Combining a wind farm and solar in Sicily

India Nuclear Generation Shortfall highlights missed five-year plan targets due to uranium fuel scarcity, commissioning delays at Kudankulam, PFBR slippage, and PHWR equipment bottlenecks under IAEA safeguards and domestic supply constraints.

Key Points

A gap between planned and actual nuclear output due to fuel shortages, reactor delays, and first-of-a-kind hurdles.

✅ Fuel scarcity pre-2009-10 constrained unsafeguarded reactors.

✅ Kudankulam delays from protests, litigation, and remobilisation.

✅ FOAK PHWR equipment bottlenecks and PFBR slippage.

A lack of available domestically produced nuclear fuel and delays in constructing and commissioning nuclear power plants, including first-of-a-kind plants and the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR), meant that India failed to meet its nuclear generation targets under the governmental plans over the decade to 2017, even as global project milestones were being recorded elsewhere.

India's nuclear generation target under its 11th five-year plan, covering the period 2007-2012, was 163,395 million units (MUs) and the 12th five-year Plan (2012-17) was 241,748 MUs, Minister of state for the Department of Atomic Energy and the Prime Minister's Office Jitendra Singh told parliament on 6 February. Actual nuclear generation in those periods was 109,642 MUs and 183,488 MUs respectively, Singh said in a written answer to questions in the Lok Sabah.

Singh attributed the shortfall in generation to a lack of availability of the necessary quantities of domestically produced fuel during the three years before 2009-2010; delays to the commissioning of two 1000 MWe nuclear power plants at Kudankulam due to local protests and legal challenges; and delays in the completion of two indigenously designed pressurised heavy water reactors and the PFBR.

Kudankulam 1 and 2 are VVER-1000 pressurised water reactors (PWRs) supplied by Russia's Atomstroyexport under a Russian-financed contract. The units were built by Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) and were commissioned and are operated by NPCIL under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, with supervision from Russian specialists, while China's nuclear program advanced on a steady development track in the same period. Construction of the units - the first PWRs to enter operation in India - began in 2002.

Singh said local protests resulted in the halt of commissioning work at Kudankulam for nine months from September 2011 to March 2012, when he said project commissioning had been at its peak. As a consequence, additional time was needed to remobilise the workforce and contractors, he said. Litigation by anti-nuclear groups, and compliance with supreme court directives, impacted commissioning in 2013, he said. Unit 1 entered commercial operation in December 2014 and unit 2 in April 2017.

Delays in the manufacture and supply by domestic industry of critical equipment for first-of-a-kind 700 MWe pressurised heavy water reactors -  Kakrapar units 3 and 4, and Rajasthan units 7 and 8 - has led to delays in the completion of those units, the minister said, as well as noting the delay in completion of the PFBR, which is being built at Kalpakkam by Bhavini. In answer to a separate question, Singh said the PFBR is in an "advance stage of integrated commissioning" and is "expected to approach first criticality by the year 2020."

Eight of India's operating nuclear power plants are not under IAEA safeguards and can therefore only use indigenously-sourced uranium. The other 14 units operate under IAEA safeguards and can use imported uranium. The Indian government has taken several measures to secure fuel supplies for reactors in operation and under construction, amid coal supply rationing pressures elsewhere in the power sector, concluding fuel supply contracts with several countries for existing and future reactors under IAEA Safeguards and by "augmentation" of fuel supplies from domestic sources, Singh said.

Kakrapar 3 and 4, with Kakrapar 3 criticality already reported, and Rajasthan 7 and 8 are all currently expected to enter service in 2022, according to World Nuclear Association information.

Joint venture discussions

In February 2016 the government amended the Atomic Energy Act to allow NPCIL to form joint venture companies with other public sector undertakings (PSUs) for involvement in nuclear power generation and possibly other aspects of the fuel cycle, reflecting green industrial strategies shaping future reactor waves globally. In answer to another question, Singh confirmed that NPCIL has entered into joint ventures with NTPC Limited (National Thermal Power Corporation, India's largest power company) and Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Two joint venture companies - Anushakti Vidhyut Nigam Limited and NPCIL-Indian Oil Nuclear Energy Corporation Limited - have been incorporated, and discussions on possible projects to be set up by the joint venture companies are in progress.

An exploratory discussion had also been held with Oil & Natural Gas Corporation, Singh said. Indian Railways - which has in the past been identified as a potential joint venture partner for NPCIL - had "conveyed that they were not contemplating entering into an MoU for setting up of nuclear power plants," Singh said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Jordan-Saudi Electricity Linkage Project connects NEPCO and Saudi National Electricity Company to launch feasibility studies, advancing cross-border grid interconnection, Arab electricity linkage goals, and enhancing power reliability, stability, and energy security in both countries.

Key Points

A bilateral grid interconnection by NEPCO and Saudi Electricity Co. to improve reliability and stability.

✅ Enables joint technical and financial feasibility studies

✅ Improves cross-border grid reliability and stability

✅ Part of Arab electricity linkage; supports energy security

The Jordanian Cabinet on has approved the memorandum of understanding to implement the electricity linkage project between Jordan and Saudi Arabia, echoing regional steps such as Lebanon's electricity sector reform to modernize power governance.

The memo will be signed between the National Electric Power Company(NEPCO) and the Saudi National Electricity Company, mirroring cross-border efforts like CEA-Mexico electricity cooperation to strengthen regional interconnections.

The agreement will enable the two sides to initiate technical and financial feasibility studies for the project, which aims to enhance the stability and reliability of electricity networks in both countries, aligning with measures to secure power such as Ireland's electricity supply plan pursued internationally.

The initial feasibility studies, which came as part of the comprehensive Arab electricity linkage issued by the Arab League in 2014, had shown the possibility of implementing the Jordanian-Saudi linkage, as electricity markets evolve in places like Alberta electricity market changes toward new designs.

Regional developments, including a Lebanon electricity goodwill gesture that sowed discord, underscore the complexities of power-sector reform.

Also on Wednesday, the Government approved the third amendment to the grant agreement provided by the EU for a programme of financial inclusion through improving the governance and the spread of micro-financing in Jordan.

Jordan and the EU signed the grant agreement on December 14, 2014 to support the general budget.

The Cabinet also approved the recommendations of the ministerial team tasked with overseeing the annual and financial plans of public credit funds in the Kingdom.

The recommendations included establishing a guidance office to introduce the governmental lending programmes and windows within Iradah centres affiliated with the Planning and International Cooperation Ministry.

The Council of Ministers decided to oblige the government institutions to execute all of their correspondences to the Jordan Customs Department (JCD) electronically.

The decision also includes cancelling the provision of 55 JCD services by conventional paper works and to be provided only online.

The council also approved the outcomes of the study to restructure the governmental body.

The outcomes proposed activating the Higher Health Council, cancelling the independence of the Vocational and Technical Employment Training Fund transferring its functions to the Employment and Development Fund, and activating the National ICT Centre.

The government has cancelled the National Fund to Support Sports and the Scientific Support Fund.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Hydro Flat Rate sets a single electricity rate at 12.8 cents per kWh, replacing time-of-use pricing for Ontario ratepayers, affecting hydro bills this summer, alongside COVID-19 Energy Assistance Program support.

Key Points

A fixed 12.8 cents per kWh electricity price replacing time-of-use rates across Ontario from June to November.

✅ Single rate applies 24/7, replacing time-of-use pricing

✅ May slightly raise bills versus pre-pandemic usage patterns

✅ COVID-19 aid offers one-time credits for households, small firms

A new provincial COVID-19 measure, including a fixed COVID-19 hydro rate designed to give Ontario ratepayers "stability" on their hydro bills this summer, could result in slightly higher hydro costs over the next four months.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford's government announced over the weekend that consumers would be charged a single around-the-clock electricity rate between June and November, before a Nov. 1 rate increase takes effect, replacing the much-derided time-of-use model ratepayers have complained about for years.

Instead of being charged between 10 to 20 cents per kilowatt hour, depending on the time of day electricity is used, including ultra-low TOU rates during off-peak hours, hydro users will be charged a blanket rate of 12.8 cents per kWh.

"The new rate will simply show up on your bill," Premier Doug Ford said at a Monday afternoon news conference.

While the government said the new fixed rate would give customers "greater flexibility" to use their home appliances without having to wait for the cheapest rate -- and has tabled legislation to lower rates as part of its broader plan -- the new policy also effectively erases a pandemic-related hydro discount for millions of consumers.

For example, a pre-pandemic bill of $59.90 with time-of-use rates, will now cost $60.28 with the government's new recovery rate, as fixed pricing ends across the province, before delivery charges, rebates and taxes.

That same bill would have been much cheaper -- $47.57 -- if the government continued applying the lowest tier of time-of-use 24/7 under an off-peak price freeze as it had been doing since March 24.

The government also introduced support for electric bills with two new assistance programs to help customers struggling to pay their bills.

The COVID-19 Energy Assistance Program will provide a one-time payment consumers to help pay off electricity debt incurred during the pandemic -- which will cost the government $9 million.

The government will spend another $8 million to provide similar assistance to small businesses hit hard by the pandemic.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Duck Curve highlights midday solar oversupply and steep evening peak demand, stressing grid stability. Solutions include battery storage, demand response, diverse renewables like wind, geothermal, nuclear, and regional integration to reduce curtailment.

Key Points

A mismatch between midday solar surplus and evening demand spikes, straining the grid without storage and flexibility.

✅ Midday solar oversupply forces curtailment and wasted clean energy.

✅ Evening ramps require fast, fossil peaker plants to stabilize load.

✅ Batteries, demand response, regional trading flatten the curve.

California's remarkable success in adopting solar power, including a near-100% renewable milestone, has created a unique challenge: managing the infamous "duck curve." This distinctive curve illustrates a growing mismatch between solar electricity generation and the state's energy demands, creating potential problems for grid stability and ultimately threatening to slow California's progress in the fight against climate change.

The Shape of the Problem

The duck curve arises from a combination of high solar energy production during midday hours and surging energy demand in the late afternoon and evening when solar power declines. During peak solar hours, the grid often has an overabundance of electricity, and curtailments are increasing as a result, while as the sun sets, demand surges when people return home and businesses ramp up operations. California's energy grid operators must scramble to make up this difference, often relying on fast-acting but less environmentally friendly power sources.

The Consequences of the Duck Curve

The increasing severity of the duck curve has several potential consequences for California:

• Grid Strain: The rapid ramp-up of power sources to meet evening demand puts significant strain on the electrical grid. This can lead to higher operational costs and potentially increase the risk of blackouts during peak demand times.
• Curtailed Energy: To avoid overloading the grid, operators may sometimes have to curtail excess solar energy during midday, as rising curtailment reports indicate, essentially wasting clean electricity that could have been used to displace fossil fuel generation.
• Obstacle to More Solar: The duck curve can make it harder to add new solar capacity, as seen in Alberta's solar expansion challenges, for fear of further destabilizing the grid and increasing the need for fossil fuel-based peaking plants.

Addressing the Challenge

California is actively seeking solutions to mitigate the duck curve, aligning with national decarbonization pathways that emphasize practicality. Potential strategies include:

• Energy Storage: Deploying large-scale battery storage can help soak up excess solar electricity during the day and release it later when demand peaks, smoothing out the duck curve.
• Demand Flexibility: Encouraging consumers to shift their energy use to off-peak hours through incentives and smart grid technologies can help reduce late-afternoon surges in demand.
• Diverse Power Sources: While solar is crucial, a balanced mix of energy sources, including geothermal, wind, and nuclear, can improve grid stability and reduce reliance on rapid-response fossil fuel plants.
• Regional Cooperation: Integrating California's grid with neighboring states can aid in balancing energy supply and demand across a wider geographical area.

The Ongoing Solar Debate

The duck curve has become a central point of debate about the future of California's energy landscape. While acknowledging the challenge, solar advocates argue for continued expansion, backed by measures like a bill to require solar on new buildings, emphasizing the urgent need to transition away from fossil fuels. Grid operators and some utility companies call for a more cautious approach, emphasizing grid reliability and potential costs if the problem isn't effectively managed.

Balancing California's Needs and its Green Ambitions

Finding the right path forward is essential; it will determine whether California can continue to lead the way in solar energy adoption while ensuring a reliable and affordable electricity supply. Successfully navigating the duck curve will require innovation, collaboration, and a strong commitment to building a sustainable energy system, as wildfire smoke impacts on solar continue to challenge generation predictability.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Solar ITC Impact on U.S. Wind frames how a 30% solar investment tax credit could undercut wind PTC economics, shift corporate procurement, and, without transmission and storage, slow onshore builds despite offshore wind momentum.

Key Points

It is how a solar ITC extension may curb U.S. wind growth absent PTC parity, transmission, storage, and offshore backing.

✅ ITC at 30% risks shifting corporate procurement to solar.

✅ Post-PTC wind faces grid, transmission, and curtailment headwinds.

✅ Offshore wind, storage pairing, TOU demand could offset.

The booming U.S. wind industry, amid a wind power surge, faces an uncertain future in the 2020s. Few factors are more important than the fate of the solar ITC.

An extension of the solar investment tax credit (ITC) at its 30 percent value would be “devastating” to the future U.S. wind market, according to a new Wood Mackenzie report.

The U.S. is on track to add a record 14.6 gigawatts of new wind capacity in 2020, despite Covid-19 impacts, and nearly 39 gigawatts during a three-year installation boom from 2019 to 2021, according to Wood Mackenzie’s 2019 North America Wind Power Outlook.

But the market’s trajectory begins to look highly uncertain from the early 2020s onward, and solar is one of the main reasons why.

Since the dawn of the modern American renewables market, the wind and solar sectors have largely been allies on the national stage, benefiting from many of the same favorable government plans and sharing big-picture goals. Until recently, wind and solar companies rarely found themselves in direct competition.

But the picture is changing as solar catches up to wind on cost and the grid penetration of renewables surges. What was once a vague alliance between the two fastest growing renewables technologies could morph into a serious rivalry.

While many project developers are now active in both sectors, including NextEra Energy Resources, Invenergy and EDF, the country’s thriving base of wind manufacturers could face tougher days ahead.

The ITC's inherent advantage

At this point, wind remains solar’s bigger sibling in many ways.

The U.S. has nearly 100 gigawatts of installed wind capacity today, compared to around 67 gigawatts of solar. With their substantially higher capacity factors, wind farms generated four times more power for the U.S. grid last year than utility-scale solar plants, for a combined wind-solar share of 8.2 percent, according to government figures, even as renewables are projected to reach one-fourth of U.S. electricity generation. (Distributed PV systems further add to solar’s contribution.)

But it's long been clear that wind would lose its edge at some point. The annual solar market now regularly tops wind. The cost of solar energy is falling more rapidly, and appears to have more runway for further reduction. Solar’s inherent generation pattern is more valuable in many markets, delivering power during peak-demand hours, while the wind often blows strongest at night.

And then there’s the matter of the solar ITC.

In 2015, both wind and solar secured historic multi-year extensions to their main federal subsidies. The extensions gave both industries the longest period of policy clarity they’ve ever enjoyed, setting in motion a tidal wave of installations set to crest over the next few years.

Even back in 2015, however, it was clear that solar got the better deal in Washington, D.C.

While the wind production tax credit (PTC) began phasing down for new projects almost immediately, solar developers were given until the end of 2019 to qualify projects for the full ITC.

And critically, while the wind PTC drops to nothing after its sunset, commercially owned solar projects will remain eligible for a 10 percent ITC forever, based on the existing legislation. Over time, that amounts to a huge advantage for solar.

In another twist, the solar industry is now openly fighting for an extension of the 30 percent ITC, while the wind industry seemingly remains cooler on the prospect of pushing for a similar prolongation — having said the current PTC extension would be the last.

Plenty of tailwinds, too

Wood Mackenzie's report catalogues multiple factors that could work for or against the wind market in the "uncharted" post-PTC years, many of them, including the Covid-19 crisis, beyond the industry’s direct control.

If things go well, annual installations could bounce back to near-record levels by 2027 after a mid-decade contraction, the report says. But if they go badly, installations could remain depressed at 4 gigawatts or below from 2022 through most of the coming decade, and that includes an anticipated uplift from the offshore market.

An extension of the solar ITC without additional wind support would “severely compound” the wind market’s struggle to rebound in the 2020s, the report says. The already-evident shift in corporate renewables procurement from wind to solar could intensify dramatically.

The other big challenge for wind in the 2020s is the lack of progress on transmission infrastructure that would connect potentially massive low-cost wind farms in interior states with bigger population centers. A hoped-for national infrastructure package that might address the issue has not materialized.

Even so, many in the wind business remain cautiously optimistic about the post-PTC years, with a wind jobs forecast bolstering sentiment, and developers continue to build out longer-term project pipelines.

Turbine technology continues to improve. And an extension of the solar ITC is far from assured.

Other factors that could work in wind’s favor in the years ahead include:

The nascent offshore sector, which despite lingering regulatory uncertainty at the federal level looks set to blossom into a multi-gigawatt annual market by the mid-2020s, in line with an offshore wind forecast that highlights substantial growth potential. Lobbying efforts for an offshore wind ITC extension are gearing up, offering a potential area for cooperation between wind and solar.

The potential linkage of policy support for energy storage to wind projects, building on the current linkage with solar.

Growing electric vehicle sales and a shift toward time-of-use retail electricity billing, which could boost power demand during off-peak hours when wind generation is strong.

The land-use advantages wind farms have over solar in some agricultural regions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy 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