3 Men Die After Power Line Falls on Parked Car

Champlain Hudson Power Express connects Hydro-Québec hydropower to the New York grid via a 1.25 GW high voltage transmission line, enabling renewable energy imports, grid decarbonization, storage synergy, and reduced fossil fuel generation.

Key Points

A 1.25 GW cross-border transmission project delivering Hydro-Québec hydropower to New York City to displace fossil power.

✅ 1.25 GW buried HV line from Quebec to Astoria, Queens

✅ Supports renewable imports and grid decarbonization in NYC

✅ Enables two-way trade and reservoir storage synergy

Last week, Quebec Premier François Legault took to Twitter to celebrate after New York State authorities tentatively approved the first new transmission line in three decades, the Champlain Hudson Power Express, that would connect Quebec’s vast hydroelectric network to the northeastern U.S. grid.

“C’est une immense nouvelle pour l’environnement. De l’énergie fossile sera remplacée par de l’énergie renouvelable,” he tweeted, or translated to English: “This is huge news for the environment. Fossil fuels will be replaced by renewable energy.”

The proposed construction of a 1.25 gigawatt transmission line from southern Quebec to Astoria, Queens, known as the Champlain Hudson Power Express, ties into a longer term strategy by Hydro Québec: in the coming decade, as cities such as New York and Boston look to transition away from fossil fuel-generated electricity and decarbonize their grids, Hydro-Québec sees opportunities to supply them with energy from its vast network of 61 hydroelectric generating stations and other renewable power, as Quebec has closed the door on nuclear power in recent years.

Already, the provincial utility is one of North America’s largest energy producers, generating $2.3 billion in net income in 2020, and planning to increase hydropower capacity over the near term. Hydro-Quebec has said it intends to increase exports and had set a goal of reaching $5.2 billion in net income by 2030, though its forecasts are currently under review.

But just as oil and gas companies have encountered opposition to nearly every new pipeline, Hydro-Québec is finding resistance as it seeks to expand its pathways into major export markets, which are all in the U.S. northeast. Indeed, some fossil fuel companies that would be displaced by Hydro-Québec are fighting to block the construction of its new transmission lines.

“Linear projects — be it a transmission line or a pipeline or highway or whatever — there’s always a certain amount of public opposition,” Gary Sutherland, director of strategic affairs and stakeholder relations for Hydro-Québec, told the Financial Post, “which is a good thing because it makes the project developer ask the right questions.”

While Sutherland said he isn’t expecting opposition to the line into New York, he acknowledged Hydro-Québec also didn’t fully anticipate the opposition encountered with the New England Clean Energy Connect, a 1.2 gigawatt transmission line that would cost an estimated US$950 million and run from Quebec through Maine, eventually connecting to Massachusetts’ grid.

In Maine, natural gas and nuclear energy companies, which stand to lose market share, and also environmentalists, who oppose logging through sensitive habitat, both oppose the project.

In August, Maine’s highest court invalidated a lease for the land where the lines were slated to be built, throwing permits into question. Meanwhile, Calpine Corporation and Vistra Energy Corp., both Texas-based companies that operate natural gas plants in Maine, formed a political action committee called Mainers for Local Power. It has raised nearly US$8 million to fight the transmission line, according to filings with the Maine Ethics Commission.

Neither Calpine nor Vistra could be reached for comment by the time of publication.

“It’s been 30 years since we built a transmission line into the U.S. northeast,” said Sutherland. “In that time we have increased our exports significantly … but we haven’t been able to build out the corresponding transmission to get that energy from point A to point B.”

Indeed, since 2003, Hydro-Québec’s exports outside the province have grown from roughly two terrawatts per year to more than 30 terrawatts, including recent deals with NB Power to move more electricity into New Brunswick. The provincial utility produces around 210 terrawatts annually, but uses less than 178 terrawatts in Quebec.

Linear projects — be it a transmission line or a pipeline or highway or whatever — there’s always a certain amount of public opposition

In Massachusetts, it has signed contracts to supply 9.4 terrawatts annually — an amount roughly equivalent to 8 per cent of the New England region’s total consumption. Meanwhile, in New York, Hydro-Québec is in the final stages of negotiating a 25-year contract to sell 10.4 terawatts — about 20 per cent of New York City’s annual consumption.

In his tweets, Legault described the New York contract as being worth more than $20 billion over 25 years, although Hydro Québec declined to comment on the value because the contract is still under negotiation and needs approval by New York’s Public Services Commission — expected by mid-December.

Both regions are planning to build out solar and wind power to meet their growing clean energy needs and reach ambitious 2030 decarbonization targets. New York has legislated a goal of 70 per cent renewable power by that time, while Massachusetts has called for a 50 per cent reduction in emissions in the same period.

Hydro-Quebec signage is displayed on a manhole cover in Montreal. PHOTO BY BRENT LEWIN/BLOOMBERG FILES
According to a 2020 paper titled “Two Way Trade in Green Electrons,” written by three researchers at the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research at the Massachusetts’ Institute for Technology, Quebec’s hydropower, which like fossil fuels can be dispatched, will help cheaply and efficiently decarbonize these grids.

“Today transmission capacity is used to deliver energy south, from Quebec to the northeast,” the researchers wrote, adding, “…in a future low-carbon grid, it is economically optimal to use the transmission to send energy in both directions.”

That is, once new transmission lines and wind and solar power are built, New York and Massachusetts could send excess energy into Quebec where it could be stored in hydroelectric reservoirs until needed.

“This is the future of this northeast region, as New York state and New England are decarbonizing,” said Sutherland. “The only renewable energies they can put on the grid are intermittent, so they’re going to need this backup and right to the north of them, they’ve got Hydro-Québec as backup.”

Hydro-Québec already sells roughly 7 terrawatts of electricity per year into New York on the spot market, but Sutherland says it is constrained by transmission constraints that limit additional deliveries.

And because transmission lines can cost billions of dollars to build, he said Hydro-Québec needs the security of long-term contracts that ensure it will be paid back over time, aligning with its broader $185-billion transition strategy to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

Sutherland expressed confidence that the Champlain Hudson Power Express project would be constructed by 2025. He noted its partners, Blackstone-backed Transmission Developers, have been working on the project for more than a decade, and have already won support from labour unions, some environmental groups and industry.

The project calls for a barge to move through Lake Champlain and the Hudson River, and dig a trench while unspooling and burying two high voltage cables, each about 10-12 centimetres in diameter. In certain sections of the Hudson River, known to have high concentrations of PCP pollutants, the cable would be buried underground alongside the river.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

UK Energy Price Guarantee Cost forecasts from Cornwall Insight suggest an £89bn bill, tied to wholesale gas prices, OBR projections, and fiscal policy, to shield households amid the cost of living crisis.

Key Points

It is the projected government spend to cap household bills, driven by wholesale gas prices and OBR market forecasts.

✅ Base case: £89bn over two years, per Cornwall Insight

✅ Range: £72bn to £140bn, volatile wholesale gas costs

✅ Excludes 6-month business support estimated at £22bn-£48bn

Liz Truss’s intervention to freeze energy prices for households for two years is expected to cost the government £89bn, according to the first major costing of the policy by the sector’s leading consultancy.

The analysis from Cornwall Insight, seen exclusively by the Guardian, shows the prime minister’s plan to tackle the cost of living crisis could cost as much as £140bn in a worst-case scenario.

Truss announced in early September that the average annual bill for a typical household would be capped at £2,500 to protect consumers from the intensifying cost of living crisis amid high winter energy costs and a scheduled 80% rise in the cap to £3,549.

The ultimate cost of the policy is uncertain as it is highly dependent on the wholesale cost of gas, including UK natural gas prices which have soared since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine put a squeeze on already-volatile international markets. Ballpark projections had put the cost anywhere from £100bn to £150bn.

The Office for Budget Responsibility is expected to give its forecast for the bill when it provides its independent assessment of Kwasi Kwarteng’s medium-term fiscal plan, which the chancellor said on Tuesday would still happen on 23 November despite previous reports that it would be brought forward.

Cornwall Insight analysed projections of wholesale market moves to cost the intervention. In its base case scenario, analysts expect the policy to cost £89bn. That assumes the cost of supporting each household would be just over £1,000 in the first year, and about £2,000 in the second year.

The study’s authors said the wholesale price of gas would be influenced by energy demand, the severity of weather, “geo-political uncertainty” and prices for liquified natural gas as Europe seeks to refill storage facilities, which countries have rushed to fill up this winter but which could be relatively empty by next spring.

In the best-case outcome, the policy would cost £72bn, with some projections pointing to a 16% decrease in energy bills in April for households, while the “extreme high” outlook would see the government shell out £140bn to protect 29m UK households.

Gas prices are expected to push even higher if the Kremlin decides to completely cut off Russian gas exports into Europe.

Cornwall Insight’s projection does not include a separate six-month initiative to cap costs for companies, charities and public sector organisations, which is forecast to cost £22bn to £48bn.

The consultancy’s chief executive, Gareth Miller, said the £70bn range in its forecasts reflected “a febrile wholesale market continuing to be beset by geopolitical instability, sensitivity to demand, weather and infrastructure resilience”.

He said: “Fortune befriends the bold, but it also favours the prepared. The large uncertainties around commodity markets over the next two years means that the government could get lucky with costs coming out at the low end of the range, but the opposite could also be true.

“In each case, the government may find itself passengers to circumstances outside its control, having made policy that is a hostage to surprises, events and volatile factors. That’s a difficult position to be in.”

Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
The government has faced criticism, as some British MPs urge tighter limits on prices, that the policy is effectively a “blank cheque” and is not targeted at the most vulnerable in society.

Concerns over how Truss and Kwarteng intend to fund a series of measures, including the price guarantee, have spooked financial markets.

The EU, which has outlined possible gas price cap strategies in recent proposals, said last week it planned to cap the revenues of low-carbon electricity generators at €180 a megawatt hour, which is less than half current market prices. Truss has so far resisted calls to extend a levy on North Sea oil and gas operators to electricity generators, who have benefited from a link between gas and electricity prices in Britain.

Truss hopes to strike voluntary long-term deals with generators including Centrica and EDF, alongside the government’s Energy Security Bill measures, to bring down wholesale prices.

The Financial Times reported on Tuesday that the government has threatened companies with legislation to cap their revenues if voluntary deals cannot be agreed.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electric Vehicle Grid Integration aligns EV charging with grid capacity using smart charging, time-of-use rates, V2G, and demand response to reduce peak load, enable renewable energy, and optimize infrastructure planning.

Key Points

Aligning EV charging with grid needs via smart charging, TOU pricing, and V2G to balance load and support renewables.

✅ Time-of-use rates shift charging to off-peak hours

✅ Smart charging responds to real-time grid signals

✅ V2G turns fleets into distributed energy storage

When Seattle City Light unveiled five new electric vehicle charging stations last month in an industrial neighborhood south of downtown, the electric utility wasn't just offering a new spot for drivers to fuel up. It also was creating a way for the service to figure out how much more power it might need as electric vehicles catch on.

Seattle aims to have nearly a third of its residents driving electric vehicles by 2030. Washington state is No. 3 in the nation in per capita adoption of plug-in cars, behind California and Hawaii. But as Washington and other states urge their residents to buy electric vehicles — a crucial component of efforts to reduce carbon emissions — they also need to make sure the electric grid can handle it amid an accelerating EV boom nationwide.

The average electric vehicle requires 30 kilowatt hours to travel 100 miles — the same amount of electricity an average American home uses each day to run appliances, computers, lights and heating and air conditioning.

An Energy Department study found that increased electrification across all sectors of the economy could boost national consumption by as much as 38 percent by 2050, in large part because of electric vehicles. The environmental benefit of electric cars depends on the electricity being generated by renewables.

So far, states predict they will be able to sufficiently boost power production. But whether electric vehicles will become an asset or a liability to the grid largely depends on when drivers charge their cars.

Electricity demand fluctuates throughout the day; demand is higher during daytime hours, peaking in the early evening. If many people buy electric vehicles and mostly try to charge right when they get home from work — as many now do — the system could get overloaded or force utilities to deliver more electricity than they are capable of producing.

In California, for example, the worry is not so much with the state’s overall power capacity, but rather with the ability to quickly ramp up production and maintain grid stability when demand is high, said Sandy Louey, media relations manager for the California Energy Commission, in an email. About 150,000 electric vehicles were sold in California in 2018 — 8 percent of all state car sales.

The state projects that electric vehicles will consume 5.4 percent of the state’s electricity, or 17,000 gigawatt hours, by 2030.

Responding to the growth in electric vehicles will present unique challenges for each state. A team of researchers from the University of Texas at Austin estimated the amount of electricity that would be required if every car on the road transitioned to electric. Wyoming, for instance, would need to nudge up its electricity production only 17 percent, while Maine would have to produce 55 percent more.

Efficiency Maine, a state trust that oversees energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction programs, offers rebates for the purchase of electric vehicles, part of state efforts to incentivize growth.

“We’re certainly mindful that if those projections are right, then there will need to be more supply,” said Michael Stoddard, the program’s executive director. “But it’s going to unfold over a period of the next 20 years. If we put our minds to it and plan for it, then we should be able to do it.”

A November report sponsored by the Energy Department found that there has been almost no increase in electricity demand nationwide over the past 10 years, while capacity has grown an average of 12 gigawatts per year (1 GW can power more than a half-million homes). That means energy production could climb at a similar rate and still meet even the most aggressive increase in electric vehicles, with proper planning.

Charging during off-peak hours would allow not only many electric vehicles to be added to the roads but also utilities to get more use out of power plants that run only during the limited peak times through improved grid coordination and flexible demand.

Seattle City Light and others are looking at various ways to promote charging during ideal times. One method is time-of-day rates. For the Seattle chargers unveiled last month, users will pay 31 cents per kilowatt hour during peak daytime hours and 17 cents during off-peak hours. The utility will monitor use at its charging stations to see how effective the rates are at shifting charging to more favorable times.

The utility also is working on a pilot program to study charging behavior at home. And it is partnering with customers such as King County Metro that are electrifying large vehicle fleets, including growing electric truck fleets that will demand significant power, to make sure they have both the infrastructure and charging patterns to integrate smoothly.

“Traditionally, our utility approach is to meet the load demand,” said Emeka Anyanwu, energy innovation and resources officer for Seattle City Light.

Instead, he said, the utility is working with customers to see whether they can use existing assets without the need for additional investment.

Numerous analysts say that approach is crucial.

“Even if there’s an overall increase in consumption, it really matters when that occurs,” said Sally Talberg, head of the Michigan Public Service Commission, which oversees the state’s utilities. “The encouragement of off-peak charging and other technology solutions that could come to bear could offset any negative impact.”

One of those solutions is smart charging, a system in which vehicles are plugged in but don’t charge until they receive a signal from the grid that demand has tapered off a sufficient amount. This is often paired with a lower rate for drivers who use it. Several smart-charging pilot programs are being conducted by utilities, although they have not yet been phased in widely, amid ongoing debates over charging control among manufacturers and utilities.

In many places, the increased electricity demand from electric vehicles is seen as a benefit to utilities and rate payers. In the Northwest, electricity consumption has remained relatively stagnant since 2000, despite robust population growth and development. That’s because increasing urbanization and building efficiency have driven down electricity needs.

Electric vehicles could help push electricity consumption closer to utilities’ capacity for production. That would bring in revenue for the providers, which would help defray the costs for maintaining that capacity, lowering rates for all customers.

“Having EV loads is welcome, because it’s environmentally cleaner and helps sustain revenues for utilities,” said Massoud Jourabchi, manager of economic analysis for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, which develops power plans for the region.

Colorado also is working to promote electric cars, with the aim of putting 940,000 on the road by 2030. The state has adopted California’s zero-emission vehicles mandate, which requires automakers to reach certain market goals for their sales of cars that don’t burn fossil fuels, while extending tax credits for the purchase of such cars, investing in charging stations and electrifying state fleets.

Auto dealers have opposed the mandate, saying it infringes on consumer freedom.

“We think it should be a customer choice, a consumer choice and not a government mandate,” said Tim Jackson, president and chief executive of the Colorado Automobile Dealers Association.

Jackson also said that there’s not yet a strong consumer appetite for electric vehicles, meaning that manufacturers that fail to sell the mandated number of emission-free vehicles would be required to purchase credits, which he thinks would drive up the price of their other models.

Republicans in the state have registered similar concerns, saying electric vehicle adoption should take place based on market forces, not state intervention.

Many in the utility community are excited about the potential for electric cars to serve as mobile energy storage for the grid. Vehicle-to-grid technology, known as V2G, would allow cars charging during the day to take on surplus power from renewable energy sources.

Then, during peak demand times, electric vehicles would return some of that stored energy to the grid. As demand tapers off in the evening, the cars would be able to recharge.

In practice, V2G technology could be especially beneficial if used by heavy-duty fleets, such as school buses or utility vehicles. Those fleets would have substantial battery storage and long periods where they are idle, such as evenings and weekends — and even longer periods such as summer and the holiday season when school is out. The batteries on a bus, Jourabchi said, could store as much as 10 times the electricity needed to power a home for a day.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Futaba Partial Reopening marks limited access to the Fukushima exclusion zone, highlighting radiation decontamination progress, the train station restart, and regional recovery ahead of the Tokyo Olympics after the 2011 nuclear disaster and evacuation.

Key Points

A lift of entry bans in Futaba, signaling Fukushima recovery, decontamination progress, and a train station restart.

✅ Unrestricted access to 2.4 km² around Futaba Station

✅ Symbolic step ahead of Tokyo Olympics torch relay

✅ Decommissioning and decontamination to span decades

Japan's government on Wednesday opened part of the last town that had been off-limits due to radiation since the Fukushima nuclear disaster nine years ago, in a symbolic move to show the region's recovery ahead of the Tokyo Olympics, even as grid blackout risks have drawn scrutiny nationwide.

The entire population of 7,000 was forced to evacuate Futaba after three reactors melted down due to damage at the town's nuclear plant caused by a magnitude 9. 0 quake and tsunami March 11, 2011.

The partial lifting of the entry ban comes weeks before the Olympic torch starts from another town in Fukushima, as new energy projects like a large hydrogen system move forward in the prefecture. The torch could also arrive in Futaba, about 4 kilometres (2.4 miles) from the wrecked nuclear plant.

Unrestricted access, however, is only being allowed to a 2.4 square-kilometre (less than 1 square-mile) area near the main Futaba train station, which will reopen later this month to reconnect it with the rest of the region for the first time since the accident. The vast majority of Futaba is restricted to those who get permission for a day visit.

The three reactor meltdowns at the town's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant spewed massive amounts of radiation that contaminated the surrounding area and at its peak, forced more than 160,000 people to flee, even as regulators later granted TEPCO restart approval for a separate Niigata plant elsewhere in Japan.

The gate at a checkpoint was opened at midnight Tuesday, and Futaba officials placed a signboard at their new town office, at a time when the shutdown of Germany's last reactors has reshaped energy debates abroad.

“I'm overwhelmed with emotion as we finally bring part of our town operations back to our home town," said Futaba Mayor Shiro Izawa. “I pledge to steadily push forward our recovery and reconstruction."

Town officials say they hope to see Futaba’s former residents return, but prospects are grim because of lingering concern about radiation, and as Germany's nuclear exit underscores shifting policies abroad. Many residents also found new jobs and ties to communities after evacuating, and only about 10% say they plan to return.

Futaba's registered residents already has decreased by 1,000 from its pre-disaster population of 7,000. Many evacuees ended up in Kazo City, north of Tokyo, after long bus trips, various stopovers and stays in shelters at an athletic arena and an abandoned high school. The town's government reopened in a makeshift office in another Fukushima town of Iwaki, while abroad projects like the Bruce reactor refurbishment illustrate long-term nuclear maintenance efforts.

Even after radiation levels declined to safe levels, the region's farming and fishing are hurt by lingering concerns among consumers and retailers. The nuclear plant is being decommission in a process that will take decades, with spent fuel removal delays extending timelines, and it is building temporary storage for massive amounts of debris and soil from ongoing decontamination efforts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Shift from Fossil Fuels to Renewables signals an energy transition and decarbonization, as investors favor wind and solar over coal, oil, and gas due to falling ROI, policy shifts, and accelerating clean-tech innovation.

Key Points

An economic and policy-driven move redirecting capital from coal, oil, and gas to scalable wind and solar power.

✅ Driven by ROI, risk, and protests curbing fossil fuel projects

✅ Coal declines as wind and solar capacity surges globally

✅ Policy, technology, and markets speed the energy transition

This article is an excerpt from "Changing Tides: An Ecologist's Journey to Make Peace with the Anthropocene" by Alejandro Frid. Reproduced with permission from New Society Publishers. The book releases Oct. 15.

The climate and biodiversity crises reflect the stories that we have allowed to infiltrate the collective psyche of industrial civilization. It is high time to let go of these stories. Unclutter ourselves. Regain clarity. Make room for other stories that can help us reshape our ways of being in the world.

For starters, I’d love to let go of what has been our most venerated and ingrained story since the mid-1700s: that burning more fossil fuels is synonymous with prosperity. Letting go of that story shouldn’t be too hard these days. Financial investment over the past decade has been shifting very quickly away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energies, as Europe's oil majors increasingly pivot to electrification. Even Bob Dudley, group chief executive of BP — one of the largest fossil fuel corporations in the world — acknowledged the trend, writing in the "BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2017": "The relentless drive to improve energy efficiency is causing global energy consumption overall to decelerate. And, of course, the energy mix is shifting towards cleaner, lower carbon fuels, driven by environmental needs and technological advances." Dudley went on:

Coal consumption fell sharply for the second consecutive year, with its share within primary energy falling to its lowest level since 2004. Indeed, coal production and consumption in the U.K. completed an entire cycle, falling back to levels last seen almost 200 years ago around the time of the Industrial Revolution, with the U.K. power sector recording its first-ever coal-free day in April of this year. In contrast, renewable energy globally led by wind and solar power grew strongly, helped by continuing technological advances.

According to Dudley’s team, global production of oil and natural gas also slowed down in 2016. Meanwhile, that same year, the combined power provided by wind and solar energy increased by 14.6 percent: the biggest jump on record. All in all, since 2005, the installed capacity for renewable energy has grown exponentially, doubling every 5.5 years, as investment incentives expand to accelerate clean power.

The shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewables has been happening not because investors suddenly became science-literate, ethical beings, but because most investors follow the money, and Trump-era oil policies even reshaped Wall Street’s energy strategies.

It is important to celebrate that King Coal — that grand initiator of the Industrial Revolution and nastiest of fossil fuels — has just begun to lose its power over people and the atmosphere. But it is even more important to understand the underlying causes for these changes. The shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewables has been happening not because the bulk of investors suddenly became science-literate, ethical beings, but because most investors follow the money.

The easy fossil fuels — the kind you used to be able to extract with a large profit margin and relatively low risk of disaster — are essentially gone. Almost all that is left are the dregs: unconventional fossil fuels such as bitumen, or untapped offshore oil reserves in very deep water or otherwise challenging environments, like the Arctic. Sure, the dregs are massive enough to keep tempting investors. There is so much unconventional oil and shale gas left underground that, if we burned it, we would warm the world by 6 degrees or more. But unconventional fossil fuels are very expensive and energy-intensive to extract, refine and market. Additionally, new fossil fuel projects, at least in my part of the world, have become hair triggers for social unrest. For instance, Burnaby Mountain, near my home in British Columbia, where renewable electricity in B.C. is expanding, is the site of a proposed bitumen pipeline expansion where hundreds of people have been arrested since 2015 during multiple acts of civil disobedience against new fossil fuel infrastructure. By triggering legal action and delaying the project, these protests have dented corporate profits. So return on investment for fossil fuels has been dropping.

It is no coincidence that in 2017, Petronas, a huge transnational energy corporation, withdrew their massive proposal to build liquefied natural gas infrastructure on the north coast of British Columbia, as Canada's race to net-zero gathers pace across industry. Petronas backed out not because of climate change or to protect essential rearing habitat for salmon, but to backpedal from a deal that would fail to make them richer.

Shifting investment away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy, even as fossil-fuel workers signal readiness to support the transition, does not mean we have entirely ditched that tired old story about fossil fuel prosperity.

Neoliberal shifts to favor renewable energies can be completely devoid of concern for climate change. While in office, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry questioned climate science and cheered for the oil industry, yet that did not stop him from directing his state towards an expansion of wind and solar energy, even as President Obama argued that decarbonization is irreversible and anchored in long-term economics. Perry saw money to be made by batting for both teams, and merely did what most neoliberal entrepreneurs would have done.

The right change for the wrong reasons brings no guarantees. Shifting investment away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy does not mean we have entirely ditched that tired old story about fossil fuel prosperity. Once again, let’s look at Perry. As U.S. secretary of energy under Trump’s presidency, in 2017 he called the global shift from fossil fuels "immoral" and said the United States was "blessed" to provide fossil fuels for the world.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News