.

POWER CONSUMPTION

The Nairobi Securities Exchange-listed firm has also adopted a new integrated customer management system to enable consumers to self-check their power consumption and understand their electricity bill and payment obligations through a phone app.

In the past, concerns have been rife that customers often encounter delays when buying tokens through paybill number 888880, unlike through other vendors.

This has raised questions on the ownership of the vendors and the cash commissions they are entitled to, with holiday scam warnings circulating in some markets as well.

FOUL PLAY

Kenya Power has, however, denied any foul play, saying the authorisation of other vendors was to ease pressure on its payment channel, which handles 85 per cent of the nearly 200,000 transactions per day.

“In fact we have 11 vendors, including Equitel, it’s just that people are only aware of Vendit and Dynamo because they have been aggressive in their marketing,” the company said.

Kenya Power has been battling court cases over inflated power bills after it emerged that the utility firm was backdating bills worth Sh10.1 billion from last November.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

ERCOT Texas Fall Grid Forecast outlines ample power supply, planned maintenance outages, and grid reliability, citing PUC oversight and Gov. Abbott's remarks, with seasonal assessment noting mild demand yet climate risks and conservation alerts.

Key Points

ERCOT's seasonal outlook for Texas on fall power supply, outages, and reliability expectations under PUC oversight.

✅ Projects sufficient supply in October and November

✅ Many plants scheduled offline for maintenance

✅ Notes PUC oversight and Abbott's confidence

Gov. Greg Abbott said Tuesday that the Texas power grid is prepared for the fall months and referenced a new seasonal forecast by the state’s grid operator, which typically does not draw much attention to its fall and spring grid assessments because of the more mild temperatures during those seasons.

Tuesday’s new forecast by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas showed that there should be plenty of power supply to meet demand in October and November. It also showed that many Texas power plants are scheduled to be offline this fall for maintenance work. Texas power plants usually plan to go down in the fall and spring for repairs to improve reliability ahead of the more extreme temperatures in winter and summer, when Texans crank up their heat and air conditioning and raise demand for power.

ERCOT for at least a decade announced its seasonal forecasts, but did not do so on Tuesday. The grid operator stopped announcing the reports after the 2021 winter storm event. A spokesperson for the grid operator, which posted the report to its website midday without notifying the public or power industry stakeholders, said there were no plans to discuss the latest forecast and referred questions about it to the Public Utility Commission, which oversees ERCOT. Abbott appoints the board of the PUC.

Abbott on Tuesday expressed his confidence about the grid in a news release, which included photos of the governor sitting at a table with incoming ERCOT CEO Pablo Vegas, outgoing interim CEO Brad Jones and Public Utility Commission Chair Peter Lake.

“The State of Texas continues to monitor the reliability of our electric grid, and I thank ERCOT and PUC for their hard work to implement bipartisan reforms we passed last year and for their proactive leadership to ensure our grid is stronger than ever before,” Abbott said in the release.

Abbott has not previously shared or called attention to ERCOT’s forecasts as he did on Tuesday.

Up for reelection this fall, Abbott has faced continued criticism, including from the Sierra Club over his handling of the 2021 deadly power grid disaster, when extended freezing temperatures shut down natural gas facilities and power plants, which rely on each other to keep electricity flowing. The resulting blackouts left millions of Texans without power for days in the cold, and hundreds of people died.

ERCOT’s forecasts for fall and spring are typically the least worrisome seasonal forecasts, energy experts said, because temperatures are usually milder in between summer and winter, even as ERCOT has issued an RFP to procure winter capacity to address shortages, so demand for power usually does not skyrocket like it does during extreme temperatures.

But they’ve warned that climate change could potentially lead to more extreme temperatures during times when Texas hasn’t experienced such weather in the past. For example, in early May six power plants unexpectedly broke down when a spring heat wave drove power demand up and highlighted broader heat-related blackout risks across the grid. ERCOT asked Texans to conserve electricity at home at the time.

Abbott released the seasonal report at a time when he has asserted unprecedented control over ERCOT. Although he had no formal role in ERCOT’s search for a new permanent CEO, he put a stranglehold on the process, The Texas Tribune previously reported. Since the winter storm, Abbott’s office has also dictated what information about the power grid ERCOT has released to the public.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

New Zealand Renewable Energy Strategy examines decarbonisation, GHG emissions, and net energy as electrification accelerates, expanding hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar PV while weighing intermittency, storage, materials, and energy security for a resilient power system.

Key Points

A plan to expand electricity generation, balancing decarbonisation, net energy limits, and energy security.

✅ Distinguishes decarbonisation targets from renewable capacity growth

✅ Highlights net energy limits, intermittency, and storage needs

✅ Addresses materials, GHG build-out costs, and energy security

The Electricity Authority has released a document outlining a plan to achieve the Government’s goal of more than doubling the amount of electricity generated in New Zealand over the next few decades.

This goal is seen as a way of both reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions overall, as everything becomes electrified, and ensuring we have a 100 percent renewable energy system at our disposal. Often these two goals are seen as being the same – to decarbonise we must transition to more renewable energy to power our society.

But they are quite different goals and should be clearly differentiated. GHG emissions could be controlled very effectively by rationing the use of a fossil fuel lockdown approach, with declining rations being available over a few years. Such a direct method of controlling emissions would ensure we do our bit to remain within a safe carbon budget.

If we took this dramatic step we could stop fretting about how to reduce emissions (that would be guaranteed by the rationing), and instead focus on how to adapt our lives to the absence of fossil fuels.

Again, these may seem like the same task, but they are not. Decarbonising is generally thought of in terms of replacing fossil fuels with some other energy source, signalling that a green recovery must address more than just wind capacity. Adapting our lives to the absence of fossil fuels pushes us to ask more fundamental questions about how much energy we actually need, what we need energy for, and the impact of that energy on our environment.

MBIE data indicate that between 1990 and 2020, New Zealand almost doubled the total amount of energy it produced from renewable energy sources - hydro, geothermal and some solar PV and wind turbines.

Over this same time period our GHG emissions increased by about 25 percent. The increase in renewables didn’t result in less GHG emissions because we increased our total energy use by almost 50 percent, mostly by using fossil fuels. The largest fossil fuel increases were used in transport, agriculture, forestry and fisheries (approximately 60 percent increases for each).

These data clearly demonstrate that increasing renewable energy sources do not necessarily result in reduced GHG emissions.

The same MBIE data indicate that over this same time period, the amount of Losses and Own Use category for energy use more than doubled. As of 2020 almost 30 percent of all energy consumed in New Zealand fell into this category.

These data indicate that more renewable energy sources are historically associated with less energy actually being available to do work in society.

While the category Losses and Own Use is not a net energy analysis, the large increase in this category makes the call for a system-wide net energy analysis all the more urgent.

Net energy is the amount of energy available after the energy inputs to produce and deliver the energy is subtracted. There is considerable data available indicating that solar PV and wind turbines have a much lower net energy surplus than fossil fuels.

And there is further evidence that when the intermittency and storage requirements are engineered into a total renewable energy system, the net energy of the entire system declines sharply. Could the Losses and Other Uses increase over this 30-year period be an indication of things to come?

Despite the importance of net energy analysis in designing a national energy system which is intended to provide energy security and resilience, there is not a single mention of net energy surplus in the EA reference document.

So over the last 30 years, New Zealand has doubled its renewable energy capacity, and at the same time increased its GHG emissions and reduced the overall efficiency of the national energy system.

And we are now planning to more than double our renewable energy system yet again over the next 30 years, even as zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is being debated elsewhere. We need to ask if this is a good idea.

How can we expand New Zealand’s solar PV and wind turbines without using fossil fuels? We can’t.

How could we expand our solar PV and wind turbines without mining rare minerals and the hidden costs of clean energy they entail, further contributing to ecological destruction and often increasing social injustices? We can't.

Even if we could construct, deliver, install and maintain solar PV and wind turbines without generating more GHG emissions and destroying ecosystems and poor communities, this “renewable” infrastructure would have to be replaced in a few decades. But there are at least two major problems with this assumed scenario.

The rare earth minerals required for this replacement will already be exhausted by the initial build out. Recycling will only provide a limited amount of replacements.

The other challenge is that a mostly “renewable” energy system will likely have a considerably lower net energy surplus. So where, in 2060, will the energy come from to either mine or recycle the raw materials, and to rebuild, reinstall and maintain the next iteration of a renewable energy system?

There is currently no plan for this replacement. It is a serious misnomer to call these energy technologies “renewable”. They are not as they rely on considerable raw material inputs and fossil energy for their production and never ending replacement.

New Zealand is, of course, blessed with an unusually high level of hydro electric and geothermal power. New Zealand currently uses over 170 GJ of total energy per capita, 40 percent of which is “renewable”. This provides approximately 70 GJ of “renewable” energy per capita with our current population.

This is the average global per capita energy level from all sources across all nations, as calls for 100% renewable energy globally emphasize. Several nations operate with roughly this amount of total energy per capita that New Zealand can generate just from “renewables”.

It is worth reflecting on the 170 GJ of total energy use we currently consume. Different studies give very different results regarding what levels are necessary for a good life.

For a complex industrial society such as ours, 100 GJ pc is said to be necessary for a high levels of wellbeing, determined both subjectively (life satisfaction/ happiness measures), and objectively (e.g. infant mortality levels, female morbidity as an index of population health, access to nutritious food and educational and health resources, etc). These studies do not take into account the large amount of energy that is wasted either through inefficient technologies, or frivolous use, which effective decarbonization strategies seek to reduce.

Other studies that consider the minimal energy needed for wellbeing suggest a much lower level of per capita energy consumption is required. These studies take a different approach and focus on ensuring basic wellbeing is maintained, but not necessarily with all the trappings of a complex industrial society. Their results indicate a level of approximately 20 GJ per capita is adequate.

In either case, we in New Zealand are wasting a lot of energy, both in terms of the efficiency of our technologies (see the Losses and Own Use info above), and also in our uses which do not contribute to wellbeing (think of the private vehicle travel that could be done by active or public transport – if we had good infrastructure in place).

We in New Zealand need a national dialogue about our future. And energy availability is only one aspect. We need to discuss what our carrying capacity is, what level of consumption is sustainable for our population, and whether we wish to make adjustments in either our per capita consumption or our population. Both together determine whether we are on the sustainable side of carrying capacity. Currently we are on the unsustainable side, meaning our way of life cannot endure. Not a good look for being a good ancestor.

The current trajectory of the Government and Electricity Authority appears to be grossly unsustainable. At the very least they should be able to answer the questions posed here about the GHG emissions from implementing a totally renewable energy system, the net energy of such a system, and the related environmental and social consequences.

Public dialogue is critical to collectively working out our future. Allowing the current profit-driven trajectory to unfold is a recipe for disasters for our children and grandchildren.

Being silent on these issues amounts to complicity in allowing short-term financial interests and an addiction to convenience jeopardise a genuinely secure and resilient future. Let’s get some answers from the Government and Electricity Authority to critical questions about energy security.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News