ABB software managing ERCOT wholesale market

Sidi Mansour Wind Farm Tunisia will deliver 30 MW as an IPP, backed by UPC Renewables and CFM, under a STEG PPA, supporting 2030 renewable energy targets, grid connection, job creation, and CO2 emissions reduction.

Key Points

A 30 MW wind IPP by UPC and CFM in Sidi Mansour, supplying STEG and advancing Tunisia's 2030 renewable target.

✅ 30 MW capacity under STEG PPA, first wind IPP in Tunisia

✅ Co-developed by UPC Renewables and Climate Fund Managers

✅ Cuts CO2 by up to 56,645 t and creates about 100 jobs

UPC Renewables (UPC) and the Climate Fund Managers (CFM) have partnered to develop a 30 megawatt wind farm in Sidi Mansour, Tunisia, which, amid regional wind expansion efforts, will help the country meet its 30% renewable energy target by 2030.

Tunisia announced the launch of its solar energy plan in 2016, with projects like the 10 MW Tunisian solar park aiming to increase the role of renewables in its electricity generation mix ten-fold to 30%,

This Sidi Mansour Project will help Tunisia meet its goals, reducing its reliance on imported fossil fuels and, mirroring 90 MW Spanish wind build milestones, demonstrating to the world that it is serious about further development of renewable energy investment.

“Chams Enfidha”, the first solar energy station in Tunisia with a capacity of 1 megawatt and located in the Enfidha region. (Ministry of Energy, Mines and Energy Transition Facebook page)

This project will also be among the country’s first Independent Power Producers (IPP). CFM is acting as sponsor, financial adviser and co-developer on the project, in a landscape shaped by IRENA-ADFD funding in developing countries, while UPC will lead the development with its local team. The team will be in charge of permitting, grid connection, land securitisation, assessment of wind resources, contract procurement and engineering.

UPC was selected under the “Authorisation Scheme” tender for the project in 2016, similar to utility-scale developments like a 450 MW U.S. wind farm, and promptly signed a power purchase agreement with Société Tunisienne Electricité et du Gaz (STEG).

Brian Caffyn, chairman of UPC Group, said: “We can start the construction of the Sidi Mansour wind farm in 2020, helping stimulate the Tunisian economy, create local jobs and a social plan for local communities while respecting international environmental protection guidelines.”

Sebastian Surie, CFM’s regional head of Africa, added: “CFM is thrilled to partner with a leading wind developer in the Sidi Mansour Wind Project to assist Tunisia in meeting its renewable energy goals. As potentially the first Wind IPP in Tunisia, this Project will be a testament to how CI1’s full life-cycle financing solution can unlock investment in renewable energy in new markets, as seen in an Irish offshore wind project globally.”

The project will not only provide electricity, but also reduce CO2 emissions by up to 56,645 tonnes and create some 100 new jobs.

Wind turbine in El Haouaria, Tunisia, highlighting advances such as a huge offshore wind turbine that can power 18,000 homes. (Reuters)

Tunisia’s first power station, “Chams Enfidha,” inaugurated at the beginning of July, has a capacity of one megawatt, with an estimated cost of 3.3 million dinars ($1.18 million). The state invested 2.3 million dinars into the project ($820,000), with the remaining 1 million dinars ($360,000) provided by a private investor.

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

Proton Conducting Fuel Cells enable reversible hydrogen energy storage, coupling electrolyzers and fuel cells with ceramic catalysts and proton-conducting membranes to convert wind and solar electricity into fuel and back to reliable grid power.

Key Points

Proton conducting fuel cells store renewable power as hydrogen and generate electricity using reversible catalysts.

✅ Reversible electrolysis and fuel-cell operation in one device

✅ Ceramic air electrodes hit up to 98% splitting efficiency

✅ Scalable path to low-cost grid energy storage with hydrogen

If we want a shot at transitioning to renewable energy, we’ll need one crucial thing: technologies that can convert electricity from wind, sun, and even electricity from raindrops into a chemical fuel for storage and vice versa. Commercial devices that do this exist, but most are costly and perform only half of the equation. Now, researchers have created lab-scale gadgets that do both jobs. If larger versions work as well, they would help make it possible—or at least more affordable—to run the world on renewables.

The market for such technologies has grown along with renewables: In 2007, solar and wind provided just 0.8% of all power in the United States; in 2017, that number was 8%, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. But the demand for electricity often doesn’t match the supply from solar and wind, a key reason why the U.S. grid isn't 100% renewable today. In sunny California, for example, solar panels regularly produce more power than needed in the middle of the day, but none at night, after most workers and students return home.

Some utilities are beginning to install massive banks of cheaper solar batteries in hopes of storing excess energy and evening out the balance sheet. But batteries are costly and store only enough energy to back up the grid for a few hours at most. Another option is to store the energy by converting it into hydrogen fuel. Devices called electrolyzers do this by using electricity—ideally from solar and wind power—to split water into oxygen and hydrogen gas, a carbon-free fuel. A second set of devices called fuel cells can then convert that hydrogen back to electricity to power cars, trucks, and buses, or to feed it to the grid.

But commercial electrolyzers and fuel cells use different catalysts to speed up the two reactions, meaning a single device can’t do both jobs. To get around this, researchers have been experimenting with a newer type of fuel cell, called a proton conducting fuel cell (PCFC), which can make fuel or convert it back into electricity using just one set of catalysts.

PCFCs consist of two electrodes separated by a membrane that allows protons across. At the first electrode, known as the air electrode, steam and electricity are fed into a ceramic catalyst, which splits the steam’s water molecules into positively charged hydrogen ions (protons), electrons, and oxygen molecules. The electrons travel through an external wire to the second electrode—the fuel electrode—where they meet up with the protons that crossed through the membrane. There, a nickel-based catalyst stitches them together to make hydrogen gas (H2). In previous PCFCs, the nickel catalysts performed well, but the ceramic catalysts were inefficient, using less than 70% of the electricity to split the water molecules. Much of the energy was lost as heat.

Now, two research teams have made key strides in improving this efficiency, and a new fuel cell concept brings biological design ideas into the mix. They both focused on making improvements to the air electrode, because the nickel-based fuel electrode did a good enough job. In January, researchers led by chemist Sossina Haile at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, reported in Energy & Environmental Science that they came up with a fuel electrode made from a ceramic alloy containing six elements that harnessed 76% of its electricity to split water molecules. And in today’s issue of Nature Energy, Ryan O’Hayre, a chemist at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden, reports that his team has done one better. Their ceramic alloy electrode, made up of five elements, harnesses as much as 98% of the energy it’s fed to split water.

When both teams run their setups in reverse, the fuel electrode splits H2 molecules into protons and electrons. The electrons travel through an external wire to the air electrode—providing electricity to power devices. When they reach the electrode, they combine with oxygen from the air and protons that crossed back over the membrane to produce water.

The O’Hayre group’s latest work is “impressive,” Haile says. “The electricity you are putting in is making H2 and not heating up your system. They did a really good job with that.” Still, she cautions, both her new device and the one from the O’Hayre lab are small laboratory demonstrations. For the technology to have a societal impact, researchers will need to scale up the button-size devices, a process that typically reduces performance. If engineers can make that happen, the cost of storing renewable energy could drop precipitously, thereby moving us closer to cheap abundant electricity at scale, helping utilities do away with their dependence on fossil fuels.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

NY & NJ Utility Shutoff Moratorium suspends power, heat, and water disconnections amid COVID-19, as PSEG, Con Edison, Avangrid, and American Water pledge relief, supporting vulnerable customers with payment plans and health protections.

Key Points

A temporary pause on power, heat, and water shutoffs during COVID-19, as major utilities act to protect affected customers.

✅ Applies to power, gas, and water; restores prior shutoffs.

✅ Voluntary utility action; no PSC order required in NY.

✅ Initial moratorium runs through April; payment plans available.

New Jersey and New York utilities will keep the power, heat and water on for all customers in response to the coronavirus emergency, both states announced Friday.

Major utilities have agreed to suspend utility shut-offs, a particular concern for people who may be out of work and cannot afford to pay their bills.

“No utility can turn off service … if a person cannot pay their bill as a result of responding to this virus situation,” said New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo during a press conference Friday.

Utilities in New York have voluntarily agreed to this measure, according to the governor’s office, reflecting a broader state moratorium on disconnections during emergencies. No order from the Public Service Commission is expected.

With growing concerns about the economic impacts of a virtual shutdown of businesses and large events to curtail the spread of the novel coronavirus, advocates are increasingly pushing financial relief for families amid pandemic energy insecurity pressures. There’s a campaign in New York to suspend evictions and foreclosures, with growing political support. A similar call has gone out in New Jersey.

As the weather warms, shut-offs of electric and gas service due to nonpayment tend to pick up. If people are quarantined or out of work due to a widespread economic slowdown, some advocates say they shouldn’t have to worry about having the lights or heat turned off, especially as examples of unpaid utility bills straining cities have emerged elsewhere.

“We recognize that customers may experience financial difficulty as a result of the outbreak, whether they or a family member fall ill, are required to quarantine, or because their income is otherwise affected,” said Michael Jennings, a spokesperson for Public Service Enterprise Group — the parent company of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, New Jersey’s largest utility — in a statement.

The company’s policy will be in place at least through the end of April, as will Atlantic City Electric’s, and other utilities such as PG&E's pandemic response included a similar moratorium during the outbreak.

“Curtailing shut-offs is good public policy to make sure New Jersey residents aren’t left in the lurch as they’re dealing with coronavirus,” said Eric Miller, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s New Jersey energy policy program. “Not having a safe place to be because you don't have electricity, gas or water doesn’t do anything to help address the coronavirus.”

Water service has also drawn attention. Major cities, including Atlanta and Detroit, have suspended shut-offs to ensure residents have water to wash their hands, while Texas utilities waived fees to support customers as well. Seattle suspended water and electric shutoffs.

American Water, which operates in 16 states and has 650,000 customers in New Jersey and 350,000 in New York, has halted any shutoffs amid the coronavirus pandemic and will also restore service, and similarly Hydro One reconnected customers in Canada to maintain access. New York City does not shut off service for nonpayment, but does issue liens against people’s property.

“Everyone, regardless as to what industry, has to have a heightened responsibility that’s encompassed in compassion and take everything into consideration,” New Jersey state Sen. Teresa Ruiz (D-Essex) told POLITICO. “Now is not the time to be worrying about late payments or bills. We need to get past this, hopefully, to see what we’re facing and then deal with other things.”

PSEG Long Island, a subsidiary of PSEG that handles day-to-day operations for the Long Island Power Authority, was the first New York utility to announce it is also suspending shutoffs before the governor’s announcement. The moratorium will remain in place through the end of April.

Rich Berkley, with the Public Utility Law Project, which advocates for low-income customers in New York, said he’s been in touch with state officials to make sure the issue of utility bills is considered during the pandemic. New York already has requirements for utilities to offer deferred payment agreements before shutting off service, he noted.

“The state has to act to protect the most vulnerable households first,” he said. “To the extent that the state is declaring areas of emergency, this should be part of the remedies the state deploys.”

But he noted that not everyone will have trouble paying their utility bills if they’re under quarantine.

“Given the background of a collapsing stock and equity market, all of which matters to the utilities, and shifts in electricity demand during COVID-19, we have to be careful about blanket moratoriums [on shutoffs] in New York,” Berkley said.

Con Edison, the largest utility in the state serving most of New York City, had already informed the Department of Public Service it will suspend all shut-offs in the one-mile radius New Rochelle containment area, spokesperson Michael Clendenin said on Thursday. The moratorium on shutoffs now includes its entire New York City and Westchester County territory.

Avangrid, which owns New York State Electric & Gas and Rochester Gas & Electric, serving broad swathes of upstate New York, will suspend shut-offs due to unpaid bills for 30 days, spokesperson Michael Jamison said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

China Power Rationing disrupts the solar supply chain as coal shortages, price controls, and dual-control emissions policy curb electricity, squeezing polysilicon, aluminum, and module production and raising equipment costs amid surging post-Covid industrial demand.

Key Points

China's electricity curbs from coal shortages, price caps, and emissions targets disrupt solar output and materials.

✅ Polysilicon and aluminum output cut by power rationing

✅ Coal price spikes and power price caps squeeze generators

✅ Dual-control emissions policy triggers provincial curbs

The solar manufacturing supply chain is among the industries being affected by a combination of soaring power demand, coal shortages, and carbon emission reduction measures which have seen widespread power cuts in China.

In Yunnan province, in southwest China, producers of the silicon metal which feeds polysilicon have been operating at 10% of the output they achieved in August. They are expected to continue to do so for the rest of the year as provincial authorities try to control electricity demand with a measure that is also affecting the phosphorus industry.

Fellow solar supply chain members from the aluminum industry in Guangxi province, in the south, have been forced to operate just two days per week, alongside peers in the concrete, steel, lime, and ceramics segments. Manufacturers in neighboring Guangdong have access to normal power supplies only on Fridays and Saturdays with electricity rationed to a 15% grid security load for the rest of the time.

pv magazine USA reported that a Tier 1 solar module manufacturer warned customers in an email that energy shortages in China have forced it to reduce or stop production at its Chinese manufacturing sites. The company warned the event will also affect output from its downstream cell and module production facilities in Southeast Asia.

The memo said that in order to recover from the effects of the “potential Force Majeure event,” it may delay or stop equipment delivery or seek to renegotiate contracts to pass through higher prices.

Raw material sourcing
With reports of drastic power shortages emerging from China in recent days, the country has actually been experiencing problems since late June, and similar pressures have seen India ration coal supplies this year, but rationing is not unusual during the peak summer hours.

What has changed this time is that the outages have continued and prompted rationing measures across 19 of the nation’s provinces for the rest of the year. The problems have been caused by a combination of rising post-Covid electricity demand at a time when the politically-motivated ban on imports of Australian coal has tightened supply; and the manner in which Beijing controls power prices, with the situation further exacerbated by carbon emissions reduction policy.

Demand
Electricity demand from industry, underscoring China’s electricity appetite, was 13.5 percentage points higher in the first eight months of the year than in the same period of 2020, at 3,585 TWh. That reflected a 13.8% year-on-year rise in total consumption, following earlier power demand drops when coronavirus shuttered plants, to 5.47 PWh, according to data from state energy industry trade body the China Electricity Council.

Figures produced by the China General Administration of Customs tell the same story: a rebound driven by the global recovery from the pandemic, as global power demand surges above pre-pandemic levels, with China recording import and export trade worth RMB2.48 trillion ($385 billion) in January-to-August. That was up 23.7% on the same period of last year and 22.8% higher than in the first eight months of 2019.

With Beijing having enforced an unofficial ban on imports of Australian coal for the last year or so – as the result of an ongoing diplomatic spat with Australia – rising demand for coal (which provided around 73% of Chinese electricity in the first half of the year) has further raised prices for the fossil fuel.

The problem for Chinese coal-fired power generators is that Beijing maintains strict controls on the price of electricity. As a result, input costs cannot be passed on to consumers. The mismatch between a liberalized coal market and centrally controlled end-user prices is illustrated by the current situation in Guangdong. There, a coal price of RMB1,560 per ton ($242) has pushed the cost of coal-fired electricity up to RMB0.472 per kilowatt-hour ($0.073). With coal power companies facing an electricity price ceiling of around RMB0.463/kWh ($0.071), generators are losing around RMB0.12 for every kilowatt-hour they generate. In that situation, rationing electricity supplies is an obvious remedy.

The crisis has been worsened by the introduction of China’s “dual control” energy policy, which aims to help meet President Xi Jinping’s climate change pledge of hitting peak carbon emissions this decade and a net zero economy by 2060, and to reduce coal power production over time. Dual control refers to attempts to wind down greenhouse gas emissions at both a national level and in more local areas, such as provinces and cities.

Red status
With the finer details of the carbon reduction policy yet to be ironed out, government departments and provincial and city authorities have started to set their own emission-reduction targets. In mid-August, state planning body the China National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) published a table of the energy control situation across the nation. With nine provinces marked red for their energy consumption, and a further 10 highlighted as yellow, officials received another motivation to introduce power rationing.

China’s solar industry is being impacted by coal shortages for electric power generation. In this 2014 photo, a thermal generating plant’s cooling towers loom over a street in Henan Province.
Image: flickr/V.T. Polywoda

The current approach of rolling blackouts seems unlikely to be a sustainable solution, as surging electricity demand strains power systems worldwide, given the damage it could inflict on industry and the resentment it would cause in parts of the nation already preparing for winter.

The choice facing China’s policymakers is whether to ramp up coal supplies to force prices down by using decommissioned domestic supplies and halting the ban on Australian imports, or to raise electricity prices to prompt generators to get the lights back on. While the drawbacks of raising household electricity bills seem obvious, the first approach of using more coal could endanger the nation’s climate change commitments on the even of the COP26 meeting in Glasgow, Scotland, in November. Sources close to the NDRC have suggested the electricity price may be set to rise soon.

GDP
What is clear is the effect the energy crisis is having on the Chinese economy and on the solar supply chain. Leading up to a  national day holiday in China, the coal price in northern China rose to around RMB2,000 per ton ($310), three times higher than at the beginning of the year.

Investment bank China International Capital Corp. blamed the dual control emission reduction policy for the electricity shortages. It predicted a 0.1-0.15 percentage point impact on economic growth in the last quarter of 2021.  Morgan Stanley has put that figure at 1% in the current quarter, if industrial output restrictions continue. And Japan’s Nomura Securities revised down its annual forecast on Chinese growth from 8.2% to 7.7%. It now expects GDP gains in the third and fourth quarters to cool from 5.1% to 4.7%, and from 4.4% to 3%, respectively.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

DOE Hydropower Funding advances clean energy R&D, pumped storage hydropower, retrofits for non-powered dams, and fleet modernization under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act, boosting long-duration energy storage, licensing studies, and sustainability engagement.

Key Points

A $28M DOE initiative supporting hydropower R&D, pumped storage, retrofits, and stakeholder sustainability efforts.

✅ Funds retrofits for non-powered dams, expanding low-impact supply

✅ Backs studies to license new pumped storage facilities

✅ Engages stakeholders on modernization and environmental impacts

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced more than $28 million across three funding opportunities to support research and development projects that will advance and preserve hydropower as a critical source of clean energy. Funded through President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, this funding will support the expansion of low-impact hydropower (such as retrofits for dams that do not produce power) and pumped storage hydropower, the development of new pumped storage hydropower facilities, and engagement with key voices on issues like hydropower fleet modernization, sustainability, and environmental impacts. President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act also includes a standalone tax credit for energy storage, which will further enhance the economic attractiveness of pumped storage hydropower. Hydropower will be a key clean energy source in transitioning away from fossil fuels and meeting President Biden’s goals of 100% carbon pollution free electricity by 2035 through a clean electricity standard policy pathway and a net-zero carbon economy by 2050.

“Hydropower has long provided Americans with significant, reliable energy, which will now play a crucial role in achieving energy independence and protecting the climate,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm. “President Biden’s Agenda is funding critical innovations to capitalize on the promise of hydropower and ensure communities have a say in building America’s clean energy future, including efforts to revitalize coal communities through clean projects.” 

Hydropower accounts for 31.5% of U.S. renewable electricity generation and about 6.3% of total U.S. electricity generation, with complementary programs to bolster energy security for rural communities supporting grid resilience, while pumped storage hydropower accounts for 93% of U.S. utility-scale energy storage, ensuring power is available when homes and businesses need it, even as the aging U.S. power grid poses challenges to renewable integration.  

The funding opportunities include, as part of broader clean energy funding initiatives, the following: 

• Advancing the sustainable development of hydropower and pumped storage hydropower by encouraging innovative solutions to retrofit non-powered dams, the development and testing of technologies that mitigate challenges to pumped storage hydropower deployment, as well as opportunities for organizations not extensively engaged with DOE’s Water Power Technologies Office to support hydropower research and development. (Funding amount: $14.5 million) 
• Supporting studies that facilitate the FERC licensing process and eventual construction and commissioning of new pumped storage hydropower facilities to facilitate the long-duration storage of intermittent renewable electricity. (Funding amount: $10 million)
• Uplifting the efforts of diverse hydropower stakeholders to discuss and find paths forward on topics that include U.S. hydropower fleet modernization, hydropower system sustainability, and hydropower facilities’ environmental impact. (Funding amount: $4 million) 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News