Groups urge EPA administrator to regulate coal ash now

Western Washington Bomb Cyclone unleashed gale-force winds, torrential rain, and coastal flooding, causing massive power outages from Seattle to Tacoma; storm surge, downed trees, and blocked roads hindered emergency response and infrastructure repairs.

Key Points

A rapidly deepening storm with severe winds, rain, flooding, and major power outages across Western Washington.

✅ Rapid barometric pressure drop intensified the system

✅ Gale-force winds downed trees and power lines

✅ Coastal flooding and storm surge disrupted transport

A powerful "bomb cyclone" recently hit Western Washington, causing widespread destruction across the region. The intense storm left more than half a million residents without power, similar to B.C. bomb cyclone outages seen to the north, with outages affecting communities from Seattle to Olympia. This weather phenomenon, marked by a rapid drop in atmospheric pressure, unleashed severe wind gusts, heavy rain, and flooding, causing significant disruption to daily life.

The bomb cyclone, which is a rapidly intensifying storm, typically features a sharp drop in barometric pressure over a short period of time. This creates extreme weather conditions, including gale-force winds, torrential rain, and coastal flooding, as seen during California storm impacts earlier in the season. In Western Washington, the storm struck just as the region was beginning to prepare for the winter season, catching many off guard with its strength and unpredictability.

The storm's impact was immediately felt as high winds downed trees, power lines, and other infrastructure. By the time the worst of the storm had passed, utility companies had reported widespread power outages, with more than 500,000 customers losing electricity. The outages were particularly severe in areas like Seattle, Tacoma, and the surrounding communities. Crews worked tirelessly in difficult conditions to restore power, but many residents faced extended outages, underscoring US grid climate vulnerabilities that complicate recovery efforts, with some lasting for days due to the scope of the damage.

The power outages were accompanied by heavy rainfall, leading to localized flooding. Roads were inundated, making it difficult for first responders and repair crews to reach affected areas. Emergency services were stretched thin as they dealt with downed trees, blocked roads, and flooded neighborhoods. In some areas, floodwaters reached homes, forcing people to evacuate. In addition, several schools were closed, and public transportation services were temporarily halted, leaving commuters stranded and businesses unable to operate.

As the storm moved inland, its effects continued to be felt. Western Washington’s coastal regions were hammered by high waves and storm surges, further exacerbating the damage. The combination of wind and rain also led to hazardous driving conditions, prompting authorities to advise people to stay off the roads unless absolutely necessary.

While power companies worked around the clock to restore electricity, informed by grid resilience strategies that could help utilities prepare for future events, challenges persisted. Fallen trees and debris blocked access to repair sites, and the sheer number of outages made it difficult for crews to restore power quickly. Some customers were left in the dark for days, forced to rely on generators, candles, and other makeshift solutions. The storm's intensity left a trail of destruction, requiring significant resources to address the damages and rebuild critical infrastructure.

In addition to the immediate impacts on power and transportation, the bomb cyclone raised important concerns about climate change and the increasing frequency of extreme weather events. Experts note that storms like these are becoming more common, with rapid intensification leading to more severe consequences and compounding pressures such as extreme-heat electricity costs for households. As the planet warms, scientists predict that such weather systems will continue to grow in strength, posing greater challenges to cities and regions that are not always prepared for such extreme events.

In the aftermath of the storm, local governments and utility companies faced the daunting task of not only restoring services but also assessing the broader impact of the storm on communities. Many areas, especially those hit hardest by flooding and power outages, will require substantial recovery efforts. The devastation of the bomb cyclone highlighted the vulnerability of infrastructure in the face of rapidly changing weather patterns and water availability, as seen in BC Hydro drought adaptations nearby, and reinforced the need for greater resilience in the face of future storms.

The storm's impact on the Pacific Northwest is a reminder of the power of nature and the importance of preparedness. As Western Washington recovers, there is a renewed focus on strengthening infrastructure, including expanded renewable electricity to diversify supply, improving emergency response systems, and ensuring that communities are better equipped to handle the challenges posed by increasingly severe weather events. For now, residents remain hopeful that the worst is behind them and are working together to rebuild and prepare for whatever future storms may bring.

The bomb cyclone has left an indelible mark on Western Washington, but it also serves as a call to action for better preparedness, more robust infrastructure, and a greater focus on combating climate change to mitigate the impact of such extreme weather in the future.

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

Electricity Investment Surpasses Oil and Gas 2016, driven by renewable energy, power grids, and energy efficiency, as IEA reports lower oil and gas spending, rising solar and wind capacity, and declining coal power plant approvals.

Key Points

A 2016 milestone where electricity topped global energy investment, led by renewables, grids, and efficiency, per the IEA.

✅ IEA: electricity investment hit $718b; oil and gas fell to $650b.

✅ Renewables led with $297b; solar and wind unit costs declined.

✅ Coal plant approvals plunged; networks and storage spending rose.

Investments in electricity surpassed those in oil and gas for the first time ever in 2016 on a spending splurge on renewable energy and power grids as the fall in crude prices led to deep cuts, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said.

Total energy investment fell for the second straight year by 12 per cent to US$1.7 trillion compared with 2015, the IEA said. Oil and gas investments plunged 26 per cent to US$650 billion, down by over a quarter in 2016, and electricity generation slipped 5 per cent.

"This decline (in energy investment) is attributed to two reasons," IEA chief economist Laszlo Varro told journalists.

"The reaction of the oil and gas industry to the prolonged period of low oil prices which was a period of harsh investment cuts; and technological progress which is reducing investment costs in both renewable power and in oil and gas," he said.

Oil and gas investment is expected to rebound modestly by 3 per cent in 2017, driven by a 53 per cent upswing in U.S. shale, and spending in Russia and the Middle East, the IEA said in a report.

"The rapid ramp up of U.S. shale activities has triggered an increase of U.S. shale costs of 16 per cent in 2017 after having almost halved from 2014-16," the report said.

The global electricity sector, however, was the largest recipient of energy investment in 2016 for the first time ever, overtaking oil, gas and coal combined, the report said.

"Robust investments in renewable energy and increased spending in electricity networks, which supports the outlook that low-emissions sources will cover most demand growth, made electricity the biggest area of capital investments," Varro said.

Electricity investment worldwide was US$718 billion, lifted by higher spending in power grids which offset the fall in power generation investments.

"Investment in new renewables-based power capacity, at US$297 billion, remained the largest area of electricity spending, despite falling back by 3 per cent as clean energy investment in developing nations slipped, the report said."

Although renewables investments was 3 per cent lower than five years ago, capacity additions were 50 per cent higher and expected output from this capacity about 35 per cent higher, thanks to the fall in unit costs and technology improvements in solar PV and wind generation, the IEA said.

COAL INVESTMENT IS COMING TO AN END

Investments in coal-fired electricity plants fell sharply. Sanctioning of new coal power plants fell to the lowest level in nearly 15 years, reflecting concerns about local air pollution, and emergence of overcapacity and competition from renewables, with renewables poised to eclipse coal in global power generation, notably in China. Coal investments, however, grew in India.

"Coal investment is coming to an end. At the very least, it is coming to a pause," Varro said.

The IEA report said energy efficiency investments continued to expand in 2016, reaching US$231 billion, with most of it going to the building sector globally.

Electric vehicles sales rose 38 per cent in 2016 to 750,000 vehicles at $6 billion, and represented 10 per cent of all transport efficiency spending. Some US$6 billion was spent globally on electronic vehicle charging stations, the IEA said.

Spending on electricity networks and storage continued the steady rise of the past five years, as surging electricity demand puts power systems under strain, reaching an all-time high of US$277 billion in 2016, with 30 per cent of the expansion driven by China’s spending in its distribution system, the report said.

China led the world in energy investments with 21 per cent of global total share, the report said, driven by low-carbon electricity supply and networks projects.

Although oil and gas investments fell in the United States in 2016, its total energy investments rose 16 per cent, even as Americans use less electricity in recent years, on the back of spending in renewables projects, the IEA report said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

US Nuclear Generating Costs 2017 show USD33.50/MWh for nuclear energy, the lowest since 2008, as capital expenditures, fuel costs, and operating costs declined after license renewals and uprates, supporting a reliable, low-carbon grid.

Key Points

The 2017 US nuclear average was USD33.50/MWh, lowest since 2008, driven by reduced capital, fuel, and operating costs.

✅ Average cost USD33.50/MWh, lowest since 2008

✅ Capital, fuel, O&M costs fell sharply since 2012 peak

✅ License renewals, uprates, market reforms shape competitiveness

Average total generating costs for nuclear energy in 2017 in the USA were at their lowest since 2008, according to a study released by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), amid a continuing nuclear decline debate in other regions.

The report, Nuclear Costs in Context, found that in 2017 the average total generating cost - which includes capital, fuel and operating costs - for nuclear energy was USD33.50 per megawatt-hour (MWh), even as interest in next-generation nuclear designs grows among stakeholders. This is 3.3% lower than in 2016 and more than 19% below 2012's peak. The reduction in costs since 2012 is due to a 40.8% reduction in capital expenditures, a 17.2% reduction in fuel costs and an 8.7% reduction in operating costs, the organisation said.

The year-on-year decline in capital costs over the past five years reflects the completion by most plants of efforts to prepare for operation beyond their initial 40-year licence. A few major items - a series of vessel head replacements; steam generator replacements and other upgrades as companies prepared for continued operation, and power uprates to increase output from existing plants - caused capital investment to increase to a peak in 2012. "As a result of these investments, 86 of the [USA's] 99 operating reactors in 2017 have received 20-year licence renewals and 92 of the operating reactors have been approved for uprates that have added over 7900 megawatts of electricity capacity. Capital spending on uprates and items necessary for operation beyond 40 years has moderated as most plants are completing these efforts," it says.

Since 2013, seven US nuclear reactors have shut down permanently, with the Three Mile Island debate highlighting wider policy questions, and another 12 have announced their permanent shutdown. The early closure for economic reasons of reliable nuclear plants with high capacity factors and relatively low generating costs will have long-term economic consequences, the report warns: replacement generating capacity, when needed, will produce more costly electricity, fewer jobs that will pay less, and, for net-zero emissions objectives, more pollution, it says.

NEI Vice President of Policy Development and Public Affairs John Kotek said the "hardworking men and women of the nuclear industry" had done an "amazing job" reducing costs through the institute's Delivering the Nuclear Promise campaign and other initiatives, in line with IAEA low-carbon lessons from the pandemic. "As we continue to face economic headwinds in markets which do not properly compensate nuclear plants, the industry has been doing its part to reduce costs to remain competitive," he said.

"Some things are in urgent need of change if we are to keep the nation's nuclear plants running and enjoy their contribution to a reliable, resilient and low-carbon grid. Namely, we need to put in place market reforms that fairly compensate nuclear similar to those already in place in New York, Illinois and other states," Kotek added.

Cost information in the study was collected by the Electric Utility Cost Group with prior years converted to 2017 dollars for accurate historical comparison.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Pinghai Bay Offshore Wind Farm MWS advances marine warranty survey best practices, risk management, and international standards in Fujian, with Haixia Goldenbridge Insurance and reinsurer-aligned audits supporting safer offshore wind construction and logistics.

Key Points

An MWS program ensuring Pinghai Bay Phase 2 meets standards via audits, risk controls, and vetted procedures.

✅ First MWS delivered in China's offshore wind market

✅ Audits, risk consultancy, and reinsurer-aligned standards

✅ Supports 250MW Phase 2 at Pinghai Bay, Fujian

LOC Renewables has announced it is to carry out marine warranty survey (MWS) services for the second phase of the Pinghai Bay Offshore Wind Farm near Putian, Fujian province, China, on behalf of Haixia Goldenbridge Insurance Co., Ltd. The agreement represents the first time MWS services have been delivered to the Chinese offshore wind market.

China’s installed offshore capacity jumped more than 60% in 2017, and its growing offshore market is aiming for a total grid-connected capacity of 5GW by 2020, as the sector globally advances toward a $1 trillion industry over the coming decades. Much of this future offshore development is slated to take place in Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Guangdong and Fujian provinces. As developers becoming increasingly aware of the need for stringent risk management and value that internationally accepted standards can bring to projects, Pinghai Bay will be the first Chinese offshore wind farm to employ MWS to ensure it meets the highest technical standards and minimise project risk. The agreement will see LOC Renewables carry out audit and risk consultancy services for the project from March until the end of 2018.

#google#

In recent years, as Chinese offshore wind projects have grown in scale and complexity the need for international expertise in the market has increased, with World Bank support for emerging markets underscoring global momentum. In response, domestic insurers are partnering with international reinsurers to manage and mitigate the associated larger risks. Applying the higher standards required by international reinsurers, LOC Renewables will draw on its extensive experience in European, US and Asian offshore wind markets to provide MWS services on the Pinghai project from its Tianjin office.

“As offshore wind technology continues to proliferate across Asia, driven by declining global costs, successful knowledge transfer based on best practices and lessons learned in the established offshore wind markets becomes ever more important,” said Ke Wan, Managing Director, LOC China.

“With a wealth of experience in Europe and the US, where UK offshore wind growth has accelerated, we’re increasingly working on projects across Asia, and are delighted to now be providing the first MWS services to China’s offshore wind market – services that bring real value in lower risk and will enable the project to achieve its full potential.”

“At 250MW, phase two of the Pinghai Bay Wind Farm represents a significant expansion on phase one, and we wanted to ensure that it met the highest technical and risk mitigation standards, informed by regional learnings such as Korean installation vessels analyses,” said Fan Ming, Business Director at Haixia Goldenbridge Insurance.

“In addition to their global experience, LOC Renewables’ familiarity with and presence in the local market was very important to us, and we’re looking forward to working closely with them to help bring this project to fruition and make a significant contribution to China’s expanding offshore wind market.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

N.B. Power Crypto Mining Moratorium underscores electricity demand risks from bitcoin mining, straining the energy grid and industrial load capacity in New Brunswick, as a cabinet order prioritizes grid reliability, utility planning, and allocation.

Key Points

Official pause on new large-scale crypto mining to protect N.B. Power grid capacity, stability, and reliable supply.

✅ Cabinet order halts new large-scale crypto load requests

✅ Review targets grid reliability, planning, and capacity

✅ Non-crypto industrial customers exempt from prolonged pause

N.B. Power says a freeze on servicing new, large-scale industrial customers in the province remains in place over concerns that the cryptocurrency sector's heavy electricity use could be more than the utility can handle.

The Higgs government quietly endorsed the moratorium in a cabinet order in March 2022 and ordered a review of how the sector might affect the reliable electricity supply and broader electricity future planning in the province.

The cabinet order, filed with the Energy and Utilities Board, said N.B. Power had "policy, technical and operational concerns about [its] capacity to service the anticipated additional load demand" from energy-intensive customers such as crypto mines.

It said the utility had received "several new large-scale, short-notice service requests" to supply electricity to crypto mining companies that could put "significant pressure" on the existing electricity supply.

The order, signed by Premier Blaine Higgs, said non-crypto companies shouldn't be subject to the pause for any longer than required for the review, amid shifts in regional plans like the Atlantic Loop that are altering timelines. Ws.

The freeze was ordered months after Taal Distributed Information Technologies Inc. announced plans to establish a 50-megawatt bitcoin mining operation and transaction processing facility in Grand Falls.

A town official said this week that the deal never went ahead.

24 hours a day
The Taal facility would have joined a 70-megawatt bitcoin mine in Grand Falls operated by Hive Blockchain Technologies.

Hive's Bitcoin mine comprises four large warehouses containing thousands of computers running 24 hours a day to earn cryptocurrency units.

The combined annual electricity consumption of the two mines would exceed what could be produced by the small modular nuclear reactor being designed by ARC Clean Energy Canada of Saint John, even as Nova Scotia advances efforts to harness the Bay of Fundy's powerful tides for clean power.

Put another way, the two mines would gobble up more than three months' electricity from N.B. Power's coal-fired Belledune generating station under current operations.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News