Three Ontario utilities to use FlexNet smart metering

Portsmouth Wind Turbine Complaints highlight noise, shadow flicker, resident impacts, Town Council hearings, and Green Development mitigation plans near Portsmouth High School, covering renewable energy output, PPAs, and community compliance.

Key Points

Resident reports of noise and shadow flicker near Portsmouth High School, prompting review and mitigation efforts.

✅ Noise exceeds ambient levels seasonally, residents report fatigue.

✅ Shadow flicker lasts up to 90 minutes on affected homes.

✅ Town tasks developer to meet neighbors and propose mitigation.

The combination of the noise and shadows generated by the town’s wind turbine has rankled some neighbors who voiced their frustration to the Town Council during its meeting Monday.

Mark DePasquale, the founder and chairman of the company that owns the turbine, tried to reassure them with promises to address the bothersome conditions.

David Souza, a lifelong town resident who lives on Lowell Drive, showed videos of the repeated, flashing shadows cast on his home by the three blades spinning.

“I am a firefighter. I need to get my sleep,” he said. “And now it’s starting to affect my job. I’m tired.”

Town Council President Keith Hamilton tasked DePasquale with meeting with the neighbors and returning with an update in a month. “What I do need you to do, Mr. DePasquale, is to follow through with all these people.”

DePasquale said he was unaware of the flurry of complaints lodged by the residents Monday. His company had only heard of one complaint. “If I knew there was an issue before tonight, we would have responded,” he said.

His company, Green Development LLC, formerly Wind Energy Development LLC, installed the 279-foot-tall turbine near Portsmouth High School that started running in August 2016, as offshore developers like Deepwater Wind in Massachusetts plan major construction nearby. It replaced another turbine installed by a separate company that broke down in 2012.

In November 2014, the town signed an agreement with Wind Energy Development to take down the existing turbine, pay off the remaining $1.45 million of the bond the town took out to install it and put up a new turbine, amid broader legal debates like the Cornwall wind farm ruling that can affect project timelines.

In exchange, Wind Energy Development sells a portion of the energy generated by the turbine to the town at a rate of 15.5 cents per kilowatt hour for 25 years. Some of the energy generated is sold to the town of Coventry.

“We took down (the old turbine) and paid off the debt,” DePasquale said, noting that cancellations can carry high costs as seen in Ontario wind project penalties for scrapping projects. “I have no problem doing whatever the council wants … There was an economic decision made to pay off the bond and build something better.”

The turbine was on pace to produce 4 million-plus kilowatt hours per year, Michelle Carpenter, the chief operating officer of Wind Energy Development, said last April. It generates enough energy to power all municipal and school buildings in town, she said, while places like Summerside’s wind power show similarly strong output.

The constant stream of shadows cast on certain homes in the area can last for as long as an hour-and-a-half, according to Souza. “We shouldn’t have to put up with this,” he said.

Sprague Street resident John Vegas said the turbine’s noise, especially in late August, is louder than the neighborhood’s ambient noise.

“Throughout the summer, there’s almost no flicker, but this time of year it’s very prominent,” Vegas added. “It can be every day.”

He mentioned neighbors needed to be better organized to get results.

“When the residents purchased our properties we did not have this wind turbine in our backyard,” Souza said in a memo. “Due to the wind turbine … our quality of life has suffered.”

After the discussion, the council unanimously voted to allow Green Development to sublease excess energy to the Rhode Island Convention Center Authority, a similar agreement to the one the company struck with Coventry, as regional New England solar growth adds pressure on grid upgrade planning.

“This has to be a sustainable solution,” DePasquale said. “We will work together with the town on a solution.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Kentucky Coal Wage Protection Bill strengthens performance bond enforcement, links Energy and Environment Cabinet and Labor Cabinet notifications, addresses Blackjewel bankruptcy fallout, safeguards unpaid miners, ties mining permits to payroll bonds, penalizes violators via revocations.

Key Points

A Kentucky plan to enforce wage bonds and revoke mining permits to protect miners after bankruptcies.

✅ Requires wage bonds for firms under 5 years

✅ Links Energy and Environment Cabinet and Labor Cabinet

✅ Violators face permit revocation in 90 days

Following the high-profile bankruptcy of a coal company that left hundreds of Kentucky miners with bad checks last month, Sen. Johnny Ray Turner (D-Prestonsburg) said he will pre-file a bill Thursday aimed at closing a loophole that allowed the company to operate in violation of state law.

The bill would also compel state agencies to determine whether other companies are currently in violation of the law, and could revoke mining permits if the companies don't comply.

Turner's bill would amend an already-existing law that requires coal and construction companies that have been operating in Kentucky for less than five years to post a performance bond to protect wages if the companies cease their operations.

Blackjewel LLC., which employed hundreds of miners in Eastern Kentucky, failed to post that bond. When it shut its mines down and filed for bankruptcy last month, it left hundreds of miners without payment for 3 weeks and one day of work.

The bond issue has sparked criticism from various state officials, including Attorney General Andy Beshear, who said Tuesday that he would investigate whether other companies are currently in violation, similar to an external investigation of utility workers in another jurisdiction.

Blackjewel issued cold checks to its employees June 28, and when the checks bounced days later, many employees were left with bank accounts overdrawn by more than $1,000. The bankruptcy left many miners and their families with concerns over upcoming bill and mortgage payments, and, as unpaid days off at utilities elsewhere show, the strain on workers can be severe, and fostered a ongoing protest that blocked a train hauling coal from one of the company's Harlan County mines.

Blackjewel had been operating in Kentucky for about two years before it filed for bankruptcy, so it should have paid the performance bond, according to state law.

David A. Dickerson, the Kentucky Labor Cabinet Secretary, said the law as it's currently written does not set up any mechanism that notifies the cabinet, or provides comparable public reporting at large utility projects elsewhere, when a company opens in Kentucky that is supposed to pay the bond.

That allowed Blackjewel to operate for two years without any protection for workers before it closed its mines. Had the company posted the bond according to state law, miners likely would have been paid for the work they had already completed, officials said.

The law requires companies to set aside enough money to cover payroll for four weeks.

Turner's bill would compel the state Energy and Environment Cabinet to notify the Labor Cabinet's Department of Workplace Standards of any application for a mining permit from a company that has been doing business in Kentucky for less than five years.

It also compels the EEC to notify the Labor Cabinet of any companies that already have permits that are subject to the bond.

"It should have already been that way, but I'm happy so our children don't have to go through this," said Jeff Willig, a former Blackjewel miner who helped launch the protest at the railroad.

Willig said he and other miners will continue to block the tracks until they receive payment for their past work.

Any company currently operating in violation of the law would have 90 days to become compliant before its mining permits are revoked. New companies that are applying for permits will be required post the bond before permits are issued.

"Hopefully it will take care of the loopholes that had been exploited by Blackjewel," Turner said.

The bill will be taken up by the legislature when it returns to session in January. It would also cover attorneys' fees if workers are forced to sue their employer to cover wages, underscoring broader worker safety concerns during health emergencies.

Turner said he has reached out to Republican leadership in the Senate, and expects the bill to have bipartisan support come January.

Turner announced the legislation at a press conference in Harlan, the county with the highest population of Blackjewel employees affected by the bankruptcy, and as prolonged utility outages after tornadoes have strained other Kentucky communities.

State rep. Angie Hatton (D-Whitesburg) was also in attendance, along with rep. Chris Fugate (R-Chavies) and state Sen. Morgan McGarvey (D-Louisville).

Hatton said the bankruptcy has had serious economic impact throughout Eastern Kentucky, including in Letcher County, which is home to more than 130 former Blackjewel workers.

"This is something that has done a lot of damage to Eastern Kentucky," Hatton said.

Hatton plans to file the same bill in the state House of Representatives.

Fugate commended community members in Harlan County and elsewhere who have banded together in support of the miners by donating children's clothing, school supplies, food and other goods, while other regions have created a coal transition fund to help displaced workers.

Mosley called the bankruptcy "totally unprecedented" and said the current performance bond law, which has been on-the-books since 1986, lacked the enforcement necessary to protect miners in bankruptcies like Blackjewel's, even as a workplace safety fine in another case shows regulatory consequences in other industries.

"There was a law, there wasn't good enough process," Mosley said.

Blackjewel received court approval to sell many of its mines last month, including many in Kentucky, to Kopper Glo Mining, LLC.

As part of the sale agreement, Kopper Glo said it would pay $450,000 to cover the past wages of Blackjewel miners, and collect a per ton fee accumulating up to $550,000 that it will also contribute to pay back wages.

That total $1 million is less than half of all back wages owed to Blackjewel miners, but attorneys who filed a class action suit against the company said miners have a priority lien on the purchase price. That could allow former Blackjewel employees to make good on their back wages as bankruptcy proceedings continue.

Mosley said he spoke with a Kopper Glo official Thursday, who said the company is working to re-open the mines as quickly as possible. The official did not give an exact timeline.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

MARVEL microreactor debuts at Idaho National Laboratory as a 100 kW, liquid-metal-cooled, zero-emissions generator powering a nuclear microgrid, integrating wind and solar for firm, clean energy in advanced nuclear applications research.

Key Points

A 100 kW, liquid-metal-cooled INL reactor powering a nuclear microgrid and showcasing zero-emissions clean energy.

✅ 100 kW liquid-metal-cooled microreactor at INL

✅ Powers first nuclear microgrid for applications testing

✅ Integrates with wind and solar for firm clean power

Inside the Transient Reactor Test Facility, a towering, windowless gray block surrounded by barbed wire, researchers are about to embark on a mission to solve one of humanity’s greatest problems with a tiny device.

Next year, they will begin construction on the MARVEL reactor. MARVEL stands for Microreactor Applications Research Validation and EvaLuation. It’s a first-of-a-kind nuclear power generator with a mini-reactor design that is cooled with liquid metal and produces 100 kilowatts of energy. By 2024, researchers expect MARVEL to be the zero-emissions engine of the world’s first nuclear microgrid at Idaho National Laboratory (INL).

“Micro” and “tiny,” of course, are relative. MARVEL stands 15 feet tall, weighs 2,000 pounds, and can fit in a semi-truck trailer. But it's minuscule compared to conventional nuclear power plants, which span acres, produces gigawatts of electricity to power whole states, and can take more than a decade to build.

For INL, where scientists have tested dozens of reactors over the decades across an area three-quarters the size of Rhode Island, it’s a radical reimagining of the technology. This advanced reactor design could help overcome the biggest obstacles to nuclear energy: safety, efficiency, scale, cost, and competition. MARVEL is an experiment to see how all these pieces could fit together in the real world.

“It’s an applications test reactor where we’re going to try to figure out how we extract heat and energy from a nuclear reactor and apply it — and combine it with wind, solar, and other energy sources,” said Yasir Arafat, head of the MARVEL program.

The project, however, comes at a time when nuclear power is getting pulled in wildly different directions, from phase-outs to new strategies like the UK’s green industrial revolution that shapes upcoming reactors.

Germany just shut down its last nuclear reactors. The U.S. just started up its first new reactor in 30 years, underscoring a shift. France, the country with the largest share of nuclear energy on its grid, saw its atomic power output decline to its lowest since 1988 last year. Around the world, there are currently 60 nuclear reactors under construction, with 22 in China alone.

But the world is hungrier than ever for energy. Overall electricity demand is growing: Global electricity needs will increase nearly 70 percent by 2050 compared to today’s consumption, according to the Energy Information Administration. At the same time, the constraints are getting tighter. Most countries worldwide, including the U.S., have committed to net-zero goals by the middle of the century, even as demand rises.

To meet this energy demand without worsening climate change, the U.S. Energy Department’s report on advanced nuclear energy released in March said, “the U.S. will need ~550–770 [gigawatts] of additional clean, firm capacity to reach net-zero; nuclear power is one of the few proven options that could deliver this at scale.”

The U.S. government is now renewing its bets on nuclear power to produce steady electricity without emitting greenhouse gases. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included $6 billion to keep existing nuclear power plants running. In addition, the Inflation Reduction Act, the U.S. government’s largest investment in countering climate change, includes several provisions to benefit atomic power, including tax credits for zero-emissions energy.

“It’s a game changer,” said John Wagner, director of INL.

The tech sector is jumping in, too, as atomic energy heats up across startups and investors. In 2021, venture capital firms poured $3.4 billion into nuclear energy startups. They’re also pouring money into even more far-out ideas, like nuclear fusion power. Public opinion has also started moving. An April Gallup poll found that 55 percent of Americans favour and 44 percent oppose using atomic energy, the highest levels of support in 10 years.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Ultra-Low Overnight Electricity Rates cut costs for shift workers and EV charging, with time-of-use pricing, off-peak savings, on-peak premiums, kilowatt-hour details, and Ontario Energy Board guidance for homes and businesses across participating utilities.

Key Points

Ontario's ultra-low overnight plan: 2.4c/kWh 11pm-7am for EVs, shift workers; higher daytime on-peak pricing.

✅ 2.4c/kWh 11pm-7am; 24c/kWh on-peak 4pm-9pm

✅ Best for EV charging, shift work, night usage

✅ Available provincewide by Nov 1 via local utilities

The Ontario government is introducing a new ultra-low overnight price plan that can benefit shift workers and individuals who charge electric vehicles while they sleep.

Speaking at a news conference on Tuesday, Energy Minister Todd Smith said the new plan could save customers up to $90 a year.

“Consumer preferences are still changing and our government realized there was more we could do, especially as the province continues to have an excess supply of clean electricity at night when province-wide electricity demand is lower,” Smith said, noting a trend underscored by Ottawa's demand decline during the pandemic.

The new rate, which will be available as an opt-in option as of May 1, will be 2.4 cents per kilowatt-hour from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. Officials say this is 67 per cent lower than the current off-peak rate, which saw a off-peak relief extension during the pandemic.

However, customers should be aware that this plan will mean a higher on-peak rate, as unlike earlier calls to cut peak rates, Hydro One peak charges remained unchanged for self-isolating customers.

The new plan will be offered by Toronto Hydro, London Hydro, Centre Wellington Hydro, Hearst Power, Renfrew Hydro, Wasaga Distribution, and Sioux Lookout Hydro by May. Officials have said this will be expanded to all local distribution companies by Nov. 1.

With the new addition of the “ultra low” pricing, there are now three different electricity plans that Ontarians can choose from. Here is what you have to know about the new hydro options:

TIME OF USE:
Most residential customers, businesses and farms are eligible for these rates, similar to BC Hydro time-of-use proposals in another province, which are divided into off-peak, mid-peak and on-peak hours.

This is what customers will pay as of May 1 according to the Ontario Energy Board, following earlier COVID-19 electricity relief measures that temporarily adjusted rates:

 Off-peak (Weekdays between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. and on weekends/holidays): 7.4 cents per kilowatt-hour
 Mid-Peak (Weekdays between 7 a.m. and 11 a.m., and between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m.): 10.2 cents per kilowatt-hour
 On-Peak ( Weekdays 11 a.m. to 5 p.m.): 15.1 cents per kilowatt-hour

TIERED RATES
This plan allows customers to get a standard rate depending on how much electricity is used. There are various thresholds per tier, and once a household exceeds that threshold, a higher price applies. Officials say this option may be beneficial for retirees who are home often during the day or those who use less electricity overall.

The tiers change depending on the season. This is what customers will pay as of May 1:

 Residential households that use 600 kilowatts of electricity per month and non-residential businesses that use 750 kilowatts per month: 8.7 cents per kilowatt-hour.
 Residences and businesses that use more than that will pay a flat rate of 10.3 cents per kilowatt-hour

ULTRA-LOW OVERNIGHT RATES
Customers can opt-in to this plan if they use most of their electricity overnight.

This is what customers will pay as of May 1:

•  Between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m.: 2.4 cents per kilowatt-hour
•  Weekends and holidays between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m.: 7.4 cents per kilowatt-hour
•  Mid-Peak (Weekdays between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m., and between 9 p.m. and 11 p.m.): 10.2 cents per kilowatt-hour
•  On-Peak (weekdays between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m.): 24 cents per kilowatt-hour

More information on these plans can be found on the Ontario Energy Board website, alongside stable pricing for industrial and commercial updates from the province.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations 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

India spot electricity prices surged on Q3 demand, lifting power tariffs in the spot market as discoms scrambled for supply; Sembcorp SGPL boosted PLF and short-term PPA realizations, benefiting from INR per kWh peaks.

Key Points

India spot electricity prices hit Q3 records amid demand spikes, lifting tariffs and aiding Sembcorp SGPL via PLF gains.

✅ Record 10.6 cents/kWh average; 15-minute peak 20.7 cents/kWh

✅ SGPL shifted output to short-term PPA at 7.3 cents/kWh

✅ PLF ramped above 90%, cutting core losses by 30-40%

Electricity prices in India, now the third-largest electricity producer globally, bolted to a record high of 10.6 cents/kWh (INR5.1/kWh) in Q3.

A jolt in Indian spot electricity prices could save Sembcorp Industries' Indian business from further losses, even though demand has occasionally slumped in recent years, UOB Kay Hian said.

The firm said spot electricity prices in India bolted to a record high of 10.6 cents/kWh (INR5.1/kWh) in Q3 and even hit a 15-minute peak of 20.7 cents/kWh (9.9/kWh). The spike was due to a power supply crunch on higher electricity demand from power distribution companies, alongside higher imported coal volumes as domestic supplies shrank.

As an effect, Sembcorp Industries' Sembcorp Gayatri Power Limited's (SGPL) losses of $26m in Q1 and $29m in Q2 could narrow down by as much as 30-40%.

On a net basis, SGPL will recognise a significantly higher electricity tariff in 3Q17. By tactically shutting down its Unit #3 for maintenance, Unit #4 effectively had its generation contracted out at the higher short-term PPA tariff of around 7.3 cents/kWh (Rs3.5/kWh).

SGPL also capitalised on the price spike in 3Q17 as it ramped up its plant load factor (PLF) to more than 90%.

“On the back of this, coupled with the effects of reduced finance costs, we expect SGPL’s 3Q17 quarterly core loss to shrink by 30-40% from previous quarters,” UOB Kay Hian said.

Whilst electricity prices have corrected to 7.1 cents/kWh (INR3.4/kWh), the firm said it could still remain elevated on structural factors, even as coal and electricity shortages ease nationwide.

Sembcorp Industries' India operations brought in a robust performance for Q3. PLF for Thermal Powertech Corporation India Limited (TPCIL) hit 91%, whilst it reached 73% for SGPL, echoing the broader trend of thermal PLF up across the sector.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News