Acciona commissions 50 MW solar plant

Australian Electric Vehicle Sales tripled in 2019 amid expanding charging infrastructure and more models, but market share remains low, constrained by limited government policy, weak incentives, and absent emissions standards despite growing ultra-fast chargers.

Key Points

EV units sold in Australia; in 2019 they tripled to 6,718, but market share was just 0.6%.

✅ Sales rose from 2,216 (2018) to 6,718 (2019); ~80% were BEVs.

✅ Public charging sites reached 2,307; fast chargers up 40% year-on-year.

✅ Policy gaps and absent standards limit model supply and EV uptake.

Sales of electric vehicles in Australia tripled in 2019 despite a lack of government support, according to the industry’s peak body.

The country’s network of EV charging stations was also growing, the Electric Vehicle Council’s annual report found, including a rise in the number of faster charging stations that let drivers recharge a car in about 15 minutes.

But the report, released on Wednesday, found the market share for electric vehicles was still only 0.6% of new vehicle sales – well behind the 2.5% to 5% in other developed countries.

The chief executive of the council, Behyad Jafari, said the rise in sales was down to more models becoming available. There are now 28 electric models on sale, with eight priced below $65,000.

Six more were due to arrive before the end of 2021, including two priced below $50,000, the council’s report said.

“We have repeatedly heard from car companies that they were planning to bring vehicles here, but Australia doesn’t have that policy support.”

The Morrison government promised a national electric vehicle strategy would be finalised by the middle of this year, but the policy has been delayed. The prime minister, Scott Morrison, last year accused Labor of wanting to “end the weekend” and force people out of four-wheel drives after the opposition set a target of 50% of new car sales being electric by 2030.

Jafari cited the Kia e-Niro – an award-winning electric SUV that was being prepared for an Australian launch, but is now reportedly on hold because the manufacturer favoured shipping to countries with emissions standards.

The council’s members include BMW, Nissan, Hyundai and Harley Davidson, as well as energy, technology and charging infrastructure companies.

Sales of electric vehicles – which include plug-in hybrids – went from 2,216 in 2018 to 6,718 in 2019, the report said. Jafari said about 80% of those sales were all-electric vehicles.

There have been 3,226 electric vehicles sold in 2020, the report said, despite an overall drop of 20% in vehicle sales due to the Covid-19 pandemic, while U.S. EV sales have surged into 2024.

Jafari said: “Our report is showing that Australian consumers want these cars.

“There is no controversy that the future of the industry is electric, but at the moment the industry is looking at different markets. We want policies that show [Australia] is going on this journey.”

Government agency data has forecast that half the new cars sold will be electric by 2035, underscoring that the age of electric cars is arriving even if there is no policy to support their uptake.

Manufacturers currently selling electric cars in Australia are Nissan, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, Tesla, Volvo, Porsche, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar and Renault, the report said.

Jafari said most G20 countries had emissions standards in place for vehicles sold and incentives in place to support electric vehicles, such as rebates or exemptions from charges. This hadn’t happened in Australia, he said.

The report said: “Globally, carmakers are rolling out more electric vehicle models as the electric car market expands, but so far production cannot keep up with demand. This means that without policy signals, Australians will continue to be denied access to the full global range of electric vehicles.”

On Tuesday, one Australian charging provider, Evie Networks, opened an ultra-fast station at a rest stop at Campbell Town in Tasmania – between Launceston and Hobart.

The company said the station would connect EV owners in the state’s north and south and the two 350kW chargers could recharge a vehicle in 15 minutes, highlighting whether grids have the power to charge EVs at scale. Two more sites were planned for Tasmania, the company said.

A Tasmanian government grant to support electric vehicle charging had helped finance the site. Evie was also supported with a $15m grant from the federal government’s Australian Renewable Energy Agency.

According to the council report, Australia now has 2,307 public charging stations, including 357 fast chargers – a rise of 40% in the past year.

A survey of 2,900 people in New South Wales, the ACT, Victoria and South Australia, carried out by NRMA, RACV and RAA on behalf of the council, found the main barriers to buying an electric vehicle were concerns over access to charging points, higher prices and uncertainty over driving range.

Consumers favoured electric vehicles because of their environmental footprint, lower maintenance costs and vehicle performance.

The report said the average battery range of electric vehicles available in Australia was 400km, but almost 80% of people thought the average was less.

According to the survey, 56% of Australians would consider an electric car when they next bought a vehicle, and in the UK, EV inquiries soared during a fuel supply crisis.

“We are far behind, but it is surmountable,” Jafari said.

The council report also rated state and territories on the policies that supported its industry and found the ACT was leading, followed by NSW and Queensland.

A review of commercial electric vehicle use found public electric bus trials were planned or under way in Queensland, NSW, WA, Victoria and ACT. There are now more than 400,000 electric buses in use around the globe.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

DOE Grid Resilience Pricing Rule faces FERC review as energy groups challenge an expedited timeline to reward coal and nuclear for reliability in wholesale markets, impacting natural gas, renewables, baseload economics, and grid pricing.

Key Points

A DOE proposal directing FERC to compensate coal and nuclear plants for reliability attributes in wholesale markets.

✅ Industry coalition seeks normal FERC timeline and review

✅ Impacts wholesale pricing, baseload economics, reliability

✅ Request for 90-day comments and reply period

A coalition of 11 industry groups is pushing back on Energy Secretary Rick Perry's efforts to quickly implement a major change to the way electric power is priced in the United States.

The Energy Department on Friday proposed a rule that stands to bolster coal and nuclear power plants by forcing the regional markets that set electricity prices to compensate them for the reliability they provide. Perry asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to consider and finalize the rule within 60 days, including a 45-day period during which stakeholders can issue comments.

On Monday, groups representing petroleum, natural gas, electric power and renewable energy interests including ACORE urged FERC to reject the expedited process, as well as the Department of Energy's request that the regulatory commission consider putting in place an interim rule.

They say the time frame is "aggressive" and the department didn't provide adequate justification for fast-tracking a process that could have huge impacts on wholesale electricity markets.

"This is one of the most significant proposed rules in decades related to the energy industry and, if finalized, would unquestionably have significant ramifications for wholesale markets under the Commission's jurisdiction," the groups said in the motion filed with FERC.

"The Energy Industry Associations urge the Commission to reject the proposed unreasonable timelines and instead proceed in a manner that would afford meaningful consideration of public comments and be consistent with the normal deliberative process that it typically affords such major undertakings," they said.

The groups are requesting a 90-day comment period, as well as another period for reply comments. FERC, which has authority to regulate interstate transmission and sale of electricity and natural gas, is not required to decide in favor of the rule but, amid a recent FERC decision that drew industry criticism, must consider it.

Expediting the process or imposing an interim rule is generally limited to emergencies, the groups said. The Energy Department's letter to FERC does not even attempt to establish that an immediate threat to U.S. electricity reliability exists, they allege.

• A coalition of energy industry groups asked regulators to reject a rule proposed by the U.S. Department of Energy on Friday.
• The rule would bolster coal-fired and nuclear power plants by requiring wholesale markets to compensate them for certain attributes.
• The groups say the Energy Department proposed "unreasonable timelines" for stakeholders to offer feedback on a rule with "significant ramifications for wholesale markets."

The groups cite a recent Energy Department report on grid reliability that concluded: "reliability is adequate today despite the retirement of 11 percent of the generating capacity available in 2002, as significant additions from natural gas, wind, and solar have come online since then."

The Department of Energy did not return a request for comment.

The Energy Department's rule marks a flashpoint in the battle between natural gas-fired and renewable energy and so-called baseload power sources like coal and nuclear.

Separately, coal and business groups have supported the EPA in litigation over the Affordable Clean Energy rule, as documented in legal challenges brought during the rule's defense.

Gas, wind and solar power have eaten into coal and nuclear's share of U.S. electric power generation in recent years. That is thanks to a boom in U.S. gas production that has pushed down prices, the rapid adoption of subsidized renewable energy and President Barack Obama's efforts to mitigate emissions from power plants, which the Trump administration has sought to replace with a tune-up as policies shift.

Electric power is priced in deregulated, wholesale markets in many parts of the country. Utilities typically draw on the cheapest power sources first.

Some worry that the retirement of coal-fired and nuclear power plants undermines the nation's ability to reliably and affordably deliver electricity to households and businesses.

President Donald Trump has vowed to revive the ailing coal industry, declaring an end to the 'war on coal' in public remarks. Trump, Perry and other administration officials reject the consensus among climate scientists that carbon emissions from sources like coal-fired plants are the primary cause of global warming.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Germany Hydrogen Import Strategy outlines reliance on green hydrogen imports, expanded electrolysis capacity, IPCEI-funded pipelines, and industrial decarbonization for steel and chemicals to reach climate-neutral goals by 2045, meeting 2030 demand of 95-130 TWh.

Key Points

A plan to import 50-70% of hydrogen by 2030, backing green hydrogen, electrolysis, pipelines, and decarbonization.

✅ Imports cover 50-70% of 2030 hydrogen demand

✅ 10 GW electrolysis target with state aid and IPCEI

✅ 1,800 km H2 pipelines to link hubs by 2030

Germany will have to import up to 70% of its hydrogen demand in the future as Europe's largest economy aims to become climate-neutral by 2045, an updated government strategy published on Wednesday showed.

The German cabinet approved a new hydrogen strategy, setting guidelines for hydrogen production, transport infrastructure and market plans.

Germany is seeking to expand reliance on hydrogen as a future energy source to bolster energy resilience and cut greenhouse emissions for highly polluting industrial sectors that cannot be electrified such as steel and chemicals and cut dependency on imported fossil fuel.

Produced using solar and wind power, green hydrogen is a pillar of Berlin's plan to build a sustainable electric planet and transition away from fossil fuels.

But even with doubling the country's domestic electrolysis capacity target for 2030 to at least 10 gigawatts (GW), Germany will need to import around 50% to 70% of its hydrogen demand, forecast at 95 to 130 TWh in 2030, the strategy showed.

"A domestic supply that fully covers demand does not make economic sense or serve the transformation processes resulting from the energy transition and the broader global energy transition overall," the document said.

The strategy underscores the importance of diversifying future hydrogen sources, including potential partners such as Canada's clean hydrogen sector, but the government is working on a separate strategy for hydrogen imports whose exact date is not clear, a spokesperson for the economy ministry said.

"Instead of relying on domestic potential for the production of green hydrogen, the federal government's strategy is primarily aimed at imports by ship," Simone Peter, the head of Germany's renewable energy association, said.

Under the strategy, state aid is expected to be approved for around 2.5 GW of electrolysis projects in Germany this year and the government will earmark 700 million euros ($775 million) for hydrogen research to optimise production methods, research minister Bettina Stark-Watzinger said.

But Germany's limited renewable energy space will make it heavily dependent on imported hydrogen from emerging export hubs such as Abu Dhabi hydrogen exports gaining scale, experts say.

"Germany is a densely populated country. We simply need space for wind and photovoltaic to be able to produce the hydrogen," Philipp Heilmaier, an energy transition researcher at Germany energy agency, told Reuters.

The strategy allows the usage of hydrogen produced through fossil energy sources preferably if the carbon is split off, but said direct government subsidies would be limited to green hydrogen.

Funds for launching a hydrogen network with more than 1,800 km of pipelines in Germany are expected to flow by 2027/2028 through the bloc's Important Projects of Common European Interest (IPCEI) financing scheme, as the EU plans to double electricity use by 2050 could raise future demand, with the goal of connecting all major generation, import and storage centres to customers by 2030.

Transport Minister Volker Wissing said his ministry was working on plans for a network of hydrogen filling stations and for renewable fuel subsidies.

Environmental groups said the strategy lacked binding sustainability criteria and restriction on using hydrogen for sectors that cannot be electrified instead of using it for private heating or in cars, calling for a plan to eventually phase-out blue hydrogen which is produced from natural gas.

Germany has already signed several hydrogen cooperation agreements with countries such as clean energy partnership with Canada and Norway, United Arab Emirates and Australia.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Ontario Electricity Bill Scams: beware phishing, spoofed calls, fake invoices, and disconnection threats demanding prepaid cards, gift cards, or Bitcoin; verify with Hydro One, Alectra, Toronto Hydro, Elexicon, or Hydro Ottawa customer service.

Key Points

Fraud schemes impersonating utilities via calls, texts, emails, or fake bills to coerce instant payment with threats.

✅ Never pay by gift cards, prepaid debit, or Bitcoin.

✅ Do not call numbers in messages; use your bill or utility website.

✅ Verify IDs; report threats or door-to-door demands to police.

Ontario’s five largest electricity utilities have teamed up to warn the public about ongoing scams concerning fake phone calls, texts and bills connected to the utility accounts.

“We always receive these reports of scams and it gets increasingly higher during the holidays when people are busy and enjoying the season," said Whitney Brhelle, spokesperson with Hydro One.

Hydro One joined with Alectra Utilities, Elexicon Energy, Hydro Ottawa and Toronto Hydro to get the message out that scammers are targeting customers and threatening to turn off their power.

Scams involve impersonation of a local utility or its employees, threatening phone calls, texts or emails and pressure for immediate payment that come with threats to disconnect service the same day.

Criminals may demand payment in prepaid debit cards, gift cards or Bitcoin. Utilities said they would never call a customer without notice and threaten disconnection over the phone.

In a separate case, authorities in Montreal arrested suspects in an electricity theft ring that highlights broader energy-related crime.

“People have been calling customers and saying you need to pay your bill immediately and they are threatened with disconnection, often citing supposed changes to peak hydro rates to add pressure, which is something that we would ever do," said Kimberly Brathwaite, spokesperson with Elexicon Energy.

Scammers are also creating fake bills that look like the real thing.

“Scammers will actually take our Alectra logo and send out various authentic looking documents to people’s homes, so people have to be aware and check their statements very carefully” said Ashley Trgachef spokesperson with Alectra Utilities.

Customers are advised to never make a payment not listed on their recent bill and to ignore texts or emails with links promising refunds, and to verify any official relief fund information only through their utility and not to provide personal information or details about their account.

If you are given a number to call don’t call the number provided, you are better off to go to your bill or the utility’s website to makes sure it is the correct number for customer service and to review information about customer flexibility there.

Some scammers have even gone door to door demanding payment, and the utilities are advising anyone who feels threatened to call police.

They are also asking that you share the information with family and friends to be careful if they are contacted by someone claiming to be with their electricity company.

If you fall for a scam and money is sent, it's very difficult to get it back.  

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Manitoba Hydro 3.5 Percent Rate Increase proposes a smaller electricity rate hike under Public Utilities Board oversight to bolster financial reserves, address debt and Bipole III costs, amid shifting export sales and water flow conditions.

Key Points

It is Manitoba Hydro's proposed 3.5% electricity rate hike for 2019-20 to shore up finances under PUB oversight.

✅ PUB review sought without lengthy hearing

✅ Revenue boost forecast at 59 million dollars

✅ Natural gas rates flat; class shifts adjust bills

Manitoba Hydro is scaling back its rate hike request for next year, instead of the annual 7.9 per cent hikes the Crown corporation previously said it would need until 2023-24 to address debt. 

Hydro is asking the Public Utilities Board for a 3.5 per cent rate increase next year, which would take effect on April 1.

In last week's application, Hydro said its new board is reviewing the corporation's financial picture. Once that is complete, the utility expects to submit a new multi-year rate plan in late 2019 that addresses the organization's long-term future.

"It's too speculative at this point to discuss any possible future rate increases," spokesperson Bruce Owen said in an email.

The proposed increase next year is similar to other jurisdictions and nearly in line with the Public Utilities Board's decision to allow an average 3.6 per cent jump in electricity rates in 2018-19, which began this summer.

"The requested 3.5 per cent rate increase … generates a modest level of net income under average water flow conditions that will assist in gradually building the revenue base and reduce the risk of the corporation incurring a loss" in 2019-20, the rate application said.

If approved, consumers would face their second rate increase from Hydro in under a year.

Crown Services Minister Colleen Mayer said she's sympathetic to customers bracing for another rate increase amid NL rate hike concerns that far exceeds the rate of inflation.

"I hear that, very clearly," she said. "The NDP left us with an insurmountable problem — we're trying to fix that."

Hydro goes to court over special rate class for First Nations residents in Manitoba

National Energy Board OK's Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project

Next year's rate increase is projected to bring in $59 million of revenue, boosting the Crown corporation's financial reserves by $31 million.

Without it, the utility would deal with a net loss, it said.

This time, Hydro officials are asking PUB to forgo a rate hearing, suggesting neither itself nor the board has the resources for a lengthy six- to nine-month process to review an application where not much has changed financially and would generate a "minimum level of net income," Hydro said in a letter to the board.

The short-term rate relief, the letter recommends, should be "awarded in a timely and cost-effective manner, recognizing that the corporation's long-term financial forecasts will be finalized and available for review" in late 2019.

Hydro's net income next year will be lower than projected, the rate application said, due to a reduction in export sales and increases in depreciation and financing costs from Bipole III.

"Even though they had a total implosion of their previous board, on this very issue, they haven't learned lessons and they continue to be cheerleaders for these rapid rate increases," Kinew said, referring to the exodus of every board member but one earlier this year.

Manitoba Hydro's burgeoning debt surpasses $19 billion

On natural gas, Manitoba Hydro is asking PUB for no rate increase for the next two years.

There will, however, be some changes in rates in different customer classes, Owen said, resulting in modest rate reductions for mainly residential customers and increases for customers who use a lot of natural gas.

The corporation also wants to stop collecting fees to support the furnace replacement program. The initiative will continue with existing fees.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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