ABB to provide control upgrade at PSEG plant

Power plant staff sequestration isolates essential operators on-site at plants and control centers, safeguarding critical infrastructure and grid reliability during the COVID-19 pandemic under DHS CISA guidance, with social distancing, offset shifts, and stockpiled supplies.

Key Points

A protocol isolating essential grid workers on-site to maintain operations at plants and control centers.

✅ Ensures grid reliability and continuity of critical infrastructure

✅ Implements social distancing, offset shifts, and isolation protocols

✅ Stockpiles food, beds, PPE, and sanitation for essential crews

The U.S. electric industry may ask essential staff to live on site at power plants and control centers to keep operations running if the coronavirus outbreak worsens, after a U.S. grid warning from the overseer, and has been stockpiling beds, blankets, and food for them, according to industry trade groups and electric cooperatives.

The contingency plans, if enacted, would mark an unprecedented step by power providers to keep their highly-skilled workers healthy as both private industry and governments scramble to minimize the impact of the global pandemic that has infected more than 227,000 people worldwide, with some utilities such as BC Hydro at Site C reporting COVID-19 updates as the situation evolves.

“The focus needs to be on things that keep the lights on and the gas flowing,” said Scott Aaronson, vice president of security and preparedness at the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the nation’s biggest power industry association. He said that some “companies are already either sequestering a healthy group of their essential employees or are considering doing that and are identifying appropriate protocols to do that.”

Maria Korsnick, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, said that some of the nation’s nearly 60 nuclear power plants are also “considering measures to isolate a core group to run the plant, stockpiling ready-to-eat meals and disposable tableware, laundry supplies and personal care items.”

Neither group identified specific companies, though nuclear worker concerns have been raised in some cases.

Electric power plants, oil and gas infrastructure and nuclear reactors are considered “critical infrastructure” by the federal government, and utilities continue to emphasize safety near downed lines even during emergencies. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is charged with coordinating plans to keep them operational during an emergency.

A DHS spokesperson said that its Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency had issued guidance to local governments and businesses on Thursday asking them to implement policies to protect their critical staff from the virus, even as an EPA telework policy emerged during the pandemic.

“When continuous remote work is not possible, businesses should enlist strategies to reduce the likelihood of spreading the disease,” the guidance stated. “This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, separating staff by off-setting shift hours or days and/or social distancing.”

Public health officials have urged the public to practice social distancing as a preventative measure to slow the spread of the virus, and as more people work from home, rising residential electricity use is being observed alongside daily routines. If workers who are deemed essential still leave, go to work and return to their homes, it puts the people they live with at risk of exposure. 

California has imposed a statewide shutdown, asking all citizens who do not work in those critical infrastructure industries not to leave their homes, a shift that may raise household electricity bills for consumers. Similar actions have been put in place in cities across America.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

American Green Energy Independence accelerates electrification and renewable energy, leveraging solar, wind, and EVs to boost energy security, cut emissions, create jobs, and reduce reliance on volatile oil and natural gas markets influenced by geopolitics.

Key Points

American Green Energy Independence is a strategy to electrify, expand renewables, and enhance energy security.

✅ Electrifies vehicles, appliances, and infrastructure

✅ Expands solar, wind, and storage to stabilize grids

✅ Cuts oil dependence, strengthens energy security and jobs

As Putin's heavy hand uses Russia's power over oil and natural gas as a weapon against Europe, which is facing an energy nightmare across its markets, and the people of Ukraine, it's impossible not to wonder how we can mitigate the damages he's causing. Simultaneously, it's a devastating reminder of the freedom we so often take for granted and a warning to increase our energy independence as a nation. There are many ways we can, but one of the best is to follow the lead of the European Union and quicken our transition to green and renewable energies.

We've known it for a long time: our reliance on fossil fuels is a national security risk. Volatile prices coupled with our extreme demand mean that concerns over fossil fuel access have driven foreign policy decisions. We've seen it happen countless times — most notably during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — and it's played out again in Ukraine, which has leaned on imports to keep the lights on during the crisis. Concerned by Russia's power over the oil and natural gas market, the US and Europe were quite reluctant to impose the harshest, most recent sanctions because doing so will hurt their citizens' pocketbooks.

As homeowners, we know how much decisions like these can hurt, especially with gas prices being historically high even as an energy crisis isn't spurring a green shift for many consumers. However, the solution to this problem isn't to drill more, as some well-funded oil and gas interest groups have claimed. Doing so likely won't even provide a short-term solution to the problem as it takes six months to a year at minimum to build a new well with all its associated infrastructure.

The best long-term solution is to declare our independence from the global oil market amid a global energy war that is driving price hikes and invest in American-made clean energy. We need to electrify our vehicles, appliances, and infrastructure, and make America fully energy independent. This will save families thousands of dollars a year, make our country more self-sufficient, and provide hundreds of thousands of quality jobs here in the Midwest.

Already, over 600,000 Midwesterners are employed in clean-energy professions, and they make 25 percent more than the national median wage. Nationally, clean energy is the biggest job creator in our country's energy sector, employing almost three times as many workers as the fossil fuel industry.

As we employ our own citizens, we will defund Putin's Russia, which has long been funded by his powerful oil and gas industry. Instead of diversifying his economy during the oil boom of the 2010s, Putin doubled down on petroleum. We should exploit his weakness by leading a global movement to abandon the very resource that funds his warmongering. Doing so will further destabilize his economy and protect the citizens of Ukraine, especially as they prepare for winter amid energy challenges today.

We can start doing this as everyday consumers by seeking electric options like stoves, cars, or other appliances. Congress should help Americans afford these changes by providing tax credits for everyday Americans and innovators in electric vehicle and green energy industries. Doing so will spur innovation in the industry, further reducing the cost to consumers. We should also ensure that our semiconductors, solar panels, wind turbines, and other technology needed for a green future are manufactured and assembled in America. This will ensure that our energy industry is safe from price or supply shocks and reduce brownout risks linked to disruptions caused by an international crisis like the invasion of Ukraine.

In many ways, our next steps as a country can define world history for generations to come. Will we continue our reliance on oil and its tacit support of Putin's economy? Or will we intensify our shift to green energies and make our country more self-sufficient and secure? The global spotlight is on us once again to lead. We hope our country will honor the lives of its veterans and the soldiers fighting in Ukraine by strengthening energy security support and transitioning towards green energy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Electricity Demand 2020 shows a rare decline amid COVID-19, with higher residential peak load, lower commercial usage, hot-weather air conditioning, nuclear baseload constraints, and smart meter data shaping grid operations and forecasting.

Key Points

It refers to 2020 power use in Ontario: overall demand fell, while residential peaks rose and commercial loads dropped.

✅ Peak load shifted to homes; commercial usage declined.

✅ Hot summers raised peaks; overall annual demand still fell.

✅ Smart meters aid forecasting; grid must balance nuclear baseload.

Demand for electricity in Ontario last year fell to levels rarely seen in decades amid shifts in usage patterns caused by pandemic measures, with Ottawa’s electricity consumption dropping notably, new data show.

The decline came despite a hot summer that had people rushing to crank up the air conditioning at home, the province’s power management agency said, even as the government offered electricity relief to families and small businesses.

“We do have this very interesting shift in who’s using the energy,” said Chuck Farmer, senior director of power system planning with the Independent Electricity System Operator.

“Residential users are using more electricity at home than we thought they would and the commercial consumers are using less.”

The onset of the pandemic last March prompted stay-home orders, businesses to close, and a shuttering of live sports, entertainment and dining out. Social distancing and ongoing restrictions, even as the first wave ebbed and some measures eased, nevertheless persisted and kept many people home as summer took hold and morphed into winter, while the province prepared to extend disconnect moratoriums for residential customers.

System operator data show peak electricity demand rose during a hot summer spell to 24,446 megawatts _ the highest since 2013. Overall, however, Ontario electricity demand last year was the second lowest since 1988, the operator said.

In all, Ontario used 132.2 terawatt-hours of power in 2020, a decline of 2.9 per cent from 2019.

With more people at home during the lockdown, winter residential peak demand has climbed 13 per cent above pre-pandemic levels, even as Hydro One made no cut in peak rates for self-isolating customers, while summer peak usage was up 19 per cent.

“The peaks are getting higher than we would normally expect them to be and this was caused by residential customers _ they’re home when you wouldn’t expect them to be home,” Farmer said.

Matching supply and demand _ a key task of the system operator _ is critical to meeting peak usage and ensuring a stable grid, and the operator has contingency plans with some key staff locked down at work sites to maintain operations during COVID-19, because electricity cannot be stored easily. It is also difficult to quickly raise or lower the output from nuclear-powered generators, which account for the bulk of electricity in the province, as demand fluctuates.

READ MORE: Ontario government extends off-peak electricity rates to Feb. 22

Life patterns have long impacted overall usage. For example, demand used to typically climb around 10 p.m. each night as people tuned into national television newscasts. Livestreaming has flattened that bump, while more energy-efficient lighting led to a drop in provincial demand over the holiday season.

The pandemic has now prompted further intra-day shifts in usage. Fewer people are getting up in the morning and powering up at home before powering down and rushing off to work or school. The summer saw more use of air conditioners earlier than normal after-work patterns.

Weather has always been a key driver of demand for power, accounting for example for the record 27,005 megawatts of usage set on a brutally hot Aug. 1, 2006. Similarly, a mild winter and summer led to an overall power usage drop in 2017.

Still, the profound social changes prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic _ and whether some will be permanent _ have complicated demand forecasting.

“Work patterns used to be much more predictable,” the agency said. “The pandemic has now added another element of variability for electricity demand forecasting.”

Some employees sent home to work have returned to their offices and other workplaces, and many others are likely do so once the pandemic recedes. However, some larger companies have indicated that working from home will be long term.

“Companies like Facebook and Shopify have already stated their intention to make work from home a more permanent arrangement,” the operator said. “This is something our near-term forecasters would take into account when preparing for daily operation of the grid.”

Aggregated data from better smart meters, which show power usage throughout the day, is one method of improving forecasting accuracy, the operator said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Ontario Electricity COVID-19 Recovery Rate sets a fixed price of 12.8 cents/kWh, replacing time-of-use billing and aligning costs across off-peak, mid-peak, and on-peak periods per Ontario Energy Board guidance through Oct. 31.

Key Points

A flat 12.8 cents/kWh electricity price in Ontario that temporarily replaces time-of-use rates from June 1 to Oct. 31.

✅ Fixed 12.8 cents/kWh, all hours, June 1 to Oct. 31

✅ Higher than off-peak 10.1, lower than mid/on-peak

✅ Based on Ontario Energy Board average cost

Ontario residents will now have to pay a fixed electricity price that is higher than the off-peak hydro rate many in the province have been allowed to pay so far due to the pandemic. 

The announcement, which was made in a news release on Saturday, comes after the Ontario government suspended the normal “time-of-use” billing system on March 24 and as electricity rates are about to change across Ontario. 

The government moved all customers onto the lowest winter rate in response to the pandemic as emergency measures meant more people would be at home during the middle of the day when electricity costs are the highest. 

Now, the government has introduced a new “COVID-19 recovery rate” of 12.8 cents per kilowatt hour at all times of the day. The fixed price will be in place from June 1 to Oct. 31. 

The fixed price is higher than the winter off-peak price, which stood at 10.1 per kilowatt hour. However, it is lower than the mid-peak rate of 14.4 per kilowatt hour and the high-peak rate of 20.8 per kilowatt hour, even though typical bills may rise as fixed pricing ends for many households. 

“Since March 24, 2020, we have invested just over $175 million to deliver emergency rate relief to residential, farm and small business electricity consumers by suspending time-of-use electricity pricing,” Greg Rickford, the minister of energy, northern development and mines, said in a news release. 

“This investment was made to protect the people of Ontario from a marked increase in electricity rates as they did their part by staying home to prevent the further spread of the virus.”

Rickford said that the COVID-19 recovery rate is based on the average cost of electricity set by the Ontario Energy Board. 

“This fixed rate will continue to suspend time-of-use prices in a fiscally responsible manner,” he said. "Consumers will have greater flexibility to use electricity when they need it without paying on-peak and mid-peak prices, and some may benefit from ultra-low electricity rates under new time-of-use options."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Spain 2050 Renewable Energy Plan drives decarbonisation with wind and solar, energy efficiency, fossil fuel bans, and Paris Agreement targets, enabling net-zero power, emissions cuts, and just transition measures for workers and coal regions.

Key Points

A roadmap to 100 percent renewable power by 2050, deep emissions cuts, and a just transition aligned with Paris goals.

✅ Adds 3,000 MW of wind and solar each year through 2030

✅ Bans new fossil fuel drilling, hydrocarbon extraction, and fracking

✅ Targets 35% energy efficiency gains and 35% green power by 2030

Spain has launched an ambitious plan to switch its electricity system entirely to renewable sources, similar to California's 100% clean electricity mandate, by 2050 and completely decarbonise its economy soon after.

By mid-century, as EU electricity demand projections suggest increases, greenhouse gas emissions would be slashed by 90% from 1990 levels under Spain’s draft climate change and energy transition law.

To do this, the country’s social democratic government is committing to installing at least 3,000MW of wind and solar power capacity every year in the next 10 years ahead.

New licences for fossil fuel drills, hydrocarbon exploitation and fracking wells, will be banned, and a fifth of the state budget will be reserved for measures that can mitigate climate change. This money will ratchet upwards from 2025.

Christiana Figueres, a former executive secretary of the UN’s framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC), hailed the draft Spanish law as “an excellent example of the Paris agreement”. She added: “It sets a long-term goal, provides incentives on scaling up emissions technologies and cares about a good transition for the workforce.”

Under the plan, “just transition” contracts will be drawn up, similar to the £220m package announced in October, that will shut most Spanish coalmines in return for a suite of early retirement schemes, re-skilling in clean energy jobs, and environmental restoration. These deals will be partly financed by auction returns from the sale of emissions rights.

The government has already scrapped a controversial “sun tax” that halted Spain’s booming renewables sector earlier this decade, even as IEA analysis finds solar the cheapest electricity worldwide, and the new law will also mandate a 35% electricity share for green energy by 2030.

James Watson, chief executive of the SolarPower Europe trade association, said the law was “a wake-up call to the rest of the world” amid debate on the global energy transition today.

Energy efficiency will also be improved by 35% within 11 years, and government and public sector authorities will be able to lease only buildings that have almost zero energy consumption.

Laurence Tubiana, chief executive of the European Climate Foundation, and former French climate envoy who helped draft the Paris accord, described the agreement as groundbreaking and inspirational. “By planning on going carbon neutral, Spain shows that the battle against climate change is deadly serious, that they are ready to step up and plan to reap the rewards of decarbonisation,” she said.

However, the government’s hold on power is fragile. With just a quarter of parliamentary seats it will depend on the more leftwing Podemos and liberal Ciudadanos parties to pass the climate plan.

No dates were included in the legislation for phaseouts of coal or nuclear energy, and, echoing UK net zero policy shifts, a ban on new cars with petrol or diesel engines was delayed until 2040.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change 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