Electricity blackouts spark protests in Iranian cities

China Power Demand-Emissions Gap highlights surging grid demand outpacing renewables, with coal filling shortages despite record solar, wind, EV charging, and hydrogen growth, threatening decarbonization targets and net-zero pathways through 2030.

Key Points

China's power demand outpaces renewables, keeping coal dominant and raising emissions risk through the 2020s.

✅ Record solar and wind still lag fast grid demand growth

✅ Coal fills gaps as EV charging and hydrogen loads rise

✅ Forecasts diverge: CEC bullish vs IEA, BNEF conservative

Here’s a new obstacle that could prevent the world finally turning the corner on climate change: Imagine that over the coming decade a whole new economy the size of Russia were to pop up out of nowhere. With the world’s fourth-largest electricity sector and largest burden of power plant emissions after China, the U.S. and India, this new economy on its own would be enough to throw out efforts to halt global warming — especially if it keeps on growing through the 2030s.

That’s the risk inherent in China’s seemingly insatiable appetite for grid power, as surging electricity demand is putting systems under strain worldwide.

From the cracking pace of renewable build-out last year, you might think the country had broken the back of its carbon addiction. A record 55 gigawatts of solar power and 48 gigawatts of wind were connected — comparable to installing the generation capacity of Mexico in less than 12 months. This year will see an even faster pace, with 93 GW of solar and 50 GW of wind added, according to a report last week from the China Electricity Council, an industry association.

That progress could in theory see the country’s power sector emissions peak within months, rather than the late-2020s date the government has hinted at. Combined with a smaller quantity of hydro and nuclear, low-emissions sources will probably add about 310 terawatt-hours to zero-carbon generation this year. That 3.8% increase would be sufficient to power the U.K.

Countries that have reached China’s levels of per-capita electricity consumption (already on a par with most of Europe) typically see growth rates at less than half that level, even as global power demand has surged past pre-pandemic levels in recent years. Grid supply could grow at a faster pace than Brazil, Iran, South Korea or Thailand managed over the past decade without adding a ton of additional carbon to the atmosphere.

There’s a problem with that picture, however. If electricity demand grows at an even more headlong pace, there simply won’t be enough renewables to supply the grid. Fossil fuels, overwhelmingly coal, will fill the gap, a reminder of the iron law of climate dynamics in energy transitions.

Such an outcome looks distinctly possible. Electricity consumption in 2021 grew at an extraordinary rate of 10%, and will increase again by between 5% and 6% this year, according to the CEC. That suggests the country is on pace to match the CEC’s forecasts of bullish grid demand over the coming decade, with generation hitting 11,300 terawatt-hours in 2030. External analysts, such as the International Energy Agency and BloombergNEF, envisage a more modest growth to around 10,000 TWh. 

The difference between those two outlooks is vast — equivalent to all the electricity produced by Russia or Japan. If the CEC is right and the IEA and BloombergNEF are wrong, even the furious rate of renewable installations we’re seeing now won’t be enough to rein in China’s power-sector emissions.

Who’s correct? On one hand, it’s fair to say that power planners usually err on the side of overestimation. If your forecast for electricity demand is too high, state-owned generators will be less profitable than they otherwise would have been — but if it’s too low, you’ll see power cuts and shutdowns like China witnessed last autumn, with resulting power woes affecting supply chains beyond its borders.

On the other hand, the decarbonization of China’s economy itself should drive electricity demand well above what we’ve seen in the past, with some projections such as electricity meeting 60% of energy use by 2060 pointing to a profound shift. Some 3.3 million electric vehicles were sold in 2021 and BloombergNEF estimates a further 5.7 million will be bought in 2022. Every million EVs will likely add in the region of 2 TWh of load to the grid. Those sums quickly mounts up in a country where electric drivetrains are taking over a market that shifts more than 25 million new cars a year.

Decarbonizing industry, a key element on China’s road to zero emissions, could also change the picture. The IEA sees the country building 25 GW of electolysers to produce hydrogen by 2030, enough to consume some 200 TWh on their own if run close to full-time.

That’s still not enough to justify the scale of demand being forecast, though. China is already one of the least efficient countries in the world when it comes to translating energy into economic growth, and despite official pressure on the most wasteful, so called “dual-high” industries such as steel, oil refining, glass and cement, its targets for more thrifty energy usage remain pedestrian.

The countries that have decarbonized fastest are those, such as Germany, the U.K and the U.S., where Americans are using less electricity, that have seen power demand plateau or even decline, giving new renewable power a chance to swap out fossil-fired generators without chasing an ever-increasing burden on the grid. China’s inability to do this as its population peaks and energy consumption hits developed-country levels isn’t a sign of strength.

Instead, it’s a sign of a country that’s chronically unable to make the transition away from polluting heavy industry and toward the common prosperity and ecological civilization that its president keeps promising. Until China reins in that credit-fueled development model, the risks to its economy and the global climate will only increase.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Global Adjustment and ICI balance hydro rates, renewable cost shift, and peak demand. Class A and Class B customers face demand response decisions amid pandemic occupancy uncertainty and volatile GA charges through 2022.

Key Points

A pricing model where GA costs and ICI peak allocation shape Class A/B bills, driven by renewables cost shifts.

✅ Renewable cost shift trims GA; larger Class A savings expected.

✅ Class A peak strategy returns; occupancy uncertainty persists.

✅ Class B faces volatile GA; limited levers beyond efficiency.

Ontario’s large commercial electricity customers can approach the looming annual decision about their billing structure for the 12 months beginning July 1 with the assurance of long-term relief on a portion of their costs, amid changes coming for electricity consumers that could affect planning. That’s to be weighed against uncertainties around energy demand and whether a locked-in cost allocation formula that looked favourable in pre-pandemic times will remain so until June 30, 2022.

“The biggest unknown is we just don’t know when the people are coming back,” Jon Douglas, director of sustainability with Menkes Property Management Services, reflected during a webinar sponsored by the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) of Greater Toronto last week. “The occupancy in our office buildings this fall, and going into the new year, could really impact the outcome of the decision.”

After a year of operational upheaval and more modifications to provincial electricity pricing policies, BOMA Toronto’s regularly scheduled workshop ahead of the June 15 deadline for eligible customers to opt into the Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI) program had a lot of ground to cover. Notably, beginning in January, all commercial customers have seen a reduction in the global adjustment (GA) component of their monthly hydro bills after the Ontario government shifted costs associated with contracted non-hydroelectric renewable supply to reduce the burden on industrial ratepayers from electricity rates to the general provincial account — a move that trims approximately $258 million per month from the total GA charged to industrial and commercial customers. However, they won’t garner the full benefit of that until 2022 since they’re currently repaying about $333 million in GA costs that were deferred in April, May and June of 2020.

Renewable cost shift pares the global adjustment
For now, Ontario government officials estimate the renewable cost shift equates to a 12 per cent discount relative to 2020 prices, even as typical bills may rise about 2% as fixed pricing ends in some cases. Once last year’s GA deferral is repaid at the end of 2021, they project the average Class A customer participating in the ICI program should realize a 16 per cent saving on the total hydro bill, while Class B customers paying the GA on a volumetric per kilowatt-hour (kWh) basis will see a slightly more moderate 15 per cent decrease.

“This is the biggest change to electricity pricing that’s happened since the introduction of ICI,” Tim Christie, director of electricity policy, economics and system planning for Ontario’s Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines, told online workshop attendees. “The government is funding the out-of-market costs of renewables. It does tail off into the 2030s as those contracts (for wind, solar and biomass generation) expire, but over the next eight-ish years, it’s pretty steady at around just over $3 billion per year.”

Extrapolating from 2020 costs, he pegged average electricity costs at roughly 9.1 cents/kWh for Class A commercial customers and 13.2 cents/kWh for Class B, a point of concern for Ontario manufacturers facing high rates as well. However, energy management specialists suggest actual 2021 numbers haven’t proved that out.

“In commercial buildings, we’re averaging 10 to 12 cents for Class A in 2021, and we’re seeing more than that for about 14, 15 cents for Class B,” reported Scott Rouse, managing partner with the consulting firm, Energy@Work.

GA costs for Class B customers dropped nearly 30 per cent in the first four months of 2021 compared to the last four months of 2020, when they averaged 11.8 cents/kWh. Thus far, though, there have been significant month-to-month fluctuations, with a low of 5.04 cents/kWh in February and a high of 10.9 cents/kWh in April contributing to the four-month average of 8.3 cents/kWh.

“In 2020, system-wide GA very often averaged more than $1 billion per month,” Rouse said. “This February it dropped to $500 million, which was really quite surprising. So it is a very volatile cost.”

Although welcome, the renewable cost shift does alter the payback on energy-saving investments, particularly for demand response mechanisms like energy storage. When combined with pandemic-related uncertainty and a series of policy and program reversals alongside calls to clean up Ontario’s hydro policy in recent years, the industry’s appetite for some more capital-intensive technologies appears to be flagging.

“Volatility puts a pause on some of the innovation,” said Terry Flynn, general manager with BentallGreenOak and chair of BOMA Toronto’s energy committee. “It could be a leading edge, but it might be a bleeding edge that won’t bear any fruit because the way the commodity costs are structured will change.”

“There’s kind of a wait-and-see approach on some of these bigger investments,” Douglas concurred.

Industrial Conservation Initiative underpins commercial class divide
Turning to the ICI, Class A customers — defined as those with average monthly energy demand of at least 1 megawatt (MW) — encountered some unexpected changes to the program rules during 2020. Meanwhile, Class B customers — encompassing the vast share of commercial properties smaller than about 350,000 square feet — confront the persistent reality of electricity cost allocation that offloads the burden from larger players onto them.

Through the ICI, participating Class A customers pay a share of the global adjustment that’s prorated to their energy use during the five hours of the period from May 1 to April 30 when the highest overall system demand is recorded. This gives Class A customers the opportunity to lock in a favourable factor for calculating their share of monthly system-wide global adjustment costs if they can successful project and curtail energy loads during those five hours of peak demand. On the flipside, Class B customers pay the remainder of those system-wide costs, on a straightforward per-kWh basis, once Class A payments have been reconciled.

“Class B has sometimes been regarded as the forgotten middle child of the customer classes in Ontario where all the shifted costs in the system kind of pile up,” acknowledged Mark Olsheski, vice president, energy and environment, with Sussex Strategy Group. “Likewise, there can be big unpredictable and uncontrollable swings in the global adjustment rate from month to month and, outside of pure energy efficiency, there really is precious little opportunity or empowerment for a Class B customer to take actions to lower their bills.”

Nevertheless, COVID-19 presents a few extra hiccups for Class A customers this year. Conventionally, late May is when they receive notification of the cost allocation factor that would be used to determine their GA for the upcoming July 1 to June 30 period. This year, though, all current ICI participants will retain the factor they secured by responding to the five hours of peak demand during the 12 months from May 1, 2019 to April 30, 2020 after the Ontario government placed a temporary halt on the peak demand response aspect of the program last summer. Regardless, eligible ICI participants must formally opt into the program by June 15 or they will be billed as Class B customers.

Peak chasing resumes for summer 2021
Since peak demand hours conventionally occur from June to September, Class A customers will once again be studying forecasts intently and preparing to respond via Peak Perks as the heat wave season sets in. That should help alleviate some of the system stresses that arose last summer — prompting policy-makers to reject lobbying for a continued pause on peak demand response.

“The policy rationale was to allow consumers to focus on their operations when recovering from COVID as opposed to reducing peaks. The other issue was that we did not expect the peaks to be high last summer given COVID shutdowns,” Christie recounted. “But due to some hot weather, more people at home and also the lack of ICI response, we saw peaks we haven’t seen in many, many years come up last summer. So the peak hiatus has ended and this summer we’ll be back to responding to ICI as per normal.”

Among Class A customers, owners/managers of office and retail facilities generally have the most to lose from a billing formula tied to the energy demand of more densely occupied buildings in the summer of 2019. However, they could be much more competitively positioned for 2022-23 if their buildings remain below full occupancy and energy demand stays lower than usual this summer.

“Where we can improve is the IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator) and the LDCs (local distribution companies) need to help customers get their real-time data, especially in light of the phantom demand issue, interpret their bills and their Class A versus B scenarios much more easily and comprehensively,” urged Lee Hodgkinson, vice president, technical services, sustainability and ESG, with Dream Unlimited. “ I look for APIs (application programming interface) and direct data flow from the LDCs to the building owners so that we can access that data really easily.”

Given Class A’s historic advantages, few eligible ICI participants are expected to migrate out to Class B. From a sustainability perspective, there’s perhaps more cause to question how the ICI’s 1-MW threshold encourages strategies to move in the other direction.

“You could jack up demand in some buildings and get them into Class A basically by firing up the chillers on the weekend and then pouring cooling outside to get rid of it,” Douglas noted. “That has nothing to do with climate change strategy or sustainability, but it’s a cost- saving strategy, and, sometimes, when you look at the math, it’s hundreds of thousands of dollars you can save.”

Brian Hewson, vice president, consumer protection and industry performance with the Ontario Energy Board (OEB), confirmed the OEB is currently scrutinizing the discrepancy that leaves Class B as the only consumer group with no flexibility to curtail energy load during higher-priced periods, and will be providing advice to the Ministry of Energy. In the interim, that status does, at least, simplify tactics.

“Just reduce your kWh and it doesn’t matter what time of day because you’re paying that fixed rate for 24 hours a day. So if you can curb your demand at night, you get a big bang for your dollar,” Rouse advised.

“We do talk about rates a lot, but if you’re not using it, you’re not paying for it,” Flynn agreed. “A lot of our focus is still on really to try to reduce the number of kilowatts that we use. That seems to be the best thing to do.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Coal-to-Gas Transition will retire coal units, convert plants to natural gas, boost renewables, and affect electricity prices, with policy tools like a price cap and carbon tax shaping the power market.

Key Points

Shift retiring coal units and converting to natural gas and renewables, targeting coal elimination by 2030.

✅ TransAlta retires Sundance coal unit; more units convert to gas.

✅ Forward prices seen near $40 to low $50/MWh in 2018.

✅ 6.8-cent cap shields consumers; carbon tax backstops costs.

The turn of the calendar to 2018 saw TransAlta retire one of its coal power generating units at its Sundance plant west of Edmonton and mothball another as it begins the transition to cleaner sources of energy across Alberta.

The company will say goodbye to three more units over the next year and a half to prepare them for conversion to natural gas.

This is part of a fundamental shift in Alberta, which will see coal power retired ahead of schedule by 2030, replaced by a mix of natural gas and renewable sources.

“We’re going to see that transition continue right up from now until 2030, and likely beyond 2030 as wind generation starts to outpace coal and new technologies become available.”

Coal has long been the backbone of Alberta’s grid, currently providing nearly 40 per cent of the provinces power. Analysts believe removing it will come with a cost to consumers, according to a report on coal phase-out costs published recently.

“The open question over the next couple of years is whether they’re going to inch up gradually, or whether they’re going to inch up like they did in 2012 and 2013, by having periods of very high power prices.”

Albertans are currently paying historically low power prices, with generation costs last year averaging below $23/MWh, less than half of the average of the past 10 years.

A report released in mid-December by electricity consultant firm EDC Associates showed forward prices moving from the $40/MWh in the first three months of 2018, to the low $50/MWh range.

“The forwards tend to take several weeks to fully react to announcements, so its anticipated that prices will continue to gradually track upwards over the coming weeks,” the report reads.

The NDP government has taken steps to protect consumers against price surges. Last spring, a price cap of 6.8 cents/MWh was put in place until the spring of 2021, with any cost above that to be covered by carbon tax revenue.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Lebanon-ENOC Fuel Swap secures Iraqi high sulphur fuel oil, Grade B fuel oil, and gasoil via tender, easing electricity generation shortfalls, diesel shortages, and grid outages amid Lebanon's energy crisis and power sector emergency.

Key Points

A tender-based exchange trading Iraqi HSFO for cleaner fuel oil and gasoil to stabilize Lebanon's electricity generation.

✅ Swaps 84,000t Iraqi HSFO for 30,000t Grade B fuel oil and 33,000t gasoil

✅ Supports state electricity generation during acute power shortages

✅ Tender won by ENOC under Lebanon-Iraq goods-for-fuel deal

Lebanon's energy ministry said it had picked Dubai's ENOC in a tender to swap 84,000 tonnes of Iraqi high sulphur fuel oil, as LNG export authorizations expand globally, with 30,000 tonnes of Grade B fuel oil and 33,000 tonnes of gasoil.

ENOC won the tender, part of a deal between the two countries that allows the cash-strapped Lebanese government, even as electricity tensions persist, to pay for 1 million tonnes of Iraqi heavy fuel oil a year in goods and services.

As Lebanon suffers what the World Bank has described as one of the deepest depressions of modern history, shortages of fuel this month have meant state-powered electricity, alongside ongoing electricity sector reform, has been available for barely a few hours a day if at all.

Residents turning to private generators for their power supply face diesel shortages, even as other countries roll out measures to secure electricity supplies to mitigate risks.

The swap tenders are essential as Iraqi fuel is unsuitable for Lebanese electricity generation, and regional projects like the Jordan-Saudi electricity linkage underscore broader grid strategies.

Lebanese caretaker Energy Minister Raymond Ghajar said in July the fuel from the Iraqi deal would be used for electricity generation by the state provider, even as France advances a new electricity pricing scheme in Europe, and was enough for around four months.

ENOC is set to receive the Iraq fuel between Sept. 3-5 and will deliver it to Lebanon two weeks after, the energy ministry said, following a recent deal on electricity prices abroad that could influence markets.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

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

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Maritime Link Subsea Cable enables HVDC grid interconnection across the Cabot Strait, linking Nova Scotia with Newfoundland and Labrador to import Muskrat Falls hydroelectric power and expand renewable energy integration and reliability.

Key Points

A 170-km HVDC subsea link connecting Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador for Muskrat Falls power and renewables

✅ 170-km HVDC subsea route across Cabot Strait

✅ Connects Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador grids

✅ Enables Muskrat Falls hydro and renewable energy trade

The longest sub-sea electricity cable in North America now connects Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, according to the company behind the $1.7-billion Maritime Link project.  

The first of the project's two high-voltage power transmission cables was anchored at Point Aconi, N.S., on Sunday. 

The 170-kilometre long cable across the Cabot Strait will connect the power grids in the two provinces. The link will allow power to flow between the two provinces, as demonstrated by its first electricity transfer milestone, and bring to Nova Scotia electricity generated by the massive Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project in Labrador. 

Ultimately, the Maritime Link will help Nova Scotia reach the renewable energy goals set out by the federal government, said Rick Janega, the president and CEO of Emera Newfoundland and Labrador, whose subsidiary owns the Maritime Link.

"If not for the Maritime Link then really the province would not have the ability to meet those requirements because we're pretty much tapped out of all the hydro in province and all the wind generation without creating new interconnections like the Maritime Link," said Janega. 

Not everyone wanted the link 

Fishermen in Cape Breton had objected to the Maritime Link. They were concerned about how the undersea cable might affect fish in the area. 

The laying of the cable and other construction closed a three-kilometre long and 600-metre wide swath of ocean bottom to fishermen for the entire 2017 lobster season.  

But the company came to an agreement to compensate a group of 60 Cape Breton lobster and crab fishermen affected by the project this season. The terms of the compensation deal were not released. 

Long cable, big job

The transmission cable runs northwest of the Marine Atlantic ferry route between North Sydney, N.S., and Port aux Basques, N.L. 

Installation of the second cable is set to begin in June, a major step comparable to BC Hydro's Site C transmission milestone achieved recently. The entire link should be completed by late 2017 and should go into full service by January 2018.

"We're quite confident as soon as the Maritime Link is in service there will be energy transactions between Nova Scotia Power and Newfoundland Hydro. Both utilities have already identified opportunities to save money and exchange energy between the two provinces," said Janega.

That's two years before power is expected to flow from the Muskrat Falls hydro project. The Labrador-based power generating facility has been hampered by delays.

Those kinds of transmission project delays are expected for such a large project, said Janega, and won't stop the Maritime Link from being used. 

"With the Maritime Link going in service this year providing Nova Scotia the opportunity that it needs to be able to reach carbon reductions and to adapt to climate change and to increase renewable energy content and we're very pleased to be at this state today," said Janega.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News