Elster to spearhead AMI in Mexico City

European Energy Market Crisis drives record natural gas and electricity prices across the EU, as LNG supply constraints, Russian pipeline dependence, marginal pricing, and renewables integration expose volatility in liberalised power markets.

Key Points

A 2021 surge in European gas and electricity prices from supply strains, demand rebounds, and marginal pricing exposure.

✅ Record TTF gas and day-ahead power prices across Europe

✅ LNG constraints and Russian pipeline dependence tightened supply

✅ Debate over marginal pricing vs regulated models intensifies

By Ronan Bolton

The year 2021 was a turbulent one for energy markets across Europe, as Europe's energy nightmare deepened across the region. Skyrocketing natural gas prices have created a sense of crisis and will lead to cost-of-living problems for many households, as wholesale costs feed through into retail prices for gas and electricity over the coming months.

This has created immediate challenges for governments, but it should also encourage us to rethink the fundamental design of our energy markets as we seek to transition to net zero, with many viewing it as a wake-up call to ditch fossil fuels across the bloc.

This energy crisis was driven by a combination of factors: the relaxation of Covid-19 lockdowns across Europe created a surge in demand, while cold weather early in the year diminished storage levels and contributed to increasing demand from Asian economies. A number of technical issues and supply-side constraints also combined to limit imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) into the continent.

Europe’s reliance on pipeline imports from Russia has once again been called into question, as Gazprom has refused to ride to the rescue, only fulfilling its pre-existing contracts. The combination of these, and other, factors resulted in record prices – the European benchmark price (the Dutch TTF Gas Futures Contract) reached almost €180/MWh on 21 December, with average day-ahead electricity prices exceeding €300/MWh across much of the continent in the following days.

Countries which rely heavily on natural gas as a source of electricity generation have been particularly exposed, with governments quickly put under pressure to intervene in the market.

In Spain the government and large energy companies have clashed over a proposed windfall tax on power producers. In Ireland, where wind and gas meet much of the country’s surging electricity demand, the government is proposing a €100 rebate for all domestic energy consumers in early 2022; while the UK government is currently negotiating a sector-wide bailout of the energy supply sector and considering ending the gas-electricity price link to curb bills.

This follows the collapse of a number of suppliers who had based their business models on attracting customers with low prices by buying cheap on the spot market. The rising wholesale prices, combined with the retail price cap previously introduced by the Theresa May government, led to their collapse.

While individual governments have little control over prices in an increasingly globalised and interconnected natural gas market, they can exert influence over electricity prices as these markets remain largely national and strongly influenced by domestic policy and regulation. Arising from this, the intersection of gas and power markets has become a key site of contestation and comment about the role of government in mitigating the impacts on consumers of rising fuel bills, even as several EU states oppose major reforms amid the price spike.

Given that renewables are constituting an ever-greater share of production capacity, many are now questioning why gas prices play such a determining role in electricity markets.

As I outline in my forthcoming book, Making Energy Markets, a particular feature of the ‘European model’ of liberalised electricity trade since the 1990s has been a reliance on spot markets to improve the efficiency of electricity systems. The idea was that high marginal prices – often set by expensive-to-run gas peaking plants – would signal when capacity limits are reached, providing clear incentives to consumers to reduce or delay demand at these peak periods.

This, in theory, would lead to an overall more efficient system, and in the long run, if average prices exceeded the costs of entering the market, new investments would be made, thus pushing the more expensive and inefficient plants off the system.

The free-market model became established during a more stable era when domestically-sourced coal, along with gas purchased on long-term contracts from European sources (the North Sea and the Netherlands), constituted a much greater proportion of electricity generation.

While prices fluctuated, they were within a somewhat predictable range, and provided a stable benchmark for the long-term contracts underpinning investment decisions. This is no longer the case as energy markets become increasingly volatile and disrupted during the energy transition.

The idea that free price formation in a competitive market, with governments standing back, would benefit electricity consumers and lead to more efficient systems was rooted in sound economic theory, and is the basis on which other major commodity markets, such as metals and agricultural crops, have been organised for decades.

The free-market model applied to electricity had clear limitations, however, as the majority of domestic consumers have not been exposed directly to real-time price signals. While this is changing with the roll-out of smart meters in many countries, the extent to which the average consumer will be willing or able to reduce demand in a predicable way during peak periods remains uncertain.

Also, experience shows that governments often come under pressure to intervene in markets if prices rise sharply during periods of scarcity, thus undermining a basic tenet of the market model, with EU gas price cap strategies floated as one option.

Given that gas continues to play a crucial role in balancing supply and demand for electricity, the options available to governments are limited, illustrating why rolling back electricity prices is harder than it appears for policymakers. One approach would be would be to keep faith with the liberalised market model, with limited interventions to help consumers in the short term, while ultimately relying on innovations in demand side technologies and alternatives to gas as a means of balancing systems with high shares of variable renewables.

An alternative scenario may see a return to old style national pricing policies, involving a move away from marginal pricing and spot markets, even as the EU prepares to revamp its electricity market in response. In the past, in particular during the post-WWII decades, and until markets were liberalised in the 1990s, governments have taken such an approach, centrally determining prices based on the costs of delivering long term system plans. The operation of gas plants and fuel procurement would become a much more regulated activity under such a model.

Many argue that this ‘traditional model’ better suits a world in which governments have committed to long-term decarbonisation targets, and zero marginal cost sources, such as wind and solar, play a more dominant role in markets and begin to push down prices.

A crucial question for energy policy makers is how to exploit this deflationary effect of renewables and pass-on cost savings to consumers, whilst ensuring that the lights stay on.

Despite the promise of storage technologies such as grid-scale batteries and hydrogen produced from electrolysis, aside from highly polluting coal, no alternative to internationally sourced natural gas as a means of balancing electricity systems and ensuring our energy security is immediately available.

This fact, above all else, will constrain the ambitions of governments to fundamentally transform energy markets.

Ronan Bolton is Reader at the School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh and Co-Director of the UK Energy Research Centre. His book Making Energy Markets: The Origins of Electricity Liberalisation in Europe is to be published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2022.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electric power market crisis highlights grid reliability risks as coal and nuclear retire amid subsidies, mandates, and cheap natural gas; intermittent wind and solar raise blackout concerns, resilience costs, and pricing distortions across regulated markets.

Key Points

Reliability and cost risks as coal and nuclear retire; subsidies distort prices; intermittent renewables strain grid.

✅ Coal and nuclear retirements reduce baseload capacity

✅ Subsidies and mandates distort market pricing signals

✅ Intermittent renewables increase blackout and grid risk

Is anyone paying any attention to the crisis that is going on in our electric power markets?

Over the past six months at least four major nuclear power plants have been slated for shutdown, including the last one in operation in California. Meanwhile, dozens of coal plants have been shuttered as well — despite low prices and cleaner coal. Some of our major coal companies may go into bankruptcy.

This is a dangerous game we are playing here with our most valuable resource — outside of clean air and water. Traditionally, we've received almost half our electric power nationwide from coal and nuclear power, and for good reason. They are cheap sources of power and they are highly resilient and reliable.

The disruption to coal and nuclear power wouldn't be disturbing if this were happening as a result of market forces. That's only partially the case.

#google#

The amazing shale oil and gas revolution is providing Americans with cheap gas for home heating and power generation. Hooray. The price of natural gas has fallen by nearly two-thirds over the last decade and this has put enormous price pressure on other forms of power generation.

But this is not a free-market story of Schumpeterian creative destruction. If it were, then wind and solar power would have been shutdown years ago. They can't possibly compete on a level playing field with $3 natural gas.

In most markets solar and wind power survive purely because the states mandate that as much as 30 percent of residential and commercial power come from these sources. The utilities have to buy it regardless of price, even as electricity demand is flat in many regions. What a sweet deal. The California state legislature just mandated that every new home spend $10,000 on solar panels on the roof.

Well over $100 billion of subsidies to big wind and big solar were doled out over the last decade, and even with the avalanche of taxpayer subsidies and bailout funds many of these companies like Solyndra (which received $500 million in handouts) failed, underscoring why a green revolution hasn't materialized as promised.

These industries are not anywhere close to self sufficiency. In 2017 amid utility trends to watch the wind industry admitted that without a continuation of a multi-billion tax credit, the wind turbines would stop turning.

This combines with the left's war on coal through regulations that have destroyed coal plants in many areas. (Thank goodness for the exports of coal or the industry would be in much bigger trouble.)

Bottom line: Our power market is a Soviet central planner's dream come true and it is extinguishing our coal and nuclear industries.

Why should anyone care?

First, because government subsidies, regulations and mandates make electric power more expensive. Natural gas prices have fallen by two-thirds, but electric power costs have still risen in most areas — thanks to the renewable mandates.

More importantly, the electric power market isn't accurately pricing in the value of resilience and reliability. What is the value of making sure the lights don't go off? What is the cost to the economy and human health if we have rolling brownouts and blackouts because the aging U.S. grid doesn't have enough juice during peak demand.

Politicians, utilities and federal regulators are shortsightedly killing our coal and nuclear capacities without considering the risk of future energy shortages and power disruptions. Once a nuclear plant is shutdown, you can't just fire it back up again when you need it.

Wind and solar are notoriously unreliable. Most places where wind power is used, coal plants are needed to back up the system during peak energy use and when the wind isn't blowing.

The first choice to fix energy markets is to finally end the tangled web of layers and layers of taxpayer subsidies and mandates and let the market choose. Alas, that's nearly impossible given the political clout of big wind and solar.

The second best solution is for the regulators and utilities to take into account the grid reliability and safety of our energy. Would people be willing to pay a little more for their power to ensure against brownouts? I sure would. The cost of having too little energy far exceeds the cost of having too much.

A glass of water costs pennies, but if you're in a desert dying of thirst, that water may be worth thousands of dollars.

I'll admit I'm not sure what the best solution is to the power plant closures. But if we have major towns and cities in the country without electric power for stretches of time because of green energy fixation, Americans are going to be mighty angry and our economy will take a major hit.

When our manufacturers, schools, hospitals, the internet and iPhones shut down, we're not going to think wind and solar power are so chic.

If the lights start to go out five or 10 years from now, we will look back at what is happening today and wonder how we could have been so darn stupid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S. Wind Power 2025 drives record capacity additions, with FERC data showing robust renewable energy growth, IRA incentives, onshore and offshore projects, utility-scale generation, grid integration, and manufacturing investment boosting clean electricity across key states.

Key Points

Overview of record wind additions, IRA incentives, and grid expansion defining the U.S. clean electricity mix in 2025.

✅ FERC: 30.1% of new U.S. capacity in Jan 2025 from wind

✅ Major projects: Cedar Springs IV, Boswell, Prosperity, Golden Hills

✅ IRA incentives drive onshore, offshore builds and manufacturing

In early 2025, wind power has significantly strengthened its position in the United States' electricity generation portfolio. According to data from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), wind energy accounted for 30.1% of the new electricity capacity added in January 2025, and as the most-used renewable source in the U.S., it also surpassed the previous record set in 2024. This growth is attributed to substantial projects such as the 390.4 MW Cedar Springs Wind IV and the 330.0 MW Boswell Wind Farm in Wyoming, along with the 300.0 MW Prosperity Wind Farm in Illinois and the 201.0 MW Golden Hills Wind Farm Expansion in Oregon. 

The expansion of wind energy capacity is part of a broader trend where solar and wind together accounted for over 98% of the new electricity generation capacity added in the U.S. in January 2025. This surge is further supported by the federal government's Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and broader policy support for renewables, which has bolstered incentives for renewable energy projects, leading to increased investments and the establishment of new manufacturing facilities. 

By April 2025, clean electricity sources, including wind and solar, were projected to surpass 51% of total utility-scale electricity generation in the U.S., building on a 25.5% renewable share seen in recent data, marking a significant milestone in the nation's energy transition. This achievement is attributed to a combination of factors: a seasonal drop in electricity demand during the spring shoulder season, increased wind speeds in key areas like Texas, and higher solar production due to longer daylight hours and expanded capacity in states such as California, Arizona, and Nevada, supported by record installations across the solar and storage industry. 

Despite a 7% decline in wind power production in early April compared to the same period in 2024—primarily due to weaker wind speeds in regions like Texas—the overall contribution of wind energy remained robust, supported by an 82% clean-energy pipeline that includes wind, solar, and batteries. This resilience underscores the growing reliability of wind power as a cornerstone of the U.S. electricity mix. 

Looking ahead, the U.S. Department of Energy projects that wind energy capacity will continue to grow, with expectations of adding between 7.3 GW and 9.9 GW in 2024, and potentially increasing to 14.5 GW to 24.8 GW by 2028. This growth is anticipated to be driven by both onshore and offshore wind projects, with onshore wind representing the majority of new additions, continuing a trajectory since surpassing hydro capacity in 2016 in the U.S.

Early 2025 has witnessed a notable increase in wind power's share of the U.S. electricity generation mix. This trend reflects the nation's ongoing commitment to expanding renewable energy sources, especially after renewables surpassed coal in 2022, supported by favorable policies and technological advancements. As the U.S. continues to invest in and develop wind energy infrastructure, the role of wind power in achieving a cleaner and more sustainable energy future becomes increasingly pivotal.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

European Power Crisis intensifies as record electricity prices, nuclear output cuts, gas supply strain, heatwave drought, and Rhine shipping bottlenecks hit Germany, France, and Switzerland, tightening winter storage and driving long-term contracts higher.

Key Points

A surge in European power prices from heatwaves, nuclear curbs, Rhine coal limits, and reduced Russian gas supply.

✅ Record year-ahead prices in Germany and France

✅ Nuclear output curbed by warm river cooling limits

✅ Rhine low water disrupts coal logistics and generation

Benchmark power prices in Europe hit fresh records Friday as utilities are increasingly reducing electricity output in western Europe because of the hot weather. 

Next-year contracts in Germany and France, Europe’s biggest economies rose to new highs after Switzerland’s Axpo Holding AG announced curbs at one of its nuclear plants. Electricite de France SA is also reducing nuclear output because of high river temperatures and cooling water restrictions, while Uniper SE in Germany is struggling to get enough coal up the river Rhine. 

Europe is suffering its worst energy crunch in decades, and losing nuclear power is compounding the strain as gas cuts made by Russia in retaliation for sanctions drive a surge in prices. The extreme heat led to the driest July on record in France and is underscoring the impact that a warming climate is having on vital infrastructure.

Water levels on Germany’s Rhine have fallen so low that the river may effectively close soon, impacting supplies of coal to the plants next to it. The Rhone and Garonne in France and the Aare in Switzerland are all too warm to be used to cool nuclear plants effectively, forcing operators to limit energy output under environmental constraints. 

Northwest European weather forecast for the next two weeks:
relates to European Power Hits Records as Plants Start to Buckle in Heat
  
The German year-ahead contract gained as much as 2% to 413 euros a megawatt-hour on the European Energy Exchange AG. The French equivalent rose 1.9% to a record 535 euros. Long-term prices are coming under pressure because producing less power from nuclear and coal will increase the demand for natural gas, which is badly needed to fill storage sites ahead of the winter.  

France to Curb Nuclear Output as Europe’s Energy Crisis Worsens
Uniper SE said on Thursday that two of its coal-fired stations along the Rhine may need to curb output during the next few weeks as transporting coal along the Rhine becomes impossible. 

Plants on the river near Mannheim and Karlsruhe, operated by Grosskraftwerk Mannheim AG and EnBW AG, have previously struggled to source coal because of the shallow water, even as German renewables deliver more electricity than coal and nuclear at times. Both companies said generation hasn’t been affected yet. 

“The low tide is not currently affecting our generation of energy because our plants do not have the need for continuous fresh water,” a Steag GmbH spokesman said on Friday. “But the low tide level can make running plants and transporting coal more complicated than usual.”

The spokesman said though that there is slight reduction in output of about 10 to 15 megawatts, which would equate to a few percent, because of the hot temperatures. “This has been happening over some time now and is a problem for everyone because the plant system is not designed to withstand such hot temperatures,” he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Heat Wave Grid Emergency sees CAISO issue Stage 3 alerts as record demand, extreme heat, and climate change strain renewable energy; conservation efforts avert rolling blackouts and protect grid reliability statewide.

Key Points

A grid emergency in California's heat wave, with CAISO Stage 3 alerts amid record demand and risk of rolling blackouts.

✅ CAISO triggered Stage 3 alerts, then downgraded by 8 pm PT

✅ Record 52,061 MW demand; conservation reduced grid stress

✅ Extreme heat and climate change heightened outage risks

California has avoided ordering rolling blackouts after electricity demand reached a record-high Tuesday night from excessive heat across the state, even as energy experts warn the U.S. grid faces mounting climate stresses. 

The California Independent System Operator, which oversees the state’s electrical grid, imposed its highest level energy emergency on Tuesday, a step that comes before ordering rolling blackouts and allows the state to access emergency power sources.

The Office of Emergency Services also sent a text alert to residents requesting them to conserve power. The operator downgraded the Stage 3 alert around 8:00 p.m. PT on Tuesday and said that “consumer conservation played a big part in protecting electric grid reliability,” and in bolstering grid resilience overall.

The state capital of Sacramento reached 116 degrees Fahrenheit on Tuesday, according to the National Weather Service, surpassing a record that was set almost 100 years ago. And nearly a half-dozen cities in the San Francisco Bay Area tied or set all-time highs, the agency said.

CAISO said peak power demand on Tuesday reached 52,061 megawatts, surpassing a previous high of 50,270 megawatts on July 24, 2006, while nearby B.C. electricity demand has also hit records during extreme weather.

While the operator did not order rolling blackouts, three Northern California cities saw brief power outages, and severe storms have caused similar disruptions statewide in recent months. As of 7:00 am PT on Wednesday, nearly 8,000 customers in California were without power, according to PowerOutage.us. 

Gov. Gavin Newsom, in a Twitter video on Tuesday, warned the temperatures across California were unprecedented and the state is headed into the worst part of the heat wave, which is on track to be the hottest and longest on record for September.

“The risk for outages is real and it’s immediate,” Newsom said. “These triple-digit temperatures throughout much of the state are leading, not surprisingly, to record demand on the energy grid.”

The governor urged residents to pre-cool their homes earlier in the day when more power is available and turn thermostats to 78 degrees or higher after 4:00 pm PT. “Everyone has to do their part to help step up for just a few more days,” Newsom said.

The possibility for widespread outages reflects how power grids in California and other states are becoming more vulnerable to climate-related disasters such as heat waves, storms and wildfires across California.

California, which has set a goal to transition to 100% carbon-free electricity by 2045, has shuttered a slew of gas power plants in the past few years, leaving the state increasingly dependent on solar energy.

At times, the state has produced a clean energy surplus during peak solar generation, underscoring the challenges of balancing supply and demand.

The megadrought in the American West has generated the driest two decades in the region in at least 1,200 years, and human-caused climate change has fueled the problem, scientists said earlier this year. Conditions will likely continue through 2022 and persist for years.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News