Solar farm the size of 313 football fields to be built at Edmonton airport

Hydro-Que9bec 2020 Profit Outlook faces COVID-19 headwinds as revenue drops, U.S. Northeast export demand weakens, and clean-energy infrastructure plans shift toward domestic investments, energy efficiency, EV charging stations, and grid upgrades to stabilize net income.

Key Points

A forecast of COVID-19 revenue declines, weaker U.S. exports, and a shift to energy efficiency and grid upgrades.

✅ Q1 profit fell 14%; net income $1.53B vs $1.77B

✅ Exports to U.S. Northeast weaker; revenue off ~$130M Mar-Jun

✅ Strategy: energy efficiency, EV charging, grid, dam upgrades

Hydro-Québec expects the coronavirus pandemic to chop “hundreds of millions of dollars” off 2020 profits, its new chief executive officer said.

COVID-19 has depressed revenue by about $130 million between March and June, Sophie Brochu said Monday, as residential electricity use rose even while overall consumption dropped. Shrinking electricity exports to the U.S. northeast are poised to compound the shortfall, she said.

“What we’re living through is not small. The impacts are real,” Brochu said on a conference call with reporters, noting that utilities such as Hydro One supported Ontario's COVID-19 response at the height of the pandemic. “I’m not talking about a billion. I’m talking about hundreds of millions. We have no idea how quickly the economy will restart. As we approach the fall we will have a better view.”

Hydro-Québec last month reported a 14-per-cent drop in first-quarter profit and warned full-year results would fall short of targets as the COVID-19 crisis weighs on power demand. Net income in the quarter was $1.53 billion compared with $1.77 billion a year ago, the company said.

Canada’s biggest electricity producer had earlier been targeting 2020 profit of between $2.8 billion and $3 billion, according to its current strategic plan and corporate structure currently in place.

The first quarter was the utility’s last under former CEO Eric Martel, who left to take over at jetmaker Bombardier Inc. Brochu, who previously ran Énergir, replaced him April 6.

To boost exports over time, Brochu said Hydro-Québec will look to strengthen ties with neighbours such as Ontario, where the Hydro One CEO is working to repair relations with government and investors, and the U.S. The CEO said she’s heartened by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s call last month for new power lines from Canada and upstate to promote clean energy.

“This is a clear, encouraging signal that must express itself through very concrete negotiations,” she said. “The United States is our backyard. This is true for Ontario, where key system staff lockdowns were even contemplated, and the Atlantic provinces as well. This is our ecosystem, and we intend to build on our footprint, on the relationships that we have.”

Though stricter environmental hurdles make it more complicated to get power lines built today than a decade ago, the CEO insists it’s still possible to sell electricity to neighbouring U.S. states.

“Is it more difficult today to build energy projects? The answer is yes,” she said. “Does this clog up the U.S. northeast market? Not at all. I believe this federation of ecosystems is very promising.”

In the meantime, Hydro-Québec is planning to speed up investments at home — for example, by building new charging stations that will be needed to serve a growing fleet of electric cars. The utility will also upgrade some of its Montreal-area facilities, as well as its massive dams on the Manicouagan River, Brochu said. The investments will result in additional capacity.

“Today we need to put water in the pump of Quebec, so we will concentrate our human and financial efforts here,” she said. “We are needed in Quebec.” 

Hydro-Québec is stepping up efforts to promote energy efficiency among its customer base, amid retroactive billing concerns, which Brochu said could postpone the need to build large dams.

“We have to move towards ‘no-regret moves.’ What’s a no-regret move? It’s energy efficiency,” Brochu said earlier Monday during a presentation to the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal, noting that Ontario debated peak rate relief for self-isolating customers. “This is healthy, it’s fundamental and it will contribute to Quebec’s economic rebound by lowering energy costs.”

Brochu also pledged to build a more diverse workforce after the company said last week that 8.2 per cent of staff belong to “visible and ethnic” minorities.

“This can be improved on,” she said. “What I’m expressing today is my determination, and that of the management team, to move the needle.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Eletrobras Privatization Strike sparks a 72-hour CNE walkout by Brazil's electricity workers, opposing asset sell-offs and grid privatization while pledging essential services; unions target President Wilson Ferreira Jr. over energy-sector reforms.

Key Points

A 72-hour CNE walkout by Brazil's electricity workers opposing Eletrobras sell-offs, while keeping essential services.

✅ 72-hour strike led by CNE unions and federations

✅ Targets privatization plans and leadership at Eletrobras

✅ Essential services maintained to avoid consumer impact

Brazil's national electricity workers' collective (CNE) has called for a 72-hour strike to protest the privatization of state-run electric company Eletrobras and its subsidiaries.

The CNE, which gathers the electricity workers' confederation, federations, unions and associations, said the strike is to begin at Monday midnight (0300 GMT) and last through midnight Wednesday, even as some utilities elsewhere have considered asking staff to live on site to maintain operations.

Workers are demanding the ouster of Eletrobras President Wilson Ferreira Jr., who they say is the leading promoter of the privatization move.

Some 24,000 workers are expected to take part in the strike. However, the CNE said it will not affect consumers by ensuring essential services, a pledge echoed by utilities managing costs elsewhere such as Manitoba Hydro's unpaid days off during the pandemic.

#google#

Eletrobras accounts for 32 percent of Brazil's installed energy generation capacity, mainly via hydroelectric plants. Besides, it also operates nuclear and thermonuclear plants, and solar and wind farms, reflecting trends captured by young Canadians' interest in electricity jobs in recent years.

The company distributes electricity in six northern and northeastern states, and handles 47 percent of the nation's electricity transmission lines, even as a U.S. grid pandemic warning has highlighted reliability risks.

The government owns a 63-percent stake in the company, a reminder that public policy shapes the sector, similar to Canada's future-of-work investment initiatives announced recently.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

US January power generation climbed to 373.2 TWh, EIA data shows, with coal edging natural gas, record wind output, record nuclear generation, rising hydro, and stable utility-scale solar amid higher Henry Hub prices.

Key Points

US January power generation hit 373.2 TWh; coal led gas, wind and nuclear set records, with solar edging higher.

✅ Coal 31.8% share; gas 29.4%; coal output 118.7 TWh, gas 109.6 TWh.

✅ Wind hit record 26.8 TWh; nuclear record 74.6 TWh.

✅ Total generation 373.2 TWh, highest January since 2014.

The US generated 373.2 TWh of power in January, up 7.9% from 345.9 TWh in December and 9.3% higher than the same month in 2017, Energy Information Administration data shows.

The monthly total was the highest amount in January since 377.3 TWh was generated in January 2014.

Coal generation totaled 118.7 TWh in January, up 11.4% from 106.58 TWh in December and up 2.8% from the year-ago month, consistent with projections of a coal-fired generation increase for the first time since 2014. It was also the highest amount generated in January since 132.4 TWh in 2015.

For the second straight month, more power was generated from coal than natural gas, as 109.6 TWh came from gas, up 3.3% from 106.14 TWh in December and up 19.9% on the year.

However, the 118.7 TWh generated from coal was down 9.6% from the five-year average for the month, due to the higher usage of gas and renewables and a rising share of non-fossil generation in the overall mix.

#google#

Coal made up 31.8% of the total US power generation in January, up from 30.8% in December but down from 33.8% in January 2017.

Gas` generation share was at 29.4% in the latest month, with momentum from record gas-fired electricity earlier in the period, down from 30.7% in December but up from 26.8% in the year-ago month.

In January, the NYMEX Henry Hub gas futures price averaged $3.16/MMBtu, up 13.9% from $2.78/MMBtu averaged in December but down 4% from $3.29/MMBtu averaged in the year-ago month.

WIND, NUCLEAR GENERATION AT RECORD HIGHS

Wind generation was at a record-high 26.8 TWh in January, up 29.3% from 22.8 TWh in December and the highest amount on record, according to EIA data going back to January 2001. Wind generated 7.2% of the nation`s power in January, as an EIA summer outlook anticipates larger wind and solar contributions, up from 6.6% in December and 6.1% in the year-ago month.

Utility-scale solar generated 3.3 TWh in January, up 1.3% from 3.1 TWh in December and up 51.6% on the year. In January, utility-scale solar generation made up 0.9% of US power generation, during a period when solar and wind supplied 10% of US electricity in early 2018, flat from December but up from 0.6% in January 2017.

Nuclear generation was also at a record-high 74.6 TWh in January, up 1.3% month on month and the highest monthly total since the EIA started tracking it in January 2001, eclipsing the previous record of 74.3 TWh set in July 2008. Nuclear generation made up 20% of the US power in January, down from 21.3% in December and 21.4% in the year-ago month.

Hydro power totaled 25.4 TWh in January, making up 6.8% of US power generation during the month, up from 6.5% in December but down from 8.2% in January 2017.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Alberta Capacity Market Overhaul faces scrutiny over electricity costs, reliability targets, investor certainty, and AESO design, as UCP reviews NDP reforms, renewables integration, and deregulated energy-only alternatives impacting generators, ratepayers, and future power price volatility.

Key Points

A shift paying generators for capacity and energy to improve reliability; critics warn of higher electricity costs.

✅ UCP reviewing NDP plan and subsidies amid market uncertainty

✅ AESO cites reliability needs as coal retires, renewables grow

✅ Critics predict overprocurement and premature launch cost spikes

Jason Kenney's government is facing renewed pressure to cancel a massive overhaul of Alberta's power market that one player says will needlessly spike costs by hundreds of millions of dollars, amid an electricity sector in profound change today.

Nick Clark, who owns the Calgary-based electricity retailer Spot Power, has sent the Alberta government an open letter urging it to walk away from the electricity market changes proposed by the former NDP government.

"How can you encourage new industry to open up when one of their raw material costs will increase so dramatically?" Clark said. "The capacity market will add more costs to the consumer and it will be a spiral downwards."

But NDP Leader Rachel Notley, whose government ushered in the changes, said fears over dramatic cost increases are unfounded.

"There are some players within the current electricity regime who have a vested interest in maintaining the current situation," Notley said

Kenney's UCP vowed during the recent election to review the current and proposed electricity market options, as the electricity market heads for a reshuffle, with plans to report on its findings within 90 days.

The party also promised to scrap subsidies for renewable power, while ensuring "a market-based electricity system" that emphasizes competition in Alberta's electricity market for consumers.

The New Democrats had opted to scrap the current deregulated power market — in place since the Klein era — after phasing out coal-fired generation and ushering in new renewable power as part of changes in how Alberta produces and pays for electricity under their climate change strategy.

The Alberta Electric System Operator, which oversees the grid, says the province will need new sources of electricity to replace shuttered coal plants and backstop wind and solar generators, while meeting new consumer demand.

After consulting with power companies and investors, the AESO concluded in late 2016 the electricity market couldn't attract enough investment to build the needed power generation under the current model.

The AESO said at the time investors were concerned their revenues would be uncertain once new plants are running. It recommended what's known as a capacity market, which compensates power generators for having the ability to produce electricity, even when they're not producing it.

In other words, producers would collect revenue for selling electricity into the grid and, separately, for having the capacity to produce power as a backstop, ensuring the lights stay on. Power generators would use this second source of income to help cover plant construction costs.

Clark said the complex system introduces unnecessary costs, which he believes would hurt consumers in the end. He said what's preventing investment in the power market is uncertainty over how the market will be structured in the future.

"What investors need to see in this market is price certainty, regulatory ease, and where the money they're putting into the marketplace is not at risk," he said.

"They can risk their own money, but if in fact the government comes in and changes the policy as it was doing, then money stayed away from the province."

Notley said a capacity market would not increase power bills but would avoid big price swings, with protections like a consumer price cap on power bills also debated, while bringing greener sources of energy into Alberta's grid.

"Moving back to the [deregulated] energy-only market would make a lot of money for a few people, and put consumers, both industrial and residential, at great risk."

Clark disagrees, citing Enmax's recent submissions to the Alberta Utilities Commission, in which the utility argues the proposed design of the capacity market is flawed.

In its submissions to the commission, which is considering the future of Alberta's power market, Enmax says the proposed system would overestimate the amount of generation capacity the province will need in the future. It says the calculation could result in Alberta procuring too much capacity.

The City of Calgary-owned utility says this could drive up costs by anywhere from $147 million to $849 million a year. It says a more conservative calculation of future electricity demand could avoid the extra expense.

An analysis by a Calgary energy consulting firm suggests a different feature of the proposed power market overhaul could also lead to a massive spike in costs.

EDC Associates, hired by the Consumers' Coalition of Alberta, argues the proposal to launch the new system in November 2021 may be premature, because it could bring in additional supplies of electricity before they're needed.

The consultant's report, also filed with the Alberta Utilities Commission, estimates the early launch date could require customers to pay 40 per cent more for electricity amid rising electricity prices in the province — potentially an extra $1.4 billion — in 2021/22.

"The target implementation date is politically driven by the previous government," said Duane Reid-Carlson, president of EDC Associates.

Reid-Carlson recommends delaying the launch date by several years and making another tweak: reducing the proposed target for system reliability, which would scale back the amount of power generation needed to backstop renewable sources.

"You could get a result in the capacity market that would give a similar cost to consumers that the [deregulated] energy-only market design would have done otherwise," he said.

"You could have a better risk profile associated with the capacity market that would serve consumers better through lower cost, lower price volatility, and it would serve generators better by giving them better access to capital at lower costs."

The UCP government did not respond to a request for comment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nordic Power Grid Dispute highlights cross-border interconnector congestion, curtailed exports and imports, hydropower priorities, winter demand spikes, rising spot prices, and transmission grid security amid decarbonization efforts across Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark.

Key Points

A clash over interconnectors and capacity cuts reshaping trade, prices, and reliability in the Nordic power market.

✅ Sweden cuts interconnector capacity to protect grid stability

✅ Norway prioritizes higher-priced exports via new cables

✅ Finland and Denmark seek EU action on capacity curtailments

A spat over electricity supplies is heating up in northern Europe. Sweden is blocking Norway from using its grids to transfer power from producers throughout the region. That’s angered Norway, which in turn has cut flows to its Nordic neighbor.

The dispute has built up around the use of cross-border power cables, which are a key part of Europe’s plans to decarbonize since they give adjacent countries access to low-carbon resources such as wind or hydropower. The electricity flows to wherever prices are higher, informed by how electricity is priced across Europe, without interference from grid operators -- but in the event of a supply squeeze, flows can be stopped.

Sweden moved to safeguard the security of its grid after Norway started increasing electricity exports through huge new cables to Germany and the U.K. Those exports at times have drawn energy away from Sweden, resulting in the country’s system operator cutting capacity at its Nordic borders, preventing exports but also hindering imports, which it relies on to handle demand spikes during winter.

“This is not a good situation in the long run,” Christian Holtz, a energy market consultant for Merlin & Metis AB.

Norway hit back last week by cutting flows to Sweden, this will prioritize better paying customers in Europe, amid Irish price spikes that highlight dispatchable shortages, giving them access to its vast hydro resources at the expense of its Nordic neighbors. 

By partially closing its borders Sweden can’t access imports either, which it relies on to handle demand spikes during the coldest days of the winter. 

In Denmark, unusual summer and autumn winds have at times delivered extraordinarily low electricity prices that ripple through regional markets.

The Swedish grid manager Svenska Kraftnat has reduced export capacity at cables across its borders by as much as half this year to keep operations secure. Finland and Denmark rely on imports too and the cuts will come at a cost for millions of homes and industries across the four nations already contending with record electricity rates this year. 

Finland and Denmark want the European Union to end the exemption to regulations that make such reductions possible in the first place, as Europe is losing nuclear power and facing tighter supply.

“Imports from our neighboring countries ensure adequacy at times of peak consumption,” said Reima Paivinen, head of operation at the Finland’s Fingrid. “The recent surge in electricity prices throughout Europe does not directly affect the adequacy of electricity, but prices may rise dramatically for short periods.”

Svenska Kraftnat says it’s not political -- it has no choice but to cut capacity until its old grids are expanded to handle the new direction of flows, a challenge mirrored by grid expansion woes in Germany that slow integration. That could take at least until 2030 to complete, it said earlier this year. At the same time, Norway halving available export capacity to about 1,200 megawatts will increase risk of shortages. 

“If we need more we will have to count on imports from other countries,” said Erik Ek, head of strategic operation at Svenska Kraftnat. “If that is not available, we will have to disconnect users the day it gets cold.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies 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