LG Electronics to invest in Korean solar cell lines

U.S. EV Market Share Dip Q1 2024 reflects slower BEV adoption, rising PHEV demand, affordability concerns, charging infrastructure gaps, tax credit shifts, range anxiety, and automaker strategy adjustments across the electric vehicle market.

Key Points

Q1 2024 EV and hybrid share slipped as BEV sales lag, PHEVs rise, and affordability and charging concerns temper demand.

✅ BEV share fell to 7.0% as affordable models remain limited

✅ PHEV sales rose 50% YoY, easing range anxiety concerns

✅ Policy shifts and charging gaps weigh on consumer adoption

The U.S. electric vehicle (EV) market, once a beacon of unbridled growth, appears to be experiencing a course correction. Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reveals that the combined market share of electric vehicles (battery electric vehicles, or BEVs) and hybrids dipped slightly in the first quarter of 2024, marking the first decline since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, even as EU EV share rose during lockdowns in 2020.

This news comes as a surprise to many analysts who predicted continued exponential growth for the EV market. While overall sales of electric vehicles surged into 2024 and did increase by 7% compared to Q1 2023, this growth wasn't enough to keep pace with the overall rise in vehicle sales. The result: a decline in market share from 18.8% in Q4 2023 to 18.0% in Q1 2024.

Several factors may be contributing to this shift. One potential culprit is a slowdown in battery electric vehicle sales. BEVs saw their share of the market dip from 8.1% to 7.0% in the same period. This could be attributed to a lack of readily available affordable options, with many popular EV models still commanding premium prices and concerns that EV supply may miss demand in the near term.

Another factor could be the rising interest in plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). PHEV sales witnessed a significant jump of 50% year-over-year, reflecting how gas-electric hybrids are getting a boost from major automakers, potentially indicating a consumer preference for vehicles that offer both electric and gasoline powertrain options, addressing concerns about range anxiety often associated with BEVs.

Industry experts offer mixed interpretations of this data. Some downplay the significance of the dip, attributing it to a temporary blip, even though EVs remain behind gas cars in total sales. They point to the ongoing commitment from major automakers to invest in EV production and the potential for new, more affordable models to hit the market soon.

Others express more concern, citing Europe's recent EV slump and suggesting this might be a sign of maturing consumer preferences. They argue that simply increasing the number of EVs on the market might not be enough. Automakers need to address issues like affordability, charging infrastructure, and range anxiety to maintain momentum.

The role of government incentives also remains a question mark. The federal tax credit for electric vehicles is currently set to phase out gradually, potentially impacting consumer purchasing decisions in the future. Continued government support, through incentives or infrastructure development, could be crucial in maintaining consumer interest.

The coming quarters will be crucial in determining the long-term trajectory of the U.S. EV market, especially after the global electric car market's rapid expansion in recent years. Whether this is a temporary setback or a more lasting trend remains to be seen. Addressing consumer concerns, ensuring a diverse range of affordable EV options, and continued government support will all be essential in ensuring the continued growth of this critical sector.

This development also presents an opportunity for traditional automakers. By capitalizing on the growing PHEV market and addressing consumer concerns about affordability and range anxiety, they can carve out a strong position in the evolving automotive landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Bruce Power Major Component Replacement secures Ontario-made nuclear components via $914M contracts, supporting refurbishment, clean energy, low-cost electricity, and advanced manufacturing, extending reactor life to 2064 while boosting jobs, supply chain growth, and economy.

Key Points

A refurbishment program investing $914M in advanced manufacturing to extend reactors and deliver low-cost, clean power.

✅ $914M Ontario-made components for steam generators, tubes, fittings

✅ Extends reactor life to 2064; clean, low-cost electricity for Ontario

✅ Supports 22,000 jobs annually; boosts supply chain and economy

Today, Bruce Power signed $914 million in advanced manufacturing contracts for its Major Component Replacement, which gets underway in 2020, as the reactor refurbishment begins across the site and will allow the site to provide low-cost, carbon-free electricity to Ontario through 2064.

The Major Component Replacement (MCR) Project agreements include:

• $642 million to BWXT Canada Inc. for the manufacturing of 32 steam generators to be produced at BWXT’s Cambridge facility.
• $144 million to Laker Energy Products for end fittings, liners and flow elements, which will be manufactured at its Oakville location.
• $62 million to Cameco Fuel Manufacturing, in Cobourg, for calandria tubes and annulus spacers for all six MCRs.
• $66 million for Nu-Tech Precision Metals, in Arnprior, for the production of zirconium alloy pressure tubes for Units 6 and 3.

Bruce Power’s Life-Extension Program, which started in January 2016 with Asset Management Program investments and includes the MCRs on Units 3-8, remains on time and on budget.”

#google#

By signing these contracts today, we have secured ‘Made in Ontario‘ solutions for the components we will need to successfully complete our MCR Projects, extending the life of our site to 2064,” said Mike Rencheck, Bruce Power’s President and CEO.

“Today’s announcements represent a $914 million investment in Ontario’s highly skilled workforce, which will create untold economic opportunities for the communities in which they operate for many years to come.”We look forward to growing our already excellent relationships with these supplier partners and unions as we work toward our common goal, supported by an operating record, of continuing to keep Canada’s largest infrastructure project on time and on budget."

By extending the life of Bruce Power’s reactors to 2064, the company will create and sustain 22,000 jobs annually, both directly and indirectly, across Ontario, while investing $4 billion a year into the province’s economy, underscoring the economic benefits of nuclear development across Canada.

At the same time, Bruce Power will produce 30 per cent of Ontario’s electricity at 30 per cent less than the average cost to generate residential power, while also producing zero carbon emissions, aligning with Pickering NGS life extensions across the province.The Hon. Glenn Thibeault, Minister of Energy, said today’s announcement is good news for the people of Ontario.”

Bruce Power’s Life-Extension Program makes sense for Ontario, and the announcements made today will create good jobs and benefit our economy for decades to come,” Minister Thibeault said.

“Moving forward with the refurbishment project is part of our government’s plan to support care and opportunity, while producing affordable, reliable and clean energy for the people of Ontario.”Kim Rudd, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and MP for Northumberland-Peterborough South, offered her support and congratulations.”

Related planning includes Bruce C project exploration funding that supports long-term nuclear options in Ontario.

Canada’s nuclear industry, including its advanced manufacturing capability, is respected internationally,” Rudd said. “Bruce Power’s announcement today related to the advanced manufacturing of key components throughout Ontario as part of its Life-Extension Program will allow these suppliers to have a secure base to not only meet Canada’s needs, but export internationally.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hourly Electricity Emissions Tracking maps grid balancing areas, embodied emissions, and imports/exports, revealing carbon intensity shifts across PJM, ERCOT, and California ISO, and clarifying renewable energy versus coal impacts on health and climate.

Key Points

An hourly method tracing generation, flows, and embodied emissions to quantify carbon intensity across US balancing areas.

✅ Hourly traces of imports/exports and generation mix

✅ Consumption-based carbon intensity by balancing area

✅ Policy insights for renewables, coal, health costs

In the United States, electricity generation accounts for nearly 30% of our carbon emissions. Some states have responded to that by setting aggressive renewable energy standards; others are hoping to see coal propped up even as its economics get worse. Complicating matters further is the fact that many regional grids are integrated, and as America goes electric the stakes grow, meaning power generated in one location may be exported and used in a different state entirely.

Tracking these electricity exports is critical for understanding how to lower our national carbon emissions. In addition, power from a dirty source like coal has health and environment impacts where it's produced, and the costs of these aren't always paid by the parties using the electricity. Unfortunately, getting reliable figures on how electricity is produced and where it's used is challenging, even for consumers trying to find where their electricity comes from in the first place, leaving some of the best estimates with a time resolution of only a month.

Now, three Stanford researchers—Jacques A. de Chalendar, John Taggart, and Sally M. Benson—have greatly improved on that standard, and they have managed to track power generation and use on an hourly basis. The researchers found that, of the 66 grid balancing areas within the United States, only three have carbon emissions equivalent to our national average, and they have found that imports and exports of electricity have both seasonal and daily changes. de Chalendar et al. discovered that the net results can be substantial, with imported electricity increasing California's emissions/power by 20%.

Hour by hour
To figure out the US energy trading landscape, the researchers obtained 2016 data for grid features called balancing areas. The continental US has 66 of these, providing much better spatial resolution on the data than the larger grid subdivisions. This doesn't cover everything—several balancing areas in Canada and Mexico are tied in to the US grid—and some of these balancing areas are much larger than others. The PJM grid, serving Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland, for example, is more than twice as large as Texas' ERCOT, in a state that produces and consumes the most electricity in the US.

Despite these limitations, it's possible to get hourly figures on how much electricity was generated, what was used to produce it, and whether it was used locally or exported to another balancing area. Information on the generating sources allowed the researchers to attach an emissions figure to each unit of electricity produced. Coal, for example, produces double the emissions of natural gas, which in turn produces more than an order of magnitude more carbon dioxide than the manufacturing of solar, wind, or hydro facilities. These figures were turned into what the authors call "embodied emissions" that can be traced to where they're eventually used.

Similar figures were also generated for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Released by the burning of fossil fuels, these can both influence the global climate and produce local health problems.

Huge variation
The results were striking. "The consumption-based carbon intensity of electricity varies by almost an order of magnitude across the different regions in the US electricity system," the authors conclude. The low is the Bonneville Power grid region, which is largely supplied by hydropower; it has typical emissions below 100kg of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour. The highest emissions come in the Ohio Valley Electric region, where emissions clear 900kg/MW-hr. Only three regional grids match the overall grid emissions intensity, although that includes the very large PJM (where capacity auction payouts recently fell), ERCOT, and Southern Co balancing areas.

Most of the low-emissions power that's exported comes from the Pacific Northwest's abundant hydropower, while the Rocky Mountains area exports electricity with the highest associated emissions. That leads to some striking asymmetries. Local generation in the hydro-rich Idaho Power Company has embodied emissions of only 71kg/MW-hr, while its imports, coming primarily from Rocky Mountain states, have a carbon content of 625kg/MW-hr.

The reliance on hydropower also makes the asymmetry seasonal. Local generation is highest in the spring as snow melts, but imports become a larger source outside this time of year. As solar and wind can also have pronounced seasonal shifts, similar changes will likely be seen as these become larger contributors to many of these regional grids. Similar things occur daily, as both demand and solar production (and, to a lesser extent, wind) have distinct daily profiles.

The Golden State
California's CISO provides another instructive case. Imports represent less than 30% of its total electric use in 2016, yet California electricity imports provided 40% of its embodied emissions. Some of these, however, come internally from California, provided by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. The state itself, however, has only had limited tracking of imported emissions, lumping many of its sources as "other," and has been exporting its energy policies to Western states in ways that shape regional markets.

Overall, the 2016 inventory provides a narrow picture of the US grid, as plenty of trends are rapidly changing our country's emissions profile, including the rise of renewables and the widespread adoption of efficiency measures and other utility trends in 2017 that continue to evolve. The method developed here can, however, allow for annual updates, providing us with a much better picture of trends. That could be quite valuable to track things like how the rapid rise in solar power is altering the daily production of clean power.

More significantly, it provides a basis for more informed policymaking. States that wish to promote low-emissions power can use the information here to either alter the source of their imports or to encourage the sites where they're produced to adopt more renewable power. And those states that are exporting electricity produced primarily through fossil fuels could ensure that the locations where the power is used pay a price that includes the health costs of its production.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hydro One COVID-19 Rate Relief responds to time-of-use pricing, peak rates, and Ontario Energy Board rules as residents stay home, offering a Pandemic Relief Fund, flexible payments, and support for electricity bills amid off-peak adjustments.

Key Points

Hydro One's COVID-19 rate relief includes payment flexibility and hardship aid to ease time-of-use bill burdens.

✅ Advocates flexibility on time-of-use and peak rate impacts

✅ Pandemic Relief Fund offers aid and payment options

✅ OEB sets prices; utilities relay concerns and support

Hydro One says it is listening to requests by self-isolating residents for reduced kilowatt hour peak rates during the day when most people are home riding out the COVID-19 pandemic.

Peak rates of 20.8 cents per kw/h are twice as high from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. – except weekends – than off-peak rates of 10.1 cents per kw/h and set by the Ontario Energy Board and not electricity providers such as Hydro One and Elexicon (formerly Veridian).

Frustrated electrical customers have signed their John Henry’s more than 50,000 times to a change.org petition demanding Hydro One temporarily slash rates for those already struggling with work closures and loss of income amid concerns about a potential recovery rate that could raise bills.

Alex Stewart, media relations spokesman for Hydro One, said the corporation is working toward a solution.

“While we are regulated to adhere to time-of-use pricing by the Ontario Energy Board, we’ve heard the concerns about time-of-use pricing and the idea of a fixed COVID-19 hydro rate as many of our customers will stay home to stop the spread of COVID-19,” Stewart told The Intelligencer.

“We continue to advocate for greater choice during this difficult time and are working with everyone in the electricity sector to ensure our customers are heard.”

Stewart said the electricity provider is reaching out to customers to help them during a difficult self-isolating and social distancing period in other ways to bring financial relief.

For example, new hardship measures are now in play by Hydro One to give customers some relief from ballooning electricity bills.

“This is a difficult time for everyone. Hydro One has launched a new Pandemic Relief Fund to support customers affected by the novel coronavirus COVID-19. As part of our commitment to customers, we will offer financial assistance, as well as increased payment flexibility, to customers experiencing hardship,” Stewart said.

“Hydro One is also extending its Winter Relief program to halt disconnections and reconnections to customers experiencing hardship during the coldest months of the year. This is about doing the right thing and offering flexibility to our customers so they have peace of mind and can concentrate on what matters most – keeping their loved ones safe.”

Stewart said customers having difficult times can visit the company’s website for more details at www.HydroOne.com/ReliefFund.

Elexicon Energy, meanwhile, said earlier the former Veridian company is passing along concerns to the OEB but otherwise can’t lower the rates unless directed to do so, as occurred when the province set off-peak pricing temporarily.

Chris Mace, Elexicon corporate communications spokesperson, said, “We don’t have the authority to do that.

“The Ontario Energy Board sets the energy prices. This is in the Ministry of Energy’s hands. We at Elexicon, along with other local distribution companies (LDC), have shared this feedback with the ministry and OEB to come up with some sort of solution or alternative. But this is out of our hands. We can’t shift anything.”

He suggested residents can shift the use of higher-drawing electrical appliances to early morning before 7 or in the evening after 7 p.m. when ultra-low overnight rates may apply.

Families may want to be “mindful whether it be cooking or laundry and so on and holding off on doing those until off-peak hours take effect. We are hearing customers and we have passed along those concerns to the ministry and the OEB.”

Hydro One power tips

Certain electrical uses in the home consumer more power than others, as reflected in Ontario’s electricity cost allocation approach:

62 per cent goes to space heating
19 per cent goes to water heaters
13 per cent goes to appliances
2 per cent goes to space cooling

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

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

Key Points

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

✅ Crews prioritize areas with severe damage and limited access

✅ Report downed power lines; keep a safe distance

✅ Check website and social media for restoration updates

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News