U.S. Tariffs on Chinese EVs and Solar Cells target trade imbalances, subsidies, and intellectual property risks, bolstering domestic manufacturing, supply chains, and national security across clean energy, automotive technology, and renewable markets.
Key Points
Policy measures raising duties on Chinese EVs and solar cells to protect U.S. industry, IP, and national security.
✅ Raises duties to counter subsidies and IP risks
✅ Supports domestic EV and solar manufacturing jobs
✅ May reshape supply chains, prices, and trade flows
In a significant move aimed at bolstering domestic industries and addressing trade imbalances, the Biden administration has announced higher tariffs on Chinese-made electric cars and solar cells. This decision marks a strategic shift in U.S. trade policy, with market observers noting EV tariffs alongside industrial and financial implications across sectors today.
Tariffs on Electric Cars
The imposition of tariffs on Chinese electric cars comes amidst growing competition in the global electric vehicle (EV) market. U.S. automakers and policymakers have raised concerns about unfair trade practices, subsidies, and market access barriers faced by American EV manufacturers in China amid escalating trade tensions with key partners. The tariffs aim to level the playing field and protect U.S. interests in the burgeoning electric vehicle sector.
Impact on Solar Cells
Similarly, higher tariffs on Chinese solar cells address concerns regarding intellectual property theft, subsidies, and market distortions in the solar energy industry, where tariff threats have influenced investment signals across North American markets.
The U.S. solar sector, a key player in renewable energy development, has called for measures to safeguard fair competition and promote domestic manufacturing of solar technologies.
Economic and Political Implications
The tariff hikes underscore broader economic tensions between the United States and China, spanning trade, technology, and geopolitical issues. While aimed at protecting American industries, these tariffs could lead to retaliatory measures from China and impact global supply chains, particularly in renewable energy and automotive sectors, as North American electricity exports at risk add to uncertainty across markets.
Industry and Market Responses
Industry stakeholders have responded with mixed reactions to the tariff announcements. U.S. automakers and solar manufacturers supportive of the tariffs argue they will help level the playing field and encourage domestic production. However, critics warn of potential energy price spikes for consumers, supply chain disruptions, and unintended consequences for global clean energy goals.
Strategic Considerations
The Biden administration's tariff policy reflects a broader strategy to promote economic resilience, innovation, and national security in critical industries, even as cross-border electricity exports become flashpoints in trade policy debates today.
Efforts to strengthen domestic supply chains, invest in renewable energy infrastructure, and foster international partnerships remain central to U.S. economic competitiveness and climate objectives.
Future Outlook
Looking ahead, navigating U.S.-China trade relations will continue to be a complex challenge for policymakers. Balancing economic interests, diplomatic engagements, and environmental priorities, alongside regional public support for tariffs, will shape future trade policy decisions affecting electric vehicles, renewable energy, and technology sectors globally.
Conclusion
The Biden administration's decision to impose higher tariffs on Chinese electric cars and solar cells represents a strategic response to economic and geopolitical dynamics reshaping global markets. While aimed at protecting American industries and promoting fair trade practices, the tariffs signal a commitment to fostering competitiveness, innovation, and sustainability in critical sectors of the economy. As these measures unfold, stakeholders will monitor their impact on industry dynamics, supply chain resilience, and international trade relations in the evolving landscape of global commerce.
Snohomish PUD rate increase addresses storm recovery after a bomb cyclone and extended cold snap, stabilizing finances and grid reliability while offering assistance programs, payment plans, and energy efficiency for customers.
Key Points
Temp 5.8% residential hike in Feb 2025 to recover storm costs, meet cold snap demand, and uphold reliable service.
✅ 5.8% residential increase effective Feb 2025
✅ Driven by bomb cyclone damage and cold snap demand
✅ Aid includes payment plans, efficiency rebates, low income support
In early February 2025, the Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) announced a temporary increase in electricity rates to offset the financial impact of severe weather events, including a bomb cyclone and an extended cold snap, that occurred in late 2024. This decision aims to stabilize the utility's finances, a pattern seen at other utilities such as Florida Power & Light, which pursued a hurricane surcharge to recover storm costs, while ensuring continued service reliability for its customers.
Background of the Weather Events
In November 2024, the Pacific Northwest experienced a powerful bomb cyclone—a rapidly intensifying storm characterized by a significant drop in atmospheric pressure. This event brought heavy rainfall, strong winds, and widespread power outages across the region. Compounding the situation, a prolonged cold weather period in December 2024 and January 2025 led to increased energy demand, and similar conditions drove up Pennsylvania power rates in the same winter season, as residents and businesses relied heavily on heating systems.
Impact on Snohomish PUD
The combination of the bomb cyclone and the subsequent cold weather placed considerable strain on the Snohomish PUD's infrastructure and financial resources. The utility incurred substantial costs for emergency repairs, restoration efforts, and the procurement of additional electricity to meet the heightened demand during the cold snap. These unforeseen expenses prompted the PUD to seek a temporary rate adjustment to maintain financial stability and continue providing reliable service to its customers.
Details of the Rate Increase
Effective February 2025, the Snohomish PUD implemented a temporary electricity rate increase of 5.8% for residential customers, compared with a 3% BC Hydro increase in the same region for context. This adjustment is designed to recover the additional costs incurred during the severe weather events. The PUD has communicated that this rate increase is temporary and will be reevaluated after a specified period to determine if further adjustments are necessary.
Customer Impact and Assistance Programs
While the rate increase is intended to be temporary, it may still pose a financial burden for some customers, even as some markets expect rates to stabilize in 2025 in other jurisdictions. To mitigate this impact, the Snohomish PUD has outlined several assistance programs:
Payment Plans: Customers facing financial hardship can enroll in extended payment plans to spread the cost of the increased rates over a longer period.
Energy Efficiency Programs: The PUD offers incentives and resources to help customers reduce energy consumption, potentially lowering their overall bills.
Low-Income Assistance: Eligible low-income customers may qualify for additional support through state and federal assistance programs.
The utility encourages customers to contact their customer service department to explore these options and find the best solutions for their individual circumstances.
Community Response and Future Considerations
The announcement of the rate increase has elicited mixed reactions from the community. Some residents express understanding, recognizing the necessity of maintaining infrastructure and service reliability. Others have voiced concerns about the financial impact, particularly among vulnerable populations, a debate also seen with higher BC Hydro rates in nearby British Columbia.
Looking ahead, the Snohomish PUD is committed to enhancing its infrastructure to better withstand future extreme weather events, an approach aligned with other utilities' multi-year rate proposals to fund upgrades. This includes investing in grid modernization, implementing advanced weather forecasting tools, and developing comprehensive emergency response plans. The utility also plans to engage with the community through public forums and surveys to gather feedback and collaboratively develop strategies that balance financial sustainability with customer affordability.
The temporary electricity rate increase by the Snohomish County Public Utility District reflects the financial challenges posed by severe weather events and parallels regional trends, including BC Hydro's 3.75% over two years adjustments, and underscores the importance of proactive infrastructure investment and community engagement. While the rate adjustment aims to stabilize the utility's finances, the PUD remains focused on supporting its customers through assistance programs and ongoing efforts to enhance service reliability and resilience against future climate-related events.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
Sustainable Cannabis Cultivation leverages greenhouse design, renewable energy, automation, and water recapture to cut electricity use, emissions, and pesticides, delivering premium yields with natural light, smart sensors, and efficient HVAC and irrigation control.
Key Points
A data-driven, low-impact method that cuts energy, water, and chemicals while preserving premium yields.
✅ 70-90% less electricity vs. conventional indoor grows
✅ Natural light, solar, and rainwater recapture reduce footprint
✅ Automation, sensors, and HVAC stabilize microclimates
In the seven months since the Trudeau government legalized recreational marijuana use, licensed producers across the country have been locked in a frenetic race to grow mass quantities of cannabis for the new market.
But amid the rush for scale, questions of sustainability have often taken a back seat, and in Canada, solar adoption has lagged in key sectors.
According to EQ Research LLC, a U.S.-based clean-energy consulting firm, cannabis facilities can need up to 150 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year per square foot. Such input is on par with data centres, which are themselves 50 to 200 times more energy-intensive than a typical office building, and achieving zero-emission electricity by 2035 would help mitigate the associated footprint.
At the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory in California, a senior scientist estimated that one per cent of U.S. electricity use came from grow ops. The same research — published in 2012 — also found that the procedures for refining a kilogram of weed emit around 4,600 kilograms of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, equivalent to operating three million cars for a year, though a shift to zero-emissions electricity by 2035 could substantially cut those emissions.
“All factors considered, a very large expenditure of energy and consequent ‘environmental imprint’ is associated with the indoor cultivation of marijuana,” wrote Ernie Small, a principal research scientist for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, in the 2018 edition of the Biodiversity Journal.
Those issues have left some turning to technology to try to reduce the industry’s footprint — and the economic costs that come with it — even as more energy sources make better projects for forward-looking developers.
“The core drawback of most greenhouse environments is that you’re just getting large rooms, which are harder to control,” says Dan Sutton, the chief executive officer of Tantalus Labs., a B.C.-based cannabis producer. “What we did was build a system specifically for cannabis.”
Sutton is referring to SunLab, the culmination of four years of construction, and at present the main site where his company nurtures rows of the flowering plant. The 120,000-square foot structure was engineered for one purpose: to prove the merits of a sustainable approach.
“We’re actually taking time-series data on 30 different environmental parameters — really simple ones like temperature and humidity — all the way down to pH of the soil and water flow,” says Sutton. “So if the temperature gets a little too cold, the system recognizes that and kicks on heaters, and if the system senses that the environment is too hot in the summertime, then it automatically vents.”
A lot is achieved without requiring much human intervention, he adds. Unlike conventional indoor operations, SunLab demands up to 90 per cent less electricity, avoids using pesticides, and draws from natural light and recaptured rainwater to feed its crops.
The liquid passes through a triple-filtration process before it is pumped into drip irrigation tubing. “That allows us to deliver a purity of water input that is cleaner than bottled water,” says Sutton.
As transpiration occurs, a state-of-the-art, high-capacity airflow suspended below the ceiling cycles air at seven-minute intervals, repeatedly cooling the air and preventing outbreaks of mould, while genetically modified “guardian” insects swoop in to eliminate predatory pests.
“When we first started, people never believed we would cultivate premium quality cannabis or cannabis that belongs on the top shelf, shoulder to shoulder with the best in the world and the best of indoor,” says Sutton.
Challenges still exist, but they pale in comparison to the obstacles that American companies with an interest in adopting greener solutions persistently face, and in provinces like Alberta, an Alberta renewable energy surge is reshaping the opportunity set.
Although cannabis is legal in a number of states, it remains illegal federally, which means access to capital and regulatory clarity south of the border can be difficult to come by.
“Right now getting a new project built is expensive to do because you can’t get traditional bank loans,” says Canndescent CEO Adrian Sedlin, speaking by phone from California.
In retrofitting the company’s farm to accommodate a sizeable solar field, he struggled to secure investors, even as a solar-powered cannabis facility in Edmonton showcased similar potential.
“We spent over a year and a half trying to get it financed,” says Sedlin. “Finding someone was the hard part.”
Decriminalizing the drug would ultimately increase the supply of capital and lower the costs for innovative designs, something Sedlin says would help incentivize producers to switch to more effective and ecologically sound techniques.
Some analysts argue that selling renewable energy in Alberta could become a major growth avenue that benefits energy-intensive industries like cannabis cultivation.
Canndescent, however, is already there.
“We’re now harnessing the sun to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and going to sustainable, or replenishable, energy sources, while leveraging the best and most efficient water practices,” says Sedlin. “It’s the right thing to do.”
Australia Electricity Supply Shortfall highlights AEMO's warning of reduced reserves as coal retirements outpace capacity, risking load shedding. Calls for 1GW strategic reserves and investment in renewables, storage, and dispatchable power in Victoria.
Key Points
It is AEMO's forecast of reduced reserves, higher outage risk, and a need for 1GW strategic backup capacity.
✅ AEMO urges 1GW strategic reserves in Victoria and South Australia
✅ Investment needed: renewables, storage, grid and reliability services
Australia’s electricity operator has warned of threats to electricity supply including a shortfall in generation and reduced power reserves on the horizon.
The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) has called for further investment in the country’s energy portfolio as retiring coal plants are replaced by intermittent renewables poised to eclipse coal, leaving the grid with less back-up capacity.
AEMO has said this increases the chances of supply interruption and load shedding.
It added the federal government should target 1GW of strategic reserves in the states most at risk – Victoria and South Australia, even as the Prime Minister has ruled out taxpayer-funded power plants in the current energy battle.
CEO of the Clean Energy Council, Kane Thornton, said the shortfall in generation, reflected in a short supply of electricity, was due a decade of indecisiveness and debate leading to a “policy vacuum”.
He added: “The AEMO report revealed that the new projects added to the system under the renewable energy target will help to improve reliability over the next few years.
“We need to accept that the energy system is in transition, with lessons from dispatchable power shortages in Europe, and long term policy is now essential to ensure private investment in the most efficient new energy technology and solutions.”
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.
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.
