Deal signed for Chernobyl shelter

Cloud Data Centers Environmental Impact highlights massive electricity use, carbon emissions, and cooling demands, with coal-heavy grids in China; big tech shifts to renewable energy, green data centers, and cooler climates to boost sustainability.

Key Points

Energy use, emissions, and cooling load of cloud systems, and shifts to renewables to reduce climate impact.

✅ Global data centers use 3-5% of electricity, akin to airlines

✅ Cooling drives energy demand; siting in cool climates saves power

✅ Shift from coal to renewables lowers CO2 and improves PUE

A hidden environmental price makes storing data in the cloud a costly convenience.

Between 3 to 5% of all electricity used globally comes from data centers that house massive computer systems, with computing power forecasts warning consumption could climb, an amount comparable to the airline industry, says Ben Brock Johnson, Here & Now’s tech analyst.

Instead of stashing information locally on our own personal devices, the cloud allows users to free up storage space by sending photos and files to data centers via the internet.

The cloud can also use large data sets to solve problems and host innovative technologies that make cities and homes smarter, but storing information at data centers uses energy — a lot of it.

"Ironically, the phrase 'moving everything to the cloud' is a problem for our actual climate right now," Johnson says.

A new study from Greenpeace and North China Electric Power University reports that in five years, China's data centers alone will consume as much power as the total amount used in Australia in 2018. The industry's electricity consumption is set to increase by 66% over that time.

Buildings storing data produced 99 million metric tons of carbon last year in China, the study finds, with SF6 in electrical equipment compounding warming impacts, which is equivalent to 21 million cars.

The amount of electricity required to run a data center is a global problem, but in China, 73% of these data centers run on coal, even as coal-fired electricity is projected to fall globally this year.

The Chinese government started a pilot program for green data centers in 2015, which Johnson says signals the country is thinking about the environmental consequences of the cloud.

"Beijing’s environmental awareness in the last decade has really come from a visible impact of its reliance on fossil fuels," he says. "The smog of Chinese cities is now legendary and super dangerous."

The country's solar power innovations have allowed the country to surpass the U.S. in cleantech, he says.

Chinese conglomerate Alibaba Group has launched data centers powered by solar and hydroelectric power.

"While I don't know how committed the government is necessarily to making data centers run on clean technology," Johnson says. "I do think it is possible that a larger evolution of the government's feelings on environmental responsibility might impact this newer tech sector."

In the U.S., there has been a big push to make data centers more sustainable amid warnings that the electric grid is not designed for mounting climate impacts.

Canada has made notable progress decarbonizing power, with nationwide electricity gains supporting cleaner data workloads.

Apple now says all of its data centers use clean energy. Microsoft is aiming for 70% renewable energy by 2023, aligning with declining power-sector emissions as producers move away from coal.

Amazon is behind the curve, for once, with about 50%, Johnson says. Around 1,000 employees are planning to walk out on Sept. 20 in protest of the company’s failure to address environmental issues.

"Environmental responsibility fits the brand identities these companies want to project," he says. "And as large tech companies become more competitive with each other, as Apple becomes more of a service company and Google becomes a device company, they want to convince users more and more to think of them as somehow different even if they aren't."

Google and Facebook are talking about building data centers in cooler places like Finland and Sweden instead of hot deserts like Nevada, he says.

In Canada, cleaning up electricity is critical to meeting climate pledges, according to recent analysis.

Computer systems heat up and need to be cooled down by air conditioning units, so putting a data center in a warm climate will require greater cooling efforts and use more energy.

In China, 40% of the electricity used at data centers goes toward cooling equipment, according to the study.

The more data centers consolidate, Johnson says they can rely on fewer servers and focus on larger cooling efforts.

But storing data in the cloud isn't the only way tech users are unknowingly using large amounts of energy: One Google search requires an amount of electricity equivalent to powering a 60-watt light bulb for 17 seconds, magazine Yale Environment 360 reports.

"In some ways, we're making strides even as we are creating a bigger problem," he says. "Which is like, humanity's MO, I guess."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

US Power Grid Cyberattacks target utilities and nuclear plants, probing SCADA, ICS, and business networks at sites like Wolf Creek; suspected Russian actors, malware, and spear-phishing trigger DHS and FBI alerts on critical infrastructure resilience.

Key Points

Intrusions on energy networks probing ICS and SCADA, seeking persistence and elevating risks to critical infrastructure.

✅ Wolf Creek nuclear plant targeted; no operational systems breached

✅ Attackers leveraged stolen credentials, malware, and spear-phishing

✅ DHS and FBI issued alerts; utilities enhance cyber resilience

Hackers working for a foreign government recently breached at least a dozen US power plants, including the Wolf Creek nuclear facility in Kansas, according to current and former US officials, sparking concerns the attackers were searching for vulnerabilities in the electrical grid.

The rivals could be positioning themselves to eventually disrupt the nation’s power supply, warned the officials, who noted that a general alert, prompting a renewed focus on protecting the U.S. power grid, was distributed to utilities a week ago. Adding to those concerns, hackers recently infiltrated an unidentified company that makes control systems for equipment used in the power industry, an attack that officials believe may be related.

The chief suspect is Russia, according to three people familiar with the continuing effort to eject the hackers from the computer networks. One of those networks belongs to an ageing nuclear generating facility known as Wolf Creek -- owned by Westar Energy Inc, Great Plains Energy Inc, and Kansas Electric Power Cooperative Inc -- on a lake shore near Burlington, Kansas.

The possibility of a Russia connection is particularly worrying, former and current official s say, because Russian hackers have previously taken down parts of the electrical grid in Ukraine and appear to be testing increasingly advanced tools, including cyber weapons to disrupt power grids, to disrupt power supplies.

The hacks come as international tensions have flared over US intelligence agencies’ conclusion that Russia tried to influence the 2016 presidential election, and amid U.S. government condemnation of Russian power-grid hacking in recent advisories. The US, which has several continuing investigations into Russia’s activities, is known to possess digital weapons capable of disrupting the electricity grids of rival nations.

“We don’t pay attention to such anonymous fakes,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, in response to a request to comment on alleged Russian involvement.

It was unclear whether President Donald Trump was planning to address the cyber attacks at his meeting on Friday with Russian President Vladimir Putin. In an earlier speech in Warsaw, Trump called out Russia’s “destabilising activities” and urged the country to join “the community of responsible nations.”

The Department of Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of Investigation said they are aware of a potential intrusion in the energy sector. The alert issued to utilities cited activities by hackers since May.

“There is no indication of a threat to public safety, as any potential impact appears to be limited to administrative and business networks,” the government agencies said in a joint statement.

The Department of Energy also said the impact appears limited to administrative and business networks and said it was working with utilities and grid operators to enhance security and resilience.

“Regardless of whether malicious actors attempt to exploit business networks or operational systems, we take any reports of malicious cyber activity potentially targeting our nation’s energy infrastructure seriously and respond accordingly,” the department said in an emailed statement.

Representatives of the National Security Council, the Director of National Intelligence and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission declined to comment. While Bloomberg News was waiting for responses from the government, the New York Times reported that hacks were targeting nuclear power stations.

The North American Electric Reliability Corp, a nonprofit that works to ensure the reliability of the continent’s power system, said it was aware of the incident and was exchanging information with the industry through a secure portal.

“At this time, there has been no bulk power system impact in North America,” the corporation said in an emailed statement.

In addition, the operational controls at Wolf Creek were not pierced, according to government officials, even as attackers accessed utility control rooms elsewhere in the U.S., according to separate reports. “There was absolutely no operational impact to Wolf Creek,” Jenny Hageman, a spokeswoman for the nuclear plant, said in a statement to Bloomberg News.

“The reason that is true is because the operational computer systems are completely separate from the corporate network.”

Determining who is behind an attack can be tricky. Government officials look at the sophistication of the tools, among other key markers, when gauging whether a foreign government is sponsoring cyber activities.

Several private security firms, including Symantec researchers, are studying data on the attacks, but none has linked the work to a particular hacking team or country.

“We don’t tie this to any known group at this point,” said Sean McBride, a lead analyst for FireEye Inc, a global cyber security firm. “It’s not to say it’s not related, but we don’t have the evidence at this point.”

US intelligence officials have long been concerned about the security of the country’s electrical grid. The recent attack, striking almost simultaneously at multiple locations, is testing the government’s ability to coordinate an effective response among several private utilities, state and local officials, and industry regulators.

Specialised teams from Homeland Security and the FBI have been scrambled to help extricate the hackers from the power stations, in some cases without informing local and state officials. Meanwhile, the US National Security Agency is working to confirm the identity of the hackers, who are said to be using computer servers in Germany, Italy, Malaysia and Turkey to cover their tracks.

Many of the power plants are conventional, but the targeting of a nuclear facility adds to the pressure. While the core of a nuclear generator is heavily protected, a sudden shutdown of the turbine can trigger safety systems. These safety devices are designed to disperse excess heat while the nuclear reaction is halted, but the safety systems themselves may be vulnerable to attack.

Homeland Security and the FBI sent out a general warning about the cyber attack to utilities and related parties on June 28, though it contained few details or the number of plants affected. The government said it was most concerned about the “persistence” of the attacks on choke points of the US power supply. That language suggests hackers are trying to establish backdoors on the plants’ systems for later use, according to a former senior DHS official who asked not to be identified.

Those backdoors can be used to insert software specifically designed to penetrate a facility’s operational controls and disrupt critical systems, according to Galina Antova, co-founder of Claroty, a New York firm that specialises in securing industrial control systems.

“We’re moving to a point where a major attack like this is very, very possible,” Antova said. “Once you’re into the control systems -- and you can get into the control systems by hacking into the plant’s regular computer network -- then the basic security mechanisms you’d expect are simply not there.”

The situation is a little different at nuclear facilities. Backup power supplies and other safeguards at nuclear sites are meant to ensure that “you can’t really cause a nuclear plant to melt down just by taking out the secondary systems that are connected to the grid,” Edwin Lyman, a nuclear expert with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a phone interview.

The operating systems at nuclear plants also tend to be legacy controls built decades ago and don’t have digital control systems that can be exploited by hackers. Wolf Creek, for example, began operations in 1985. “They’re relatively impervious to that kind of attack,” Lyman said.

The alert sent out last week inadvertently identified Wolf Creek as one of the victims of the attack. An analysis of one of the tools used by the hackers had the stolen credentials of a plant employee, a senior engineer. A US official acknowledged the error was not caught until after the alert was distributed.

According to a security researcher who has seen the report, the malware that activated the engineer’s username and password was designed to be used once the hackers were already inside the plant’s computer systems.

The tool tries to connect to non-public computers, and may have been intended to identify systems related to Wolf Creek’s generation plant, a part of the facility typically more modern than the nuclear reactor control room, according to a security expert who asked to note be identified because the alert is not public.

Even if there is no indication that the hackers gained access to those control systems, the design of the malware suggests they may have at least been looking for ways to do so, the expert said.

Stan Luke, the mayor of Burlington, the largest community near Wolf Creek, which is surrounded by corn fields and cattle pastures, said he learned about a cyber threat at the plant only recently, and then only through golfing buddies.

With a population of just 2,700, Burlington boasts a community pool with three water slides and a high school football stadium that would be the envy of any junior college. Luke said those amenities lead back to the tax dollars poured into the community by Wolf Creek, Coffey County’s largest employer with some 1,000 workers, 600 of whom live in the county.

E&E News first reported on digital attacks targeting US nuclear plants, adding it was code-named Nuclear 17. A senior US official told Bloomberg that there was a bigger breach of conventional plants, which could affect multiple regions.

Industry experts and US officials say the attack is being taken seriously, in part because of recent events in Ukraine. Antova said that the Ukrainian power grid has been disrupted at least twice, first in 2015, and then in a more automated attack last year, suggesting the hackers are testing methods.

Scott Aaronson, executive director for security and business continuity at the Edison Electric Institute, an industry trade group, said utilities, grid operators and federal officials were already dissecting the attack on Ukraine’s electric sector to apply lessons in North America before the US government issued the latest warning to “energy and critical manufacturing sectors”. The current threat is unrelated to recently publicised ransomware incidents or the CrashOverride malware, Mr Aaronson said in an emailed statement.

Neither attack in Ukraine caused long-term damage. But with each escalation, the hackers may be gauging the world’s willingness to push back.

“If you think about a typical war, some of the acts that have been taken against critical infrastructure in Ukraine and even in the US, those would be considered crossing red lines,” Antova said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies 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

Indonesia Coal Production Cuts reflect weaker China demand, COVID-19 impacts, falling HBA reference prices, and DMO sales to PLN, pressuring thermal coal output, miner budgets, and investment plans under the 2020 RKAB.

Key Points

Planned 2020 coal output reductions from China demand slump, lower HBA prices, and DMO constraints impacting miners.

✅ China demand drop reduces exports and thermal coal shipments.

✅ HBA reference price decline pressures margins and cash flow.

✅ DMO sales to PLN limit revenue; investment plans may slow.

The Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) Ministry is considering lowering the coal production target this year as demand from China has shown a significant decline, with China power demand drops reported, since the start of the outbreak of the novel coronavirus in the country late last year, a senior ministry official has said.

The ministry’s coal and mineral director general Bambang Gatot Ariyono said in Jakarta on March 12 that the decline in the demand had also caused a sharp drop in coal prices on the world market, and China's plan to reduce coal power has further weighed on sentiment, which could cause the country’s miners to reduce their production.

The 2020 minerals and coal mining program and budget (RKAB) has set a current production goal of 550 million tons of coal, a 10 percent increase from last year’s target. As of March 6, 94.7 million tons of coal had been mined in the country in the year.

“With the existing demand, revision to this year’s production is almost certain,” he said, adding that the drop in demand had also caused a decline in coal prices.

Indonesia’s thermal coal reference price (HBA) fell by 26 percent year-on-year to US$67.08 per metric ton in March, according to a Standards & Poor press release on March 5.  At home, the coal price is also unattractive for local producers. Under the domestic market obligation (DMO) policy, miners are required to sell a quarter of their production to state-owned electricity company PLN at a government-set price, even as imported coal volumes rise in some markets. This year’s coal reference price is $70 per metric ton, far below the internal prices before the coronavirus outbreak hit China.

The ministry’s expert staff member Irwandy Arif said China had reduced its coal demand by 200,000 tons so far, as six of its coal-fired power plants had suspended operation due to the significant drop in electricity demand. Many factories in the country were closed as the government tried to halt the spread of the new coronavirus, which caused the decline in energy demand and created electric power woes for international supply chains.

“At present, all mines in Indonesia are still operating normally, while India is rationing coal supplies amid surging electricity demand. But we have to see what will happen in June,” he said.

The ministry predicted that the low demand would also result in a decline in coal mining investment, as clean energy investment has slipped across many developing nations.

The ministry set a $7.6 billion investment target for the mining sector this year, up from $6.17 billion last year, even as Israel reduces coal use in its power sector, which may influence regional demand. The year’s total investment realization was $192 million as of March 6, or around 2.5 percent of the annual target. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Renewables' Impact on US Wholesale Electricity Prices is clear: DOE analysis shows wind and solar, capacity gains, and natural gas lowering rates, shifting daily patterns, and triggering occasional negative pricing in PJM and ERCOT.

Key Points

DOE data show wind and solar lower wholesale prices, reshape price curves, and cause negative pricing in markets.

✅ Natural gas price declines remain the largest driver of cheaper power

✅ Wind and solar shift seasonal and time-of-day price patterns

✅ Negative wholesale prices appear near high wind and solar output

One of the arguments that's consistently been raised against doing anything about climate change is that it will be expensive. On the more extreme end of the spectrum, there have been dire warnings about plunging standards of living due to skyrocketing electricity prices. The plunging cost of renewables like solar cheaper than gas has largely silenced these warnings, but a new report from the Department of Energy suggests that, even earlier, renewables were actually lowering the price of electricity in the United States.

Plunging prices
The report focuses on wholesale electricity prices in the US. Note that these are distinct from the prices consumers actually pay, which includes taxes, fees, payments to support the grid that delivers the electricity, and so on. It's entirely possible for wholesale electricity prices to drop even as consumers end up paying more, and market reforms determine how those changes are passed through. That said, large changes in the wholesale price should ultimately be passed on to consumers to one degree or another.

The Department of Energy analysis focuses on the decade between 2008 and 2017, and it includes an overall analysis of the US market, as well as large individual grids like PJM and ERCOT and, finally, local prices. The decade saw a couple of important trends: low natural gas prices that fostered a rapid expansion of gas-fired generators and the rapid expansion of renewable generation that occurred concurrently with a tremendous drop in price of wind and solar power.

Much of the electricity generated by renewables in this time period would be more expensive than that generated by wind and solar installed today. Not only have prices for the hardware dropped, but the hardware has improved in ways that provide higher capacity factors, meaning that they generate a greater percentage of the maximum capacity. (These changes include things like larger blades on wind turbines and tracking systems for solar panels.) At the same time, operating wind and solar is essentially free once they're installed, so they can always offer a lower price than competing fossil fuel plants.

With those caveats laid out, what does the analysis show? Almost all of the factors influencing the wholesale electricity price considered in this analysis are essentially neutral. Only three factors have pushed the prices higher: the retirement of some plants, the rising price of coal, and prices put on carbon, which only affect some of the regional grids.

In contrast, the drop in the price of natural gas has had a very large effect on the wholesale power price. Depending on the regional grid, it's driven a drop of anywhere from $7 to $53 per megawatt-hour. It's far and away the largest influence on prices over the past decade.

Regional variation and negative prices
But renewables have had an influence as well. That influence has ranged from roughly neutral to a cost reduction of $2.2 per MWh in California, largely driven by solar. While the impact of renewables was relatively minor, it is the second-largest influence after natural gas prices, and the data shows that wind and solar are reducing prices rather than increasing them.

The reports note that renewables are influencing wholesale prices in other ways, however. The growth of wind and solar caused the pattern of seasonal price changes to shift in areas of high wind and solar, as seen with solar reshaping prices in Northern Europe as daylight hours and wind patterns shift with the seasons. Similarly, renewables have a time-of-day effect for similar reasons, helping explain why the grid isn't 100% renewable today, which also influences the daily timing price changes, something that's not an issue with fossil fuel power.

A map showing the areas where wholesale electricity prices have gone negative, with darker colors indicating increased frequency.
Enlarge / A map showing the areas where wholesale electricity prices have gone negative, with darker colors indicating increased frequency.

US DOE
One striking feature of areas where renewable power is prevalent is that there are occasional cases in which an oversupply of renewable energy produces negative electricity prices in the wholesale market. (In the least-surprising statement in the report, it concludes that "negative prices in high-wind and high-solar regions occurred most frequently in hours with high wind and solar output.") In most areas, these negative prices are rare enough that they don't have a significant influence on the wholesale price.

That's not true everywhere, however. Areas on the Great Plains see fairly frequent negative prices, and they're growing in prevalence in areas like California, the Southwest, and the northern areas of New York and New England, while negative prices in France have been observed in similar conditions. In these areas, negative wholesale prices near solar plants have dropped the overall price by 3%. Near wind plants, that figure is 6%.

None of this is meant to indicate that there are no scenarios where expanded renewable energy could eventually cause wholesale prices to rise. At sufficient levels, the need for storage, backup plants, and grid management could potentially offset their low costs, a dynamic sometimes referred to as clean energy's dirty secret by analysts. But it's clear we have not yet reached that point. And if the prices of renewables continue to drop, then that point could potentially recede fast enough not to matter.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Toronto Hydro Storm Outages continue after strong winds and heavy rain, with crews restoring power, clearing debris and downed lines. Safety alerts and real-time updates guide affected neighborhoods via website and social media.

Key Points

Toronto Hydro Storm Outages are weather-related power cuts; crews restore service safely and share public updates.

✅ Crews prioritize areas with severe damage and limited access

✅ Report downed power lines; keep a safe distance

✅ Check website and social media for restoration updates

In the aftermath of a powerful spring storm that swept through Toronto on Tuesday, approximately 400 customers remain without power as of Sunday. The storm, which brought strong winds and heavy rain that caused severe flooding in some areas, led to significant damage across the city, including downed trees and power lines. Toronto Hydro crews have been working tirelessly to restore service, similar to efforts by Sudbury Hydro crews in Northern Ontario, focusing on areas with the most severe damage. While many customers have had their power restored, the remaining outages are concentrated in neighborhoods where access is challenging due to debris and fallen infrastructure.

Toronto Hydro has assured residents that restoration efforts are ongoing and that they are prioritizing safety and efficiency, in step with recovery from damaging storms in Ontario across the province. The utility company has urged residents to report any downed power lines and to avoid approaching them, as they may still be live and dangerous, and notes that utilities sometimes rely on mutual aid deployments to speed restoration in large-scale events. Additionally, Toronto Hydro has been providing updates through their website and social media channels, keeping the public informed about the status of power restoration in affected areas.

The storm's impact has also led to disruptions in other services, and power outages in London disrupted morning routines for thousands earlier in the week. Some public transportation routes experienced delays due to debris on tracks, and several schools in the affected areas were temporarily closed. City officials are coordinating with various agencies to address these issues and ensure that services return to normal as quickly as possible, even as Quebec contends with widespread power outages after severe windstorms.

Residents are advised to stay updated on the situation through official channels and to exercise caution when traveling in storm-affected areas. Toronto Hydro continues to work diligently to restore power to all customers and appreciates the public's patience during this challenging time, a challenge echoed when Texas utilities struggled to restore power during Hurricane Harvey.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News