Interest in nuclear plants on the rise

Uranium Critical Mineral Reclassification signals a US executive order directing USGS to restore critical status, boosting nuclear energy, domestic uranium mining, streamlined permitting, federal support, and energy security amid import reliance and supply chain risks.

Key Points

A policy relisting uranium as a critical mineral to unlock funding, speed permits, and strengthen U.S. nuclear security.

✅ Directs Interior to have USGS reconsider uranium classification

✅ Speeds permits for domestic uranium mining projects

✅ Targets import dependence and strengthens energy security

In a strategic move to bolster the United States' nuclear energy sector, former President Donald Trump issued an executive order on January 20, 2025, directing the Secretary of the Interior to instruct the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to reconsider classifying uranium as a critical mineral. This directive aims to enhance federal support and streamline permitting processes for domestic uranium projects, thereby strengthening U.S. energy security objectives.

Reclassification of Uranium as a Critical Mineral

The USGS had previously removed uranium from its critical minerals list in 2022, categorizing it as a "fuel mineral" that did not qualify for such designation. The recent executive order seeks to reverse this decision, recognizing uranium's strategic importance in the context of the nation's energy infrastructure and geopolitical considerations.

Implications for Domestic Uranium Production

Reclassifying uranium as a critical mineral is expected to unlock federal funding and expedite the permitting process for uranium mining projects within the United States. This initiative is particularly pertinent given the significant decline in domestic uranium production over the past two decades. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, domestic production has decreased by 96%, from 4.8 million pounds in 2014 to approximately 121,296 pounds in the third quarter of 2024.

Current Uranium Supply Dynamics

Despite the push for increased domestic production, the U.S. remains heavily reliant on uranium imports. In 2022, 27% of U.S. uranium purchases were sourced from Canada, with an additional 57% imported from countries including Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Australia, and Russia; a recent ban on Russian uranium could further disrupt these supply patterns and heighten risks. This reliance on foreign sources has raised concerns about energy security, especially in light of recent geopolitical tensions.

Challenges and Considerations

While the executive order represents a significant step toward revitalizing the U.S. nuclear energy sector, several challenges persist, and energy dominance faces constraints that will shape implementation:

• Regulatory Hurdles: Accelerating the permitting process for uranium mining projects involves navigating complex environmental and regulatory frameworks, though recent permitting reforms for geothermal hint at potential pathways, which can be time-consuming and contentious.

• Market Dynamics: The uranium market is subject to global supply and demand fluctuations, and domestic producers may face competition from established international suppliers.

• Infrastructure Development: Expanding domestic uranium production necessitates substantial investment in mining infrastructure and workforce development, areas that have been underfunded in recent years.

Broader Implications for Nuclear Energy Policy

The executive order aligns with a broader strategy to revitalize the U.S. nuclear energy industry, where ongoing nuclear innovation is critical to delivering stable, low-emission power. The increasing demand for nuclear energy is driven by the global push for zero-emissions energy sources and the need to support power-intensive technologies, such as artificial intelligence servers.

Former President Trump's executive order to reclassify uranium as a critical mineral, aligning with his broader energy agenda and a prior pledge to end the 'war on coal', signifies a pivotal moment for the U.S. nuclear energy sector. By potentially unlocking federal support, including programs advanced by the Nuclear Innovation Act, and streamlining permitting processes, this initiative aims to reduce dependence on foreign uranium sources and enhance national energy security. However, realizing these objectives will require addressing regulatory challenges, market dynamics, and infrastructure needs to ensure the successful revitalization of the domestic uranium industry.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Texas Power Grid Reliability faces record peak demand as ERCOT balances renewable energy, wind and solar variability, gas-fired generation, demand response, and transmission limits to prevent blackouts during heat waves and extreme weather.

Key Points

Texas Power Grid Reliability is ERCOT's capacity to meet peak demand with diverse resources while limiting outages.

✅ Record heat drives peak demand across ERCOT.

✅ Variable wind/solar need firm, flexible capacity.

✅ Demand response and reserves reduce blackout risk.

The electric power grid in Texas, which collapsed dramatically during the 2021 winter storm across the state, is being tested again as the state suffers unusually hot summer weather. Demand for electricity has reached new records at a time of rapid change in the mix of power sources as wind and solar ramp up. That’s feeding a debate about the dependability of the state’s power. 

1. Why is the Texas grid under threat again? 

Already the biggest power user in the nation, electricity use in the second most-populous state surged to record levels during heat waves this summer. The jump in demand comes as the state becomes more dependent on intermittent renewable power sources, raising concerns among some critics that more reliance on wind and solar will leave the grid more vulnerable to disruption. Green sources will produce almost 40% of the power in Texas this year, US Energy Information Administration data show. While that trails California’s 52%, Texas is a bigger market. It’s already No. 1 in wind, making it the largest clean energy market in the US. 

2. How is Texas unique? 

The spirit of defiance of the Lone Star State extends to its power grid as well. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or Ercot as the grid operator is known, serves about 90% of the state’s electricity needs and has very few high-voltage transmission lines connecting to nearby grids. It’s a deliberate move to avoid federal oversight of the power market. That means Texas has to be mainly self-reliant and cannot depend on neighbors during extreme conditions. That vulnerability is a dramatic twist for a state that’s also the energy capital of the US, thanks to vast oil and natural gas producing fields. Favorable regulations are also driving a wind and solar boom in Texas. 

3. Why the worry? 

The summer of 2023 will mark the first time all of the state’s needs cannot be met by traditional power plants, like nuclear, coal and gas. A sign of potential trouble came on June 20 when state officials urged residents to conserve power because of low supplies from wind farms and unexpected closures of fossil-fuel generators amid supply-chain constraints that limited availability. As of late July, the grid was holding up, thanks to the help of renewable sources. Solar generation has been coming in close to expected summer capacity, or exceeding it on most days. This has helped offset the hours in the middle of the day when wind speeds died down in West Texas. 

4. Why didn’t the grid’s problems get fixed? 

There is no easy fix. The Texas system allows the price of electricity to swing to match supply and demand. That means high prices — and high profits — drive the development of new power plants. At times spot power prices have been as low as $20-$50 a megawatt-hour versus more than $4,000 during periods of stress. The limitation of this pricing structure was laid bare by the 2021 winter blackouts. Since then, state lawmakers have passed market reforms that require weatherization of critical infrastructure and changed rules to put more money in the pockets of the owners of power generation.  

5. What’s the big challenge? 

There’s a real clash going on over what the grid of the future should look like in Texas and across the country, especially as severe heat raises blackout risks nationally. The challenge is to make sure nuclear and fossil fuel plants that are needed right now don’t retire too early and still allow newer, cleaner technologies to flourish. Some conservative Republicans have blamed renewable energy for destabilizing the grid and have pushed for more fossil-fuel powered generators. Lawmakers passed a controversial $10 billion program providing low-interest loans and grants to build new gas-fired plants using taxpayer money, but Texans ultimately have to vote on the subsidy. 

6. Why do improvements take so long? 

Figuring out how to keep the lights on without overburdening consumers is becoming a greater challenge amid more extreme weather fueled by climate change. As such, changing the rules is often a hotly contested process pitting utilities, generators, manufacturers, electricity retailers and other groups against one another. The process became more politicized after the storm in 2021 with Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and lawmakers ordering Ercot to make changes. Building more transmission lines and connecting to other states can help, but such projects are typically tied up for years in red tape.

7. What can be done? 

The price cap for electricity was cut from $9,000/MWh to $5,000 to help avoid the punitive costs seen in the 2021 storm, though prices are allowed to spike more easily. Ercot is also contracting for more reserves to be online to help avoid supply shortfalls and improve reliability for customers, which added $1.7 billion in consumer costs alone last year. Another rule helps some gas generators pay for their fuel costs, while a more recent reform put in price floors when reserves fall to certain levels. Many power experts say that the easiest solution is to pay people to reduce their energy consumption during times of grid stress through so-called demand response programs. Factories, Bitcoin miners and other large users are already compensated to conserve during tight grid conditions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Work From Home Energy Consumption is driving higher electricity bills as residential usage rises. Smart meter data, ISO-New-England trends, and COVID-19 telecommuting show stronger power demand and sensitivity to utility rates across regions.

Key Points

Higher household electricity use from telecommuting, shifting load to residences and raising utility bills.

✅ Smart meters show 5-22 percent residential usage increases.

✅ Commercial demand fell as home cooling and IT loads rose.

✅ Utility rates and AC use drive bill spikes during summer.

Don't be surprised if your electric bills are looking higher than usual, with a sizable increase in the amount of power that you have used.

Summer traditionally is a peak period for electricity usage because of folks' need to run fans and air-conditioners to cool their homes or run that pool pump. But the arrival of the coronavirus and people working from home is adding to amount of power people are using.

Under normal conditions, those who work in their employer's offices might not be cooling their homes as much during the middle of the day or using as much electricity for lights and running computers.

For many, that's changed.

Estimates on how much of an increase residential electric customers are seeing as result of working from home vary widely.

ISO-New England, the regional electric grid operator, has seen a 3 percent to 5 percent decrease in commercial and industrial power demand, even as the grid overseer issued pandemic warnings nationally. The expectation is that much of that decrease translates into a corresponding increase in residential electricity usage.

But other estimates put the increase in residential electricity usage much higher. A Washington state company that makes smart electric meters, Itron, estimates that American households are using 5 percent to 10 percent more electricity per month since March, when many people began working from home as part of an effort to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Another smart metering company, Cambridge, Mass.-based Sense, found that average home electricity usage increased 22 percent in April compared to the same period in 2019, a reflection of people using more electricity while they stayed home. Based on its analysis of data from 5,000 homes across 30 states, Sense officials said a typical customer's monthly electric bill increased by between $22 and $25, with a larger increase for consumers in states with higher electricity rates.

Connecticut-specfic data is harder to come by.

Officials with Orange-based United Illuminating declined to provide any customer usage data, though, like others in the power industry, they did acknowledge that residential customers are using more electricity. And the state's other large electric distribution utility, Eversource, was unable to provide any recent data on residential electric usage. The company did tell Connecticut utility regulators there was a 3 percent increase in residential power usage for the week of March 21 compared to the week before.

Over the same time period, Eversource officials saw a 3 percent decrease in power usage by commercial and industrial customers.

Separately, nuclear plant workers raised concerns about pandemic precautions at some facilities, reflecting operational strains.

Alan Behm of Cheshire said he normally uses 597 kilowatt hours of electricity during an average month. But in April of this year, the amount of electricity he used rose by nearly 51 percent.

With many offices closed, the expense of heating, cooking and lighting is being shifted from employer to employee, and some utilities such as Manitoba Hydro have pursued unpaid days off to trim costs during the pandemic. And one remote work expert believes some companies are recognizing the burden those added costs are placing on workers -- and are trying to do something about it.

Technology giant Google announced in late May that it was giving employees who work from home $1,000 allowances to cover equipment costs and other expenses associated with establishing a home office.

Moe Vela, chief transparency officer for the New York City-based computer software company TransparentBusiness, said the move by Google executives is a savvy one.

"Google is very smart to have figured this out," Vela said. "This is what employees want, especially millenials. People are so much happier to be working remotely, getting those two to three hours back per day that some people spend getting to and from work is so much more important than a stipend."

Vela predicted that even after a vaccine is found for the corona virus, one of the key worklife changes is likely to be a broader acceptance of telework and working from home.

Beyond the immediate shifts, more young Canadians would work in electricity if awareness improved, pointing to future talent pipelines.

"I think that's where we're headed," he said. "I think it will make an employer more attractive as they try to attract talent from around the world."

Vela said employers save an average of $11,000 per year for each employee they have working from home.

"It would be a brilliant move if a company were to share some of that amount with employees," he said. "I wouldn't do it if it's going to cause a company to not be there (in business) though."

The idea of a company sharing whatever savings it achieves by having employees work from home wasn't well received by many Connecticut residents who responded to questions posed via social media by Hearst Connecticut Media. More than 100 people responded and an overwhelming number of people spoke out against the idea.

"You are saving on gas and other travel related expenses, so the small increase in your electric bill shouldn't really be a concern," said Kathleen Bennett Charest of Wallingford.

Jim Krupp, also of Wallingford, said, "to suggest that the employers compensate the employees makes as much sense as suggesting that the employees should take a pay cut due to their reduced expenses for travel, day care, and eating lunch at work."

"Employers must still maintain their offices and incur all of the fixed expenses involved, including basic utilities, taxes and insurance," Krupp said. "The cost savings (for employers) that are realized are also offset by increased costs of creating and maintaining IT networks that allow employees to access their work sites from home and the costs of monitoring and managing the work force."

Kiki Nichols Nugent of Cheshire said she was against the idea of an employee trying to get their employer to pay for the increased electricity costs associated with working from home.

"I would not nickle and dime," Nugent said. "If companies are saving on electricity now, maybe employers will give better raises next year."

New Haven resident Chris Smith said he is "just happy to have a job where I am able to telecommute."

"When teleworking becomes more the norm, either now or in the future, we may see increased wages for teleworkers either for the lower cost to the employer or for the increase in productivity it brings," Smith said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

Southeast Alaska Energy Projects advance hydroelectric, biomass, and heat pumps, displacing diesel via grants. Inside Passage Electric Cooperative and Alaska Energy Authority support Kake, Hoonah, Ketchikan with wood pellets, feasibility studies, and rate relief.

Key Points

Programs using hydro, biomass, and heat pumps to cut diesel use and lower electricity costs in Southeast Alaska.

✅ Hydroelectric at Gunnuk Creek to replace diesel in Kake

✅ Biomass and wood pellets displacing fuel oil in facilities

✅ Free feasibility studies; heat pumps where economical

New projects are under development throughout the region to help reduce energy costs for Southeast Alaska residents. A panel presented some of those during last week’s Southeast Conference annual fall meeting in Ketchikan.

Jodi Mitchell is with Inside Passage Electric Cooperative, which is working on the Gunnuk Creek hydroelectric project for Kake. IPEC is a non-profit, she said, with the goal of reducing electric rates for its members.

The Gunnuk Creek project will be built at an existing dam.

“The benefits for the project will be, of course, renewable energy for Kake. And we estimate it will save about 6.2 million gallons over its 50-year life,” she said. “Although, as you heard earlier, these hydro projects last forever.”

The gallons saved are of diesel fuel, which currently is used to power generators for electricity, though in places with limited options some have even turned to new coal plants to keep the lights on.

IPEC operates other hydro projects in Klukwan and Hoonah. Mitchell said they’re looking into future projects, one near Angoon and another that would add capacity to the existing Hoonah project, even as an independent power project in British Columbia is in limbo.

Mitchell said they fund much of their work through grants, which helps keep electric rates at a reasonable level.

Devany Plentovich with the Alaska Energy Authority talked about biomass projects in the state. She said the goal is to increase wood energy use in Alaska, even as some advocates call for a reduction in biomass electricity in other regions.

“We offer any community, any entity, a free feasibility study to see if they have a potential heating system in their community,” she said. “We do advocate for wood heating, but we are trying to get a community to pick the best heating technology for their situation, including options that use more electricity for heat when appropriate. So in a lot of situations, our consultants will give you the economics on a wood heating system but they’ll also recommend maybe you should look at heat pumps or look at waste energy.”

Plentovich said they recently did a study for Ketchikan’s Holy Name Church and School. The result was a recommendation for a heat pump rather than wood.

But, she said, wood energy is on the rise, and utilities elsewhere are increasing biomass for electricity as well. There are more than 50 systems in the state displacing more than 500,000 gallons of fuel oil annually. Those include systems on Prince of Wales Island and in Ketchikan.

Ketchikan recently experienced a supply issue, though. A local wood-pellet manufacturer closed, which is a problem for the airport and the public library, among other facilities that use biomass heaters.

Karen Petersen is the biomass outreach coordinator for Southeast Conference. She said this opens up a great opportunity for someone.

“Devany and I are working on trying to find a supplier who wants to go into the pellet business,” she said. “Probably importing initially, and then converting over to some form of manufacturing once the demand is stabilized.”

So, Petersen said, if anyone is interested in this entrepreneurial opportunity, contact her through Southeast Conference for more information.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Alberta electricity price spike drives 25% CPI surge amid heatwave demand, coal-to-gas conversions, hydro shortfalls, and outages; consumers weigh fixed-rate plans, solar panels, home retrofits, and variable rates to manage bills and grid volatility.

Key Points

A recent 25% monthly rise in Alberta power prices driven by heatwave demand, constraints, outages, and fuel shifts.

✅ Heatwave pushed summer peak demand near record

✅ Coal-to-gas conversions and outages tightened supply

✅ Fixed-rate plans, solar, retrofits can reduce bill risk

Albertans might notice they are paying more when the next electricity bill comes in as bills on the rise in Calgary alongside provincial trends.

According to the consumer price index, Alberta saw its largest monthly increase since July 2015 as the price of electricity in Alberta rose 25 per cent amid rising electricity prices across the province.

“So I paid negative $70 last month. I actually made money. To supply power to the grid,” said Conrad Nobert, with Climate Action Edmonton.

Norbert is an environmental activist who favours solar power and is warning that prices will continue to go up along with the rising effects from climate change.

“My thoughts are that we can mitigate the price of power going up by taking climate action.”

Alberta experienced one of the hottest summers on record and many people were left scrambling to buy air conditioners.

That demand, along with a number of other factors, drove up prices, prompting some households to lock in rates for protection, says an assistant professor at the University of Calgary who teaches electricity systems.

“At the end of June, during the heatwave, we were a couple megawatts shy of setting an all-time record demand for electricity in the province. That would have been the first time that record for demand in the summer. Traditionally Alberta is a winter peaking province, as shown by an electricity usage record during a deep freeze not long ago,” explained Sara Hastings Simon, an assistant professor at the University of Calgary.

Other reasons for the spike: Alberta’s continuing shift from coal to natural-gas-fired power and changes to electricity production and pricing across the market.

There are a few ways consumers can save money on their power bill; installing solar panels and retrofitting your home to opting for a fixed-rate plan, or considering protections like a consumer price cap where applicable.

“So by default, people are put into a variable rate plan, that changes month to month and that helps to manage prices so you don’t get that big surprise at where prices might be. I think we will get a lot more people looking at that option.”

A statement provided by Dale Nally, Alberta’s Associate Minister of natural gas and electricity, noted recent policy changes including the carbon tax repeal and price cap now in place that affect consumers, says in part:

“This period of high market prices is driven by low supplies of hydro-generated electricity from British Columbia and the pacific northwest, scheduled outages for coal-gas-conversions, unplanned infrastructure outages and unprecedented, and record-breaking high demand due to hot weather. We expect some of the factors that have caused recent increases in prices will be short-term.”

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