Wind Denmark - summer's autumn weather provides extraordinarily low electricity prices

Switch-On Project Electric Trucks accelerate California freight decarbonization, deploying Volvo VNR Electric rigs with high-capacity charging infrastructure, zero-emissions operations, and connected safety features to cut greenhouse gases and improve urban air quality.

Key Points

A California program deploying Volvo VNR Electric trucks and charging to decarbonize freight and improve air quality.

✅ 70 Volvo VNR Electric trucks for regional logistics

✅ Strategic high-capacity charging for heavy-duty fleets

✅ Lower TCO via fuel savings and reduced maintenance

In a significant step toward sustainable transportation, the Switch-On project is bringing 70 Volvo VNR Electric trucks to California. This initiative aims to bolster the state's efforts to reduce emissions and transition to greener logistics solutions. The arrival of these electric vehicles marks an important milestone in California's commitment to combating climate change and improving air quality.

The Switch-On Project: Overview and Goals

The Switch-On project is a collaborative effort designed to enhance electric truck adoption in California. It focuses on developing the necessary infrastructure and technology to support electric vehicles (EVs) in the freight and logistics sectors, building on recent nonprofit investments at California ports. The project not only seeks to increase the availability of electric trucks but also aims to demonstrate their effectiveness in real-world applications.

California has set ambitious goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from the transportation sector, which is one of the largest contributors to air pollution. By introducing electric trucks into freight operations, the state aims to significantly cut emissions, improve public health, and pave the way for a more sustainable future.

The Volvo VNR Electric Trucks

The Volvo VNR Electric trucks are specifically designed for regional distribution and urban transport, aligning with Volvo's broader electric lineup as the company expands offerings, making them ideal for the needs of California’s freight industry. With a range of approximately 250 miles on a single charge, these trucks can efficiently handle most regional routes. Equipped with advanced technology, including regenerative braking and connectivity features, the VNR Electric models enhance operational efficiency and safety.

These trucks not only provide a cleaner alternative to traditional diesel vehicles but also promise lower operational costs over time. With reduced fuel expenses and lower maintenance needs, and emerging vehicle-to-grid pilots that can create new value streams, businesses can benefit from significant savings while contributing to environmental sustainability.

Infrastructure Development

A crucial aspect of the Switch-On project is the development of charging infrastructure to support the new fleet of electric trucks. The project partners are working on installing high-capacity charging stations strategically located throughout California while addressing utility planning challenges that large fleets will pose to the power system. This infrastructure is essential to ensure that electric trucks can be charged efficiently, minimizing downtime and maximizing productivity.

The charging stations are designed to accommodate the specific needs of heavy-duty vehicles, and corridor models like BC's Electric Highway provide useful precedents for network design, allowing for rapid charging that aligns with operational schedules. This development not only supports the new fleet but also encourages other logistics companies to consider electric trucks as a viable option for their operations.

Benefits to California

The introduction of 70 Volvo VNR Electric trucks will have several positive impacts on California. Firstly, it will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the freight sector, contributing to the state’s ambitious climate goals even as grid expansion will be needed to support widespread electrification across sectors. The transition to electric trucks is expected to improve air quality, particularly in urban areas that struggle with high pollution levels.

Moreover, the project serves as a model for other regions considering similar initiatives. By showcasing the practicality and benefits of electric trucks, California hopes to inspire widespread adoption across the nation. As the market for electric vehicles continues to grow, this project can play a pivotal role in accelerating the transition to sustainable transportation solutions.

Industry and Community Reactions

The arrival of the Volvo VNR Electric trucks has been met with enthusiasm from both industry stakeholders and community members. Logistics companies are excited about the opportunity to reduce their carbon footprints and operational costs. Meanwhile, environmental advocates applaud the project as a crucial step toward cleaner air and healthier communities.

California’s commitment to sustainable transportation has positioned it as a leader in the shift to electric vehicles amid an ongoing biofuels vs. EVs debate over the best path forward, setting an example for other states and countries.

Conclusion

The Switch-On project represents a major advancement in California's efforts to transition to electric transportation. With the deployment of 70 Volvo VNR Electric trucks, the state is not only taking a significant step toward reducing emissions but also demonstrating the feasibility of electric logistics solutions.

As infrastructure develops and more electric trucks hit the roads, California is paving the way for a greener, more sustainable future in transportation. The success of this project could have far-reaching implications, influencing policies and practices in the broader freight industry and beyond.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Canada Electrification Costs: report estimates $580B-$1.4T to scale renewable energy, wind, solar, and storage capacity to 2050, shifting from natural gas toward net-zero emissions and raising average household energy spending by $1,300-$3,200 annually.

Key Points

Projected national expense to expand renewables and electrify energy systems by 2050, impacting household energy bills.

✅ $580B-$1.4T forecast for 2020-2050 energy transition

✅ 278-422 GW wind, solar, storage capacity by 2050

✅ Household costs up $1,300-$3,200 per year on average

The Canadian Gas Association says building renewable electricity capacity to replace just half of Canada's current fossil fuel-generated energy, a shift with significant policy implications for grids across provinces, could increase national costs by as much as $1.4 trillion over the next 30 years.

In a report, it contends, echoing an IEA report on net-zero, that growing electricity's contribution to Canada's energy mix from its current 19 per cent to about 60 per cent, a step critical to meeting climate pledges that policymakers emphasize, will require an expansion from 141 gigawatts today to between 278 and 422 GW of renewable wind, solar and storage capacity by 2050.

It says that will increase national energy costs by between $580 billion and $1.4 trillion between 2020 and 2050, a projection consistent with recent reports of higher electricity prices in Alberta amid policy shifts, translating into an average increase in Canadian household spending of $1,300 to $3,200 per year.

The study, prepared by consulting firm ICF for the association, assumes electrification begins in 2020 and is applied in all feasible applications by 2050, with investments in the electricity system, guided by the implications of decarbonizing the grid for reliability and cost, proceeding as existing natural gas and electric end use equipment reaches normal end of life.

Association CEO Tim Egan says the numbers are "pretty daunting" and support the integration of natural gas with electric, amid Canada's race to net-zero commitments, instead of using an electric-only option as the most cost-efficient way for Canada to reach environmental policy goals.

But Keith Stewart, senior energy strategist with Greenpeace Canada, says scientists are calling for the world to get to net-zero emissions by 2050, and Canada's net-zero by 2050 target underscores that urgency to avoid "catastrophic" levels of warming, so investing in natural gas infrastructure to then shut it down seems a "very expensive option."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

FERC Hydropower Licensing Dispute centers on FERC authority, Clean Water Act compliance, state water quality certifications, Federal Power Act timelines, and Army Corps dams on West Virginia's Monongahela River licenses.

Key Points

An inquiry into FERC's licensing process and state water quality authority for hydropower at Monongahela River dams.

✅ Questions on omitted state water quality conditions

✅ Debate over starting Clean Water Act certification timelines

✅ Potential impacts on states' rights and licensing schedules

As federal lawmakers, including Democrats pressing FERC, plan to consider a bill that would expand Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing authority, questions emerged on Tuesday about the process used by FERC to issue two hydropower licenses for existing dams in West Virginia.

In a letter to FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee, Democratic leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as electricity pricing changes were being debated, raised questions about hydropower licenses issued for two dams operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Monongahela River in West Virginia.

U.S. Reps. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy, Bobby Rush (D-IL), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Environment, and John Sarbanes (D-MD), amid Maryland clean energy enforcement concerns, questioned why FERC did not incorporate all conditions outlined in a West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection water quality certificate into plans for the projects.

“By denying the state its allotted time to review this application and submit requirements on these licenses, FERC is undermining the state’s authority under the Clean Water Act and Federal Power Act to impose conditions that will ensure water quality standards are met,” the letter stated.

The House of Representatives was slated to consider the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017, H.R. 3043, later in the week. The measure would expand FERC authority over licensing processes, a theme mirrored in Maine's transmission line debate over interstate energy projects. Opponents of the bill argue that the changes would make it more difficult for states to protect their clean water interests.

West Virginia has announced plans to challenge FERC hydropower licenses for the dams on the Monongahela River, echoing Northern Pass opposition seen in New Hampshire.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Global Adjustment Charge faces constitutional scrutiny as a regulatory charge vs tax; Court of Appeal revives case over electricity pricing, feed-in tariff contracts, IESO policy, and hydro rate impacts on consumers and industry.

Key Points

A provincial electricity fee funding generator contracts, now central to a court fight over tax versus regulatory charge.

✅ Funds gap between market price and contracted generator rates

✅ At issue: regulatory charge vs tax under constitutional law

✅ Linked to feed-in tariff, IESO policy, and hydro rate hikes

Ontario’s court of appeal has decided that a constitutional challenge of a steep provincial electricity charge should get its day in court, overturning a lower-court judgment that had dismissed the legal bid.

Hamilton, Ont.-based National Steel Car Ltd. launched the challenge in 2017, saying Ontario’s so-called global adjustment charge was unconstitutional because it is a tax — not a valid regulatory charge — that was not passed by the legislature.

The global adjustment funds the difference between the province’s hourly electricity price and the price guaranteed under contracts to power generators. It is “the component that covers the cost of building new electricity infrastructure in the province, maintaining existing resources, as well as providing conservation and demand management programs,” the province’s Independent Electricity System Operator says.

However, the global adjustment now makes up most of the commodity portion of a household electricity bill, and its costs have ballooned, as regulators elsewhere consider a proposed 14% rate hike in Nova Scotia.

Ontario’s auditor general said in 2015 that global adjustment fees had increased from $650 million in 2006 to more than $7 billion in 2014. She added that consumers would pay $133 billion in global adjustment fees from 2015 to 2032, after having already paid $37 billion from 2006 to 2014.

National Steel Car, which manufactures steel rail cars and faces high electricity rates that hurt Ontario factories, said its global adjustment costs went from $207,260 in 2008 to almost $3.4 million in 2016, according to an Ontario Court of Appeal decision released on Wednesday.

The company claimed the global adjustment was a tax because one of its components funds electricity procurement contracts under a “feed-in tariff” program, or FIT, which National Steel Car called “the main culprit behind the dramatic price increases for electricity,” the decision said.

Ontario’s auditor general said the FIT program “paid excessive prices to renewable energy generators.” The program has been ended, but contracts awarded under it remain in place.

National Steel Car claimed the FIT program “was actually designed to accomplish social goals unrelated to the generation of electricity,” such as helping rural and indigenous communities, and was therefore a tax trying to help with policy goals.

“The appellant submits that the Policy Goals can be achieved by Ontario in several ways, just not through the electricity pricing formula,” the decision said.

National Steel Car also argued the global adjustment violated a provincial law that requires the government to hold a referendum for new taxes.

“The appellant’s principal claim is that the Global Adjustment was a ‘colourable attempt to disguise a tax as a regulatory charge with the purpose of funding the costs of the Policy Goals,’” the decision said. “The appellant pressed this argument before the motion judge and before this court. The motion judge did not directly or adequately address it.”

The Ontario government applied to have the challenge thrown out for having “no reasonable cause of action,” and a Superior Court judge did so in 2018, saying the global adjustment is not a tax.

National Steel Car appealed the decision, and the decision published Wednesday allowed the appeal, set aside the lower-court judgment, and will send the case back to Superior Court, where it could get a full hearing.

“The appellant’s claim is sufficiently plausible on the evidentiary record it put forward that the applications should not have been dismissed on a pleadings motion before the development of a full record,” wrote Justice Peter D. Lauwers. “It is not plain, obvious and beyond doubt that the Global Adjustment, and particularly the challenged component, is properly characterized as a valid regulatory charge and not as an impermissible tax.”

Jerome Morse of Morse Shannon LLP, one of National Steel Car’s lawyers, said the Ontario government would now have 60 days to decide whether to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

“What the court has basically said is, ‘this is a plausible argument, here are the reasons why it’s plausible, there was no answer to this,’” Morse told the Financial Post.

Ontario and the IESO had supported the lower-court decision, but there has been a change in government since the challenge was first launched, with Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Ford replacing the Liberals and Kathleen Wynne in power. The Liberals had launched a plan aimed at addressing hydro costs before losing in a 2018 election, the main thrust of which had been to refinance global adjustment costs.

Wednesday’s decision states that “Ontario’s counsel advised the court that the current Ontario government ‘does not agree with the former government’s electricity procurement policy (since-repealed).’

“The government’s view is that: ‘The solution does not lie with the courts, but instead in the political arena with political actors,’” it adds.

A spokesperson for Ontario Energy Minister Greg Rickford said in an email that they are reviewing the decision but “as this matter is in the appeal period, it would be inappropriate to comment.” 

Ontario had also requested to stay the matter so a regulator, the Ontario Energy Board, could weigh in, while the Nova Scotia regulator approved a 14% hike in a separate case.

“However, Ontario only sought this relief from the motion judge in the alternative, and given the motion judge’s ultimate decision, she did not rule on the stay,” Thursday’s decision said. “It would be premature for this court to rule on the issue, although it seems incongruous for Ontario to argue that the Superior Court is the convenient forum in which to seek to dismiss the applications as meritless, but that it is not the convenient forum for assessing the merits of the applications.”

National Steel Car’s challenge bears a resemblance to the constitutional challenges launched by Ontario and other provinces over the federal government’s carbon tax, but Justice Lauwers wrote “that the federal legislative scheme under consideration in those cases is distinctly different from the legislation at issue in this appeal.”

“Nothing in those decisions impacts this appeal,” the judge added.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Amur-Heihe ETL Power Supply Tripling will expand Russia-China electricity exports, extending 750 MW DC full-load hours to stabilize northeast China grids amid coal shortages, peak demand spikes, and cross-border energy security concerns.

Key Points

Russia will triple electricity via Amur-Heihe ETL, boosting 750 MW DC operations to relieve shortages in northeast China.

✅ 500 kV converter station increases full-load hours from 5 to 16

✅ Supports Heilongjiang, Liaoning, and Jilin grids amid coal shortfall

✅ Cross-border 750 MW DC link enhances reliability, peak demand coverage

Russia will triple electricity supplies via the Amur-Heihe electric transmission line (ETL) starting October 1, China Central Television has reported, a move seen within broader shifts in China's electricity sector by observers.

"Starting October 1, the overhead convertor substation of 500 kW (750 MW DC) will increase its daily time of operation with full loading from 5 to 16 hours per day," the TV channel said.

"This measure will make it possible to dramatically ease the situation with the electricity supply," the report said. Electricity from this converting station is used in three northeastern provinces of China - Heilongjiang, Liaoning and Jilin, while regional markets are strained as India rations coal supplies amid surging demand today. In 29 years, Russia supplied over 30 bln kilowatt hours of electricity, according to the channel.

The Amur-Heihe overhead transnational power line was constructed for increasing electricity exports to China, where projections see electricity to meet 60% of energy use by 2060 according to Shell. It was commissioned in 2012. Its maximum capacity is 750 MW.

China’s Jiemian News reported on September 27 that, amid nationwide power cuts affecting grids, 20 regions were limited in electricity supplies to a various extent due to the ongoing coal deficit. In particular, in China’s northeastern provinces, restrictions on power consumption were imposed not only on industrial enterprises, but also on households, as well as on office premises, raising concerns for U.S. solar supply chains among downstream manufacturers.

Later, China’s financial media Zhongxin Jingwei noted that the coal deficit had been triggered by price hikes brought on by tightened national environmental standards and efforts to reduce coal power production across the country. Reduced coal imports amid disruptions in the work of foreign suppliers due to the coronavirus pandemic was an additional reason, and earlier power demand drops as factories shuttered compounded imbalances.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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