Toronto Zoo wants to run on animal waste

San Juan Generating Station eyed for $1 coal-plant sale, as Farmington and Acme propose CCS retrofit, meeting emissions caps and renewable mandates by selling captured CO2 for enhanced oil recovery via a nearby pipeline.

Key Points

A New Mexico coal plant eyed for $1 and a CCS retrofit to cut emissions and sell CO2 for enhanced oil recovery.

✅ $400M-$800M CCS retrofit; 90% CO2 capture target

✅ CO2 sales for enhanced oil recovery; 20-mile pipeline gap

✅ PNM projects shutdown savings; renewable and emissions mandates

One dollar. That’s how much an aging New Mexico coal plant is worth. And by some estimates, even that may be too much.

Acme Equities LLC, a New York-based holding company, is in talks to buy the 847-megawatt San Juan Generating Station for $1, after four of its five owners decided to shut it down. The fifth owner, the nearby city of Farmington, says it’s pursuing the bargain-basement deal with Acme to avoid losing about 1,600 direct and indirect jobs in the area amid a broader just transition debate for energy workers.

We respectfully disagree with the notion that the plant is not economical

Acme’s interest comes as others are looking to exit a coal industry that’s been plagued by costly anti-pollution regulations. Acme’s plan: Buy the plant "at a very low cost," invest in carbon capture technology that will lower emissions, and then sell the captured CO2 to oil companies, said Larry Heller, a principal at the holding group.

By doing this, Acme “believes we can generate an acceptable rate of return,” Heller said in an email.

Meanwhile, San Juan’s majority owner, PNM Resources Inc., offers a distinctly different view, echoing declining coal returns reported by other utilities. A 2022 shutdown will push ratepayers to other energy alternatives now being planned, saving them about $3 to $4 a month on average, PNM has said.

“We could not identify a solution that would make running San Juan Generating Station economical,” said Tom Fallgren, a PNM vice president, in an email.

The potential sale comes as a new clean-energy bill, supported by Governor Lujan Grisham, is working its way through the state legislature. It would require the state to get half of its power from renewable sources by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045, even as other jurisdictions explore small modular reactor strategies to meet future demand. At the same time, the legislation imposes an emissions cap that’s about 60 percent lower than San Juan’s current levels.

In response, Acme is planning to spend $400 million to $800 million to retrofit the facility with carbon capture and sequestration technology that would collect carbon dioxide before it’s released into the atmosphere, Heller said. That would put the facility into compliance with the pending legislation and, at the same time, help generate revenue for the plant.

The company estimates the system would cut emissions by as much as 90 percent, and the captured gas could be sold to oil companies, which uses it to enhance well recovery. The bottom line, according to Heller: “A winning financial formula.”

It’s a tricky formula at best. Carbon-capture technology has been controversial, even as new coal plant openings remain rare, expensive to install and unproven at scale. Additionally, to make it work at the San Juan plant, the company would need to figure out how to deliver the CO2 to customers since the nearest pipeline is about 20 miles (32 kilometers) away.

Reducing costs

Acme is also evaluating ways to reduce costs at San Juan, Heller said, including approaches seen at operators extending the life of coal plants under regulatory scrutiny, such as negotiating a cheaper coal-supply contract and qualifying for subsidies.

Farmington’s stake in the plant is less than 10 percent. But under terms of the partnership, the city — population 45,000 — can assume full control of San Juan should the other partners decide to pull out, mirroring policy debates over saving struggling nuclear plants in other regions. That’s given Farmington the legal authority to pursue the plant’s sale to Acme.

At the end of the day, nobody wants the energy

“We respectfully disagree with the notion that the plant is not economical,” Farmington Mayor Nate Duckett said by email. Ducket said he’s in better position than the other owners to assess San Juan’s importance “because we sit at Ground Zero.”

The city’s economy would benefit from keeping open both the plant and a nearby coal mine that feeds it, according to Duckett, with operations that contribute about $170 million annually to the local area.

While the loss of those jobs would be painful to some, Camilla Feibelman, a Sierra Club chapter director, is hard pressed to see a business case for keeping San Juan open, pointing to sector closures such as the Three Mile Island shutdown as evidence of shifting economics. The plant isn’t economical now, and would almost certainly be less so after investing the capital to add carbon-capture systems.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Offshore wind grows, but grid congestion curtails turbines.

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

✅ Lignite coal persists, raising emissions amid nuclear exit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The North-South Conundrum

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fueling the Gap

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Manitoba Clean Electricity Investment will upgrade hydroelectric turbines, expand a 230 kV transmission network, and deliver reliable, affordable low-carbon power, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and strengthening grid reliability across Portage la Prairie and Winnipeg River.

Key Points

Joint federal-provincial funding to upgrade hydro turbines and build a 230 kV grid, boosting reliable, low-carbon power.

✅ $314M for new turbines at Pointe du Bois (+52 MW capacity)

✅ $161.6M for 230 kV transmission in Portage la Prairie

✅ Cuts Brandon Generating Station emissions by ~37%

The governments of Canada and Manitoba have announced a joint investment of $475.6 million to strengthen Manitoba’s clean electricity grid that can support neighboring provinces with clean power and ensure continued supply of affordable and reliable low-carbon energy.

This federal-provincial investment provides $314 million for eight new hydroelectric turbines at the 75 MW Pointe du Bois Generating Station on the Winnipeg River, as well as $161.6 million to build a new 230 kV transmission network in the Portage la Prairie area, bolstering power sales to SaskPower and regional reliability.

The $314 million joint investment in the Pointe du Bois Renewable Energy Project includes $114.1 million from the Government of Canada and nearly $200 million from the Government of Manitoba. The joint investment will enable Manitoba Hydro to replace eight generating units that are at the end of their lifecycle, amid looming new generation needs for the province. The new, more efficient units will increase the capacity of the Pointe du Bois generating station by 52 MW.

The $161.6 million joint investment in the Portage Area Capacity Enhancement project includes $70.9 million from the Government of Canada and $90.6 million from the Government of Manitoba. The joint investment will support the construction of a new transmission line to enhance reliability for customers across southwest Manitoba and help Manitoba Hydro meet increasing demand, with projections that demand could double over the next two decades. By decreasing Manitoba’s reliance on its last grid-connected fossil-fuel generating station, this investment will reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the Brandon Generating Station by about 37%.

The federal government’s total contribution of $184.9 million is provided through the Green Infrastructure Stream of the Investing in Canada Plan, alongside efforts to improve interprovincial grid integration such as NB Power agreements with Hydro-Quebec that strengthen regional reliability. This federal funding is conditional on meeting Indigenous consultation requirements, as well as environmental assessment obligations. Including today’s announcement, the Green Infrastructure Stream has supported 38 infrastructure projects in Manitoba, for a total federal contribution of more than $766.8 million and a total provincial contribution of over $658.4 million.

“A key part of our economic plan is making Canada a clean electricity superpower. Today’s announcement in Manitoba will deliver clean, reliable, and affordable electricity to people and businesses across the province—and we will continue working to expand our clean electricity grid and create great careers for people from coast to coast to coast,” said Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland.

The federal government will continue to invest in making Canada a clean electricity superpower, supporting provincial initiatives like Hydro-Quebec's fossil-free strategy that complement these investments to ensure Canadians from coast to coast to coast have the affordable and reliable clean electricity they need today and for generations to come.

“Manitoba Hydro is extremely pleased to be receiving this federal funding through the Green Infrastructure Stream of the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program. The investments we are making in both these critical infrastructure projects will help provide Manitobans with energy for life and power our province’s economic growth with clean, reliable, renewable hydroelectricity. These projects build on our legacy of investments in renewable energy over the past 100 years, as we work towards a lower carbon future for all Manitobans,” said Jay Grewal, president and chief executive officer of Manitoba Hydro.

About 97% of Manitoba’s electricity is generated from clean hydro, with most of the remaining 3% coming from wind generation. Manitoba’s abundant clean electricity has resulted in Manitobans paying 9.455 ¢/kWh — the second-lowest electricity rate in Canada, though limits on serving new energy-intensive customers have been flagged recently.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Russia-Ukraine Energy Ceasefire Violations escalate as U.S.-brokered truce frays, with drone strikes, shelling, and grid attacks disrupting gas supply and power infrastructure across Kursk, Luhansk, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk, prompting sanctions calls.

Key Points

Alleged breaches of a U.S.-brokered truce, with both sides striking power grids, gas lines, and critical energy nodes.

✅ Drone and artillery attacks reported on power and gas assets

✅ Both sides accuse each other of breaking truce terms

✅ U.S. mediation faces verification and compliance hurdles

Russia and Ukraine have traded fresh accusations regarding violations of a fragile energy ceasefire, brokered by the United States, which both sides had agreed to last month. These new allegations highlight the ongoing tensions between the two nations and the challenges involved in implementing a truce amid global energy instability in such a complex and volatile conflict.

The U.S.-brokered ceasefire had initially aimed to reduce the intensity of the fighting, specifically in the energy sector, where both sides had previously targeted each other’s infrastructure. Despite this agreement, the accusations on Wednesday suggest that both Russia and Ukraine have continued their attacks on each other's energy facilities, a crucial aspect of the ceasefire’s terms.

Russia’s Ministry of Defence claimed that Ukrainian forces had launched drone and shelling attacks in the western Kursk region, cutting power to over 1,500 homes. This attack allegedly targeted key infrastructure, leaving several localities without electricity. Additionally, in the Russian-controlled part of Ukraine's Luhansk region, a Ukrainian drone strike hit a gas distribution station, severely disrupting the gas supply for over 11,000 customers in the area around Svatove.

In response, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky accused Russia of breaking the ceasefire. He claimed that Russian drone strikes had targeted an energy substation in Ukraine’s Sumy region, while artillery fire had damaged a power line in the Dnipropetrovsk region, leaving nearly 4,000 consumers without power even as Ukraine increasingly leans on electricity imports to stabilize the grid. Ukraine's accusations painted a picture of continued Russian aggression against critical energy infrastructure, a strategy that had previously been a hallmark of Russia’s broader military operations in the war.

The U.S. had brokered the energy truce as a potential stepping stone toward a more comprehensive ceasefire agreement. However, the repeated violations raise questions about the truce’s viability and the broader prospects for peace between Russia and Ukraine. Both sides are accusing each other of undermining the agreement, which had already been delicate due to previous suspicions and mistrust. In particular, the U.S. administration, led by President Donald Trump, has expressed impatience with the slow progress in moving toward a lasting peace, amid debates over U.S. national energy security priorities.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov defended Russia’s stance, emphasizing that President Vladimir Putin had shown a commitment to peace by agreeing to the energy truce, despite what he termed as daily Ukrainian attacks on Russian infrastructure. He reiterated that Russia would continue to cooperate with the U.S., even though the Ukrainian strikes were ongoing. This perspective suggests that Russia remains committed to the truce but views Ukraine’s actions as violations that could potentially derail efforts to reach a more comprehensive ceasefire.

On the other hand, President Zelensky argued that Russia was not adhering to the terms of the ceasefire. He urged the U.S. to take a stronger stance against Russia, including increasing sanctions on Moscow as punishment for its violations. Zelensky’s call for heightened sanctions is a continuation of his efforts to pressure international actors, particularly the U.S. and European countries, to provide greater energy security support for Ukraine’s struggle and to hold Russia accountable for its actions.

The ceasefire’s fragility is also reflected in the differing views between Ukraine and Russia on what constitutes a successful resolution. Ukraine had proposed a full 30-day ceasefire, but President Putin declined, raising concerns about monitoring and verifying compliance with the terms. This disagreement suggests that both sides are not entirely aligned on what a peaceful resolution should look like and how it can be realistically achieved.

The situation is complicated by the broader context of the war, which has now dragged on for over three years. The conflict has seen significant casualties, immense destruction, and deep geopolitical ramifications. Both countries are heavily reliant on their energy infrastructures, making any attack on these systems not only a military tactic but also a form of economic warfare. Energy resources, including electricity and natural gas, have become central to the ongoing conflict, with both sides using them to exert pressure on the other amid Europe's deepening energy crisis that reverberates beyond the battlefield.

As of now, it remains unclear whether the recent violations of the energy ceasefire will lead to a breakdown of the truce or whether the United States will intervene further to restore compliance, even as Ukraine prepares for winter amid energy challenges. The situation remains fluid, and the international community continues to closely monitor the developments. The U.S., which played a central role in brokering the energy ceasefire, has made it clear that it expects both sides to uphold the terms of the agreement and work toward a more permanent cessation of hostilities.

The continued accusations between Russia and Ukraine regarding the breach of the energy ceasefire underscore the challenges of negotiating peace in such a complex and entrenched conflict. While both sides claim to be upholding their commitments, the reality on the ground suggests that reaching a full and lasting peace will require much more than temporary truces. The international community, particularly the U.S., will likely continue to push for stronger actions to enforce compliance and to prevent the conflict from further escalating. The outcome of this dispute will have significant implications for both countries and the broader European energy landscape and security landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

U.S. Residential Electricity Bills rose on stronger demand, inflation, and fuel costs, with higher retail prices, kWh consumption, and extreme weather driving 2022 spikes; forecasts point to stable summer usage and slight price increases.

Key Points

They are average household power costs shaped by prices, kWh use, weather, and upstream fuel costs.

✅ 2022 bills up 13% nominal, 5% real vs. 2021

✅ Retail price rose 11%; consumption up 2% to 907 kWh

✅ Fuel costs to plants up 34%, pressuring rates

In nominal terms, the average monthly electricity bill for residential customers in the United States increased 13% from 2021 to 2022, rising from $121 a month to $137 a month. After adjusting for inflation—which reached 8% in 2022, a 40-year high—electricity bills increased 5%. Last year had the largest annual increase in average residential electricity spending since we began calculating it in 1984. The increase was driven by a combination of more extreme temperatures, which increased U.S. consumption of electricity for both heating and cooling, and higher fuel costs for power plants, which drove up retail electricity prices nationwide.

Residential electricity customers’ monthly electricity bills are based on the amount of electricity consumed and the retail electricity price. Average U.S. monthly electricity consumption per residential customer increased from 886 kilowatthours (kWh) in 2021 to 907 kWh in 2022, even as U.S. electricity sales have declined over the past seven years. Both a colder winter and a hotter summer contributed to the 2% increase in average monthly electricity consumption per residential customer in 2022 because customers used more space heating during the winter and more air conditioning during the summer, with some states, such as Pennsylvania, facing sharp winter rate increases.

Although we don’t directly collect retail electricity prices, we do collect revenues from electricity providers that allow us to determine prices by dividing by consumption, and industry reports show major utilities spending more on electricity delivery than on power production. In 2022, the average U.S. residential retail electricity price was 15.12 cents/kWh, an 11% increase from 13.66 cents/kWh in 2021. After adjusting for inflation, U.S. residential electricity prices went up by 2.5%.

Higher fuel costs for power plants drove the increase in residential retail electricity prices. The cost of fossil fuels—including natural gas prices, coal, and petroleum—delivered to U.S. power plants increased 34%, from $3.82 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) in 2021 to $5.13/MMBtu in 2022. The higher fuel costs were passed along to residential customers and contributed to higher retail electricity prices, and Germany power prices nearly doubled over a year in a related trend.

In the first three months of 2023, the average U.S. residential monthly electricity bill was $133, or 5% higher than for the same time last year, according to data from our Electric Power Monthly. The increase was driven by a 13% increase in the average U.S. residential retail electricity price, which was partly offset by a 7% decrease in average monthly electricity consumption per residential customer, and industry outlooks also see U.S. power demand sliding 1% on milder weather. This summer, we expect that typical household electricity bills will be similar to last year’s, with customers paying about 2% more on average. The slight increase in electricity costs forecast for this summer stems from higher retail electricity prices but similar consumption levels as last summer.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News