Efforts expanded to support EVs, charging stations

Germany's Joint Onshore Wind and Solar Tender invites 200 MW bids in an EEG auction, with PV and onshore wind competing on price per MWh, including grid integration costs and network fees under BNA rules.

Key Points

A BNA-run 200 MW EEG auction where PV and onshore wind compete on price per MWh, including grid integration costs.

✅ 200 MW cap; minimum project size 750 kW

✅ Max subsidy 87.50 per MWh; bids include network costs

✅ Solar capped at 10-20 MW; wind requires prior approval

Germany's Federal Network Agency (BNA) has launched its second joint onshore wind and solar photovoltaic (PV) tender, with a total capacity of 200 MW.

A maximum guaranteed subsidy payment has been set at 87.50 per MWh for both energy sources, which BNA says will have to compete against each other for the lowest price of electricity. According to auction rules, all projects must have a minimum of 750 kW.

The auction is due to be completed on 2 November.

The network regulator has capped solar projects at 10 MW, though this has been extended to 20 MW in some districts, amid calls to remove barriers to PV at the federal level. Onshore wind projects did not receive any such restrictions, though they require approval from Federal Immission Control three weeks prior to the bid date of 11 Octobe

Bids also require network and system integration costs to be included, and similar solicitations have been heavily subscribed, as an over-subscribed Duke Energy solar solicitation in the US market illustrates.

According to Germanys Renewable Energy Act (EEG), two joint onshore wind and solar auctions must take place each year between 2018 and 2021. After this, the government will review the scheme and decide whether to continue it beyond 2021.

The first tender, conducted in April, saw the entire 200 MW capacity given to solar PV projects, reflecting a broader solar power boost in Germany during the energy crisis. Of the 32 contracts awarded, value varied from 39.60 per MWh to 57.60 per MWh. Among the winning bids were five projects in agricultural and grassland sites in Bavaria, totalling 31 MW, and three in Baden-Wrttemberg at 17 MW.

According to the Agency, the joint tender scheme was initiated in an attempt to determine the financial support requirements for wind and solar in technology-specific auctions, however, solar powers sole win in the April auction meant it was met with criticism, even as clean energy accounts for 50% of Germany's electricity today.

The heads of the Federal Solar Industry Association (BSW-Solar) and German Wind Energy Association (BWE) saying the joint tender scheme is unsuitable for the build-out of the two technologies.

A BWE spokesman previously stressed the companys rejection of competition between wind and solar, saying: It is not clear how this could contribute to an economically meaningful balanced energy mix,

Technologies that are in various stages of development must not enter into direct competition with each other. Otherwise, innovation and development potential will be compromised.

Similarly, BSW-Solar president Carsten Krnig said: We are happy for the many solar winners, but consider the experiment a failure. The auction results prove the excellent price-performance ratio of new solar power plants, as solar-plus-storage is cheaper than conventional power in Germany, but not the suitability of joint tenders.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

BPA Privatization would sell the Bonneville Power Administration's transmission lines, raising FERC-regulated grid rates for ratepayers, impacting hydropower and the California-Oregon Intertie under the Trump 2018 budget proposal in the Pacific Northwest region.

Key Points

Selling Bonneville's transmission grid to private owners, raising rates and returns, shifting costs to ratepayers.

✅ Trump 2018 budget targets BPA transmission assets for sale.

✅ Higher capital costs, taxes, and profit would raise transmission rates.

✅ California-Oregon Intertie and hydropower flows face price impacts.

President Trump's 2018 budget proposal is so chock-full of noxious elements — replacing food stamps with "food boxes," drastically cutting Medicaid and Medicare, for a start — that it's unsurprising that one of its most misguided pieces has slipped under the radar.

That's the proposal to privatize the government-owned Bonneville Power Administration, which owns about three-quarters of the high-voltage electric transmission lines in a region that includes California, Washington state and Oregon, serving more than 13.5 million customers. By one authoritative estimate, any such sale would drive up the cost of transmission by 26%-44%.

The $5.2-billon price cited by the Trump administration, moreover, is nearly 20% below the actual value of the Bonneville grid — meaning that a private buyer would pocket an immediate windfall of $1.2 billion, at the expense of federal taxpayers and Bonneville customers.

Trump's plan for Portland, Ore.-based Bonneville is part of a larger proposal to sell off other government-owned electricity bodies, including the Colorado-based Western Area Power Administration and the Oklahoma-based Southwestern Power Administration. But Bonneville is by far the largest of the three, accounting for nearly 90% of the total $5.8 billion the budget anticipates collecting from the sales. The proposal is also part of the administration's

Both plans are said to be politically dead-on-arrival in Washington. But they offer a window into the thinking in the Trump White House.

"The word 'muddle' comes to mind," says Robert McCullough, a respected Portland energy consultant, referring to the justification for the privatization sale included in the Trump budget.

The White House suggests that selling the Bonneville grid would result in lower costs. But that narrative, McCullough wrote in a blistering assessment of the proposal, "displays a severe lack of understanding about the process of setting transmission rates."

McCullough's assessment is an update of a similar analysis he performed when the privatization scheme was first raised by the Trump administration last year. In that analysis issued in June, McCullough said the proposal "raises the question of why these valuable assets would be sold at a discount — and who would get the benefit of the discounted price."

The implications of a sale could be dire for Californians. Bonneville is the majority owner of the California-Oregon Intertie, an electrical transmission system that carries power, including Columbia River-generated hydropower and other clean-energy generation in British Columbia that supports the regional exchange, south to California in the summer and excess California generation to the Pacific Northwest in the winter.

But the idea has drawn fire throughout the region. When it was first broached last year, the Public Power Council, an association of utilities in the Northwest, assailed it as an apparent "transfer of value from the people of the Northwest to the U.S. Treasury," drawing parallels to Manitoba Hydro governance issues elsewhere.

The region's political leaders had especially harsh words for the idea this time around. "Oregonians raised hell last year when Trump tried to raise power bills for Pacific Northwesterners by selling off Bonneville Power, and yet his administration is back at it again," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said after the idea reappeared. "Our investment shouldn't be put up for sale to free up money for runaway military spending or tax cuts for billionaires." Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) promised in a statement to work to "stop this bad idea in its tracks."

The notion of privatizing Bonneville predates the Trump administration; it was raised by Bill Clinton and again by George W. Bush, who thought the public would gain if the administration could sell its power at market rates. Both initiatives failed.

The same free-enterprise ideology underlies the Trump proposal. Privatizing the transmission lines "encourages a more efficient allocation of economic resources and mitigates unnecessary risk to taxpayers," the budget asserts. "Ownership of transmission assets is best carried out by the private sector where there are appropriate market and regulatory incentives."

But that's based on a misunderstanding of how transmission rates are set, McCullough says. Transmission is essentially a monopoly enterprise, with rates overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission based on the grid's costs, and with federal scrutiny of public utilities such as the TVA underscoring that oversight. There's very little in the way of market "incentives" involved in transmission, since no one has come forward to build a competing grid.

Those include the owners' cost of capital — which would be much higher for a private owner than a government agency, McCullough observes, as Hydro One investor uncertainty demonstrates in practice. A private owner, unlike the government-owned Bonneville, also would owe federal income taxes, which would be passed on to consumers.

Then there's the profit motive. Bonneville "currently sells and delivers its power at cost," McCullough wrote last year. "Under a private regime, an investor-owned utility would likely charge a higher rate of return, a pattern seen when UK network profits drew regulatory rebukes."

None of these considerations appears to have been factored into the White House budget proposal. "Either there's an unsophisticated person at the Office of Management and Budget thinking up these numbers himself," McCullough told me, "or there would seem to be ongoing negotiations with an unidentified third party." No such buyer has emerged in the past, however.

What's left is a blind faith in the magic of the market, compounded by ignorance about how the transmission market operates. Put it together, and there's reason to wonder if Trump is even serious about this plan.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Floating Rotating Eco Hotel harnesses renewable energy via VAWTAU, recycles rainwater for greywater, and follows zero-waste principles. This mobile, off-grid, Qatar-based resort generates electricity by slow 360-degree rotation while offering luxury amenities.

Key Points

A mobile, off-grid hotel that rotates to generate power, uses VAWTAU, recycles greywater, and targets zero-waste.

✅ Rotates 360 deg in 24 hours to produce electricity

✅ VAWTAU system: vertical-axis turbine and sun umbrella

✅ Rain capture and greywater recycling minimize waste

A new eco-friendly, floating hotel plans to generate its own electricity by rotating while guests relax on board, echoing developments like the solar Marriott hotel in sustainable hospitality.

Led by Hayri Atak Architectural Design Studio (HAADS), the structure will be completely mobile, meaning it can float from place to place, never sitting in a permanent position. Building began in March 2020 and the architects aim for it to be up and running by 2025.

It will be based in Qatar, but has the potential to be located in different areas due to its mobility, and it sits within a region advancing projects such as solar hydrogen production that signal a broader clean-energy shift.

The design includes minimum energy loss and a zero waste principle at its core, aligning with progress in wave energy research that aims to power a clean future. As it will rotate around all day long, this will generate electrical energy to power the whole hotel.

But guests won’t feel too dizzy, as it takes 24 hours for the hotel to spin 360 degrees.

The floating hotel will stay within areas with continuous currents, to ensure that it is always rotating, drawing on ideas from ocean and river power systems that exploit natural flows. This type of green energy production is called ‘vawtau’ (vertical axis wind turbine and umbrella) which works like a wind turbine on the vertical axis, while alternative approaches like kite-based wind energy target stronger, high-altitude currents as well, and functions as a sun umbrella on the coastal band.

Beyond marine-current concepts such as underwater kites, the structure will also make use of rainwater to create power. A cover on the top of the hotel will collect rain to be used for greywater recycling. This is when wastewater is plumbed straight back into toilets, washing machines or outside taps to maximise efficiency.

The whole surface area is around 35,000 m², comparable in scale to emerging floating solar plants that demonstrate modular, water-based infrastructure, and there are a total of 152 rooms. It will have three different entrances so that there is access to the land at any time of the day, thanks to the 140-degree pier that surrounds it.

There will also be indoor and outdoor swimming pools, a sauna, spa, gym, mini golf course and other activity areas.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

CAISO Clean Energy Transition outlines California's path to 100% carbon-free power by 2045, scaling renewables, battery storage, and offshore wind while safeguarding grid reliability, managing natural gas, and leveraging Western markets like EDAM.

Key Points

CAISO Clean Energy Transition is the plan to reach 100% carbon-free power by 2045 while maintaining grid reliability.

✅ Target: add 7 GW/year to reach 120 GW capacity by 2045

✅ Battery storage up 30x; smooths intermittent solar and wind

✅ EDAM and WEIM enhance imports, savings, and reliability

Mark Rothleder, Chief Operating Officer and Senior Vice President at the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), which manages roughly 80% of California’s electric grid, has expressed cautious optimism about meeting the state's ambitious clean energy targets while keeping the lights on across the grid. However, he acknowledges that this journey will not be without its challenges.

California aims to transition its power system to 100% carbon-free sources by 2045, ensuring a reliable electricity supply at reasonable costs for consumers. Rothleder, aware of the task's enormity, likens it to a complex car repair performed while the vehicle is in motion.

Recent achievements have demonstrated California's ability to temporarily sustain its grid using clean energy sources. According to Rothleder, the real challenge lies in maintaining this performance round the clock, every day of the year.

Adding thousands of megawatts of renewable energy into California’s existing 50-gigawatt system, which needs to expand to 120 gigawatts to meet the 2045 goal, poses a significant challenge, though recent grid upgrade funding offers some support for needed infrastructure. CAISO estimates that an addition of 7 gigawatts of clean power per year for the next two decades is necessary, all while ensuring uninterrupted power delivery.

While natural gas currently constitutes California's largest single source of power, Rothleder notes the need to gradually decrease reliance on it, even as it remains an operational necessity in the transition phase.

In 2023, CAISO added 5,660 megawatts of new power to the grid, with plans to integrate over 1,100 additional megawatts in the next six to eight months of 2024. Battery storage, crucial for mitigating the intermittent nature of wind and solar power, has seen substantial growth as California turns to batteries for grid support, increasing 30-fold in three years.

Rothleder emphasizes that electricity reliability is paramount, as consumers always expect power availability. He also highlights the potential of offshore wind projects to significantly contribute to California's power mix by 2045.

The offshore wind industry faces financial and supply chain challenges despite these plans. CAISO’s 20-year outlook indicates a significant increase in utility-scale solar, requiring extensive land use and wider deployment of advanced inverters for grid stability.

Addressing affordability is vital, especially as California residents face increasing utility bills. Rothleder suggests a broader energy cost perspective, encompassing utility and transportation expenses.

Despite smooth grid operations in 2023, challenges in previous years, including extreme weather-induced power outages driven by climate change, underscore the need for a robust, adaptable grid. California imports about a quarter of its power from neighbouring states and participates in the Western Energy Imbalance Market, which has yielded significant savings.

CAISO is also working on establishing an extended day-ahead electricity market (EDAM) to enhance the current energy market's success, building on insights from a Western grid integration report that supports expanded coordination.

Rothleder believes that a thoughtfully designed, diverse power system can offer greater reliability and resilience in the long run. A future grid reliant on multiple, smaller power sources such as microgrids could better absorb potential losses, ensuring a more reliable electricity supply for California.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

NY & NJ Utility Shutoff Moratorium suspends power, heat, and water disconnections amid COVID-19, as PSEG, Con Edison, Avangrid, and American Water pledge relief, supporting vulnerable customers with payment plans and health protections.

Key Points

A temporary pause on power, heat, and water shutoffs during COVID-19, as major utilities act to protect affected customers.

✅ Applies to power, gas, and water; restores prior shutoffs.

✅ Voluntary utility action; no PSC order required in NY.

✅ Initial moratorium runs through April; payment plans available.

New Jersey and New York utilities will keep the power, heat and water on for all customers in response to the coronavirus emergency, both states announced Friday.

Major utilities have agreed to suspend utility shut-offs, a particular concern for people who may be out of work and cannot afford to pay their bills.

“No utility can turn off service … if a person cannot pay their bill as a result of responding to this virus situation,” said New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo during a press conference Friday.

Utilities in New York have voluntarily agreed to this measure, according to the governor’s office, reflecting a broader state moratorium on disconnections during emergencies. No order from the Public Service Commission is expected.

With growing concerns about the economic impacts of a virtual shutdown of businesses and large events to curtail the spread of the novel coronavirus, advocates are increasingly pushing financial relief for families amid pandemic energy insecurity pressures. There’s a campaign in New York to suspend evictions and foreclosures, with growing political support. A similar call has gone out in New Jersey.

As the weather warms, shut-offs of electric and gas service due to nonpayment tend to pick up. If people are quarantined or out of work due to a widespread economic slowdown, some advocates say they shouldn’t have to worry about having the lights or heat turned off, especially as examples of unpaid utility bills straining cities have emerged elsewhere.

“We recognize that customers may experience financial difficulty as a result of the outbreak, whether they or a family member fall ill, are required to quarantine, or because their income is otherwise affected,” said Michael Jennings, a spokesperson for Public Service Enterprise Group — the parent company of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, New Jersey’s largest utility — in a statement.

The company’s policy will be in place at least through the end of April, as will Atlantic City Electric’s, and other utilities such as PG&E's pandemic response included a similar moratorium during the outbreak.

“Curtailing shut-offs is good public policy to make sure New Jersey residents aren’t left in the lurch as they’re dealing with coronavirus,” said Eric Miller, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s New Jersey energy policy program. “Not having a safe place to be because you don't have electricity, gas or water doesn’t do anything to help address the coronavirus.”

Water service has also drawn attention. Major cities, including Atlanta and Detroit, have suspended shut-offs to ensure residents have water to wash their hands, while Texas utilities waived fees to support customers as well. Seattle suspended water and electric shutoffs.

American Water, which operates in 16 states and has 650,000 customers in New Jersey and 350,000 in New York, has halted any shutoffs amid the coronavirus pandemic and will also restore service, and similarly Hydro One reconnected customers in Canada to maintain access. New York City does not shut off service for nonpayment, but does issue liens against people’s property.

“Everyone, regardless as to what industry, has to have a heightened responsibility that’s encompassed in compassion and take everything into consideration,” New Jersey state Sen. Teresa Ruiz (D-Essex) told POLITICO. “Now is not the time to be worrying about late payments or bills. We need to get past this, hopefully, to see what we’re facing and then deal with other things.”

PSEG Long Island, a subsidiary of PSEG that handles day-to-day operations for the Long Island Power Authority, was the first New York utility to announce it is also suspending shutoffs before the governor’s announcement. The moratorium will remain in place through the end of April.

Rich Berkley, with the Public Utility Law Project, which advocates for low-income customers in New York, said he’s been in touch with state officials to make sure the issue of utility bills is considered during the pandemic. New York already has requirements for utilities to offer deferred payment agreements before shutting off service, he noted.

“The state has to act to protect the most vulnerable households first,” he said. “To the extent that the state is declaring areas of emergency, this should be part of the remedies the state deploys.”

But he noted that not everyone will have trouble paying their utility bills if they’re under quarantine.

“Given the background of a collapsing stock and equity market, all of which matters to the utilities, and shifts in electricity demand during COVID-19, we have to be careful about blanket moratoriums [on shutoffs] in New York,” Berkley said.

Con Edison, the largest utility in the state serving most of New York City, had already informed the Department of Public Service it will suspend all shut-offs in the one-mile radius New Rochelle containment area, spokesperson Michael Clendenin said on Thursday. The moratorium on shutoffs now includes its entire New York City and Westchester County territory.

Avangrid, which owns New York State Electric & Gas and Rochester Gas & Electric, serving broad swathes of upstate New York, will suspend shut-offs due to unpaid bills for 30 days, spokesperson Michael Jamison said.

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