Indiana Michigan Power breaks ground on solar facility

Atlantic Canada Hurricane Resilience focuses on climate change adaptation: grid hardening, burying lines, coastline resiliency to sea-level rise, mixed forests, and aggressive tree trimming to reduce outages from hurricane-force winds and post-tropical storms.

Key Points

A strategy to harden grids, protect coasts, and manage forests to limit hurricane damage across Atlantic Canada.

✅ Grid hardening and selective undergrounding to cut outage risk.

✅ Coastal defenses: seawalls, dikes, and shoreline vegetation upgrades.

✅ Mixed forests and proactive tree trimming to reduce windfall damage.

In an era when storms with hurricane-force winds are expected to keep battering Atlantic Canada, experts say the region should make major changes to electrical grids, power utilities and shoreline defences and even the types of trees being planted.

Work continues today to reconnect customers after post-tropical storm Dorian knocked out power to 80 per cent of homes and businesses in Nova Scotia. By early afternoon there were 56,000 customers without electricity in the province, compared with 400,000 at the storm's peak on the weekend, a reminder that major outages can linger long after severe weather.

Recent scientific literature says 35 hurricanes -- not including post-tropical storms like Dorian -- have made landfall in the region since 1850, an average of one every five years that underscores the value of interprovincial connections like the Maritime Link for reliability.

Heavy rains and strong winds batter Shelburne, N.S. on Saturday, Sept. 7, 2019 as Hurricane Dorian approaches, making storm safety practices crucial for residents. (Suzette Belliveau/ CTV Atlantic)

Anthony Taylor, a forest ecologist scientist with Natural Resources Canada, wrote in a recent peer-reviewed paper that climate change is expected to increase the frequency of severe hurricanes.

He says promoting more mixed forests with hardwoods would reduce the rate of destruction caused by the storms.

Erni Wiebe, former director of distribution at Manitoba Hydro, says the storms should cause Atlantic utilities to rethink their view that burying lines is too expensive and to contemplate other long-term solutions such as the Maritime Link that enhance grid resilience.

Blair Feltmate, head of the Intact Centre on Climate Change at the University of Waterloo, says Atlantic Canada should also develop standards for coastline resiliency due to predictions of rising sea levels combining with the storms, while considering how delivery rate changes influence funding timelines.

He says that would mean a more rapid refurbishing of sea walls and dike systems, along with more shoreline vegetation.

Feltmate also calls for an aggressive tree-trimming program to limit power outages that he says "will otherwise continue to plague the Maritimes," while addressing risks like copper theft through better security.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

COP24 Climate Talks in Poland gather nearly 200 nations to finalize the Paris Agreement rulebook, advance the Talanoa Dialogue, strengthen emissions reporting and transparency, and align finance, technology transfer, and IPCC science for urgent mitigation.

Key Points

UNFCCC summit in Katowice to finalize Paris rules, enhance transparency, and drive stronger emissions cuts.

✅ Paris rulebook on reporting, transparency, markets, and timelines

✅ Talanoa Dialogue to assess gaps and raise ambition by 2020

✅ Finance and tech transfer for developing countries under UNFCCC

Delegates from nearly 200 countries have assembled this month in Katowice, Poland — the heart of coal country — to try to move the ball forward on battling climate change.

It’s now the 24th annual meeting, or “COP” — conference of the parties — under the landmark U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which the United States signed under then-President George H.W. Bush in 1992. More significantly, it’s the third such meeting since nations adopted the Paris climate agreement in 2015, widely seen at the time as a landmark moment in which, at last, developed and developing countries would share a path toward cutting greenhouse gas emissions, as Obama's clean energy push sought to lock in momentum.

But the surge of optimism that came with Paris has faded lately. The United States, the second largest greenhouse gas emitter, said it would withdraw from the agreement, though it has not formally done so yet. Many other countries are off target when it comes to meeting their initial round of Paris promises — promises that are widely acknowledged to be too weak to begin with. And emissions have begun to rise after a brief hiatus that had lent some hope of progress.

The latest science, meanwhile, is pointing toward increasingly dire outcomes. The amount of global warming that the world already has seen — 1 degree Celsius, 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit — has upended the Arctic, is killing coral reefs and may have begun to destabilize a massive part of Antarctica. A new report from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), requested by the countries that assembled in Paris to be timed for this year’s meeting, finds a variety of increasingly severe effects as soon as a rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius arrives — an outcome that can’t be avoided without emissions cuts so steep that they would require societal transformations without any known historical parallel, the panel found.

It’s in this context that countries are meeting in Poland, with expectations and stakes high.

So what’s on the agenda in Poland?

The answer starts with the Paris agreement, which was negotiated three years ago, has been signed by 197 countries and is a mere 27 pages long. It covers a lot, laying out a huge new regime not only for the world as a whole to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, but for each individual country to regularly make new emissions-cutting pledges, strengthen them over time, report emissions to the rest of the world and much more. It also addresses financial obligations that developed countries have to developing countries, including how to achieve clean and universal electricity at scale, and how technologies will be transferred to help that.

But those 27 pages leave open to interpretation many fine points for how it will all work. So in Poland, countries are performing a detailed annotation of the Paris agreement, drafting a “rule book” that will span hundreds of pages.

That may sound bureaucratic, but it’s key to addressing many of the flash points. For instance, it will be hard for countries to trust that their fellow nations are cutting emissions without clear standards for reporting and vetting. Not everybody is ready to accept a process like the one followed in the United States, which not only publishes its emissions totals but also has an independent review of the findings.

“A number of the developing countries are resisting that kind of model for themselves. They see it as an intrusion on their sovereignty,” said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists and one of the many participants in Poland this week. “That’s going to be a pretty tough issue at the end of the day.”

It’s hardly the only one. Also unclear is what countries will do after the time frames on their current emissions-cutting promises are up, which for many is 2025 or 2030. Will all countries then start reporting newer and more ambitious promises every five years? Every 10 years?

That really matters when five years of greenhouse gas emissions — currently about 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually — are capable of directly affecting the planet’s temperature.

What can we expect each day?

The conference is in its second week, when higher-level players — basically, the equivalent of cabinet-level leaders in the United States — are in Katowice to advance the negotiations.

As this happens, several big events are on the agenda. On Tuesday and Wednesday is the “Talanoa Dialogue,” which will bring together world leaders in a series of group meetings to discuss these key questions: “Where are we? Where do we want to go? How do we get there?”

Friday is the last day of the conference, but pros know these events tend to run long. On Friday — or after — we will be waiting for an overall statement or decision from the meeting which may signal how much has been achieved.

What is the “Talanoa Dialogue”?

“Talanoa” is a word used in Fiji and in many other Pacific islands to refer to “the sharing of ideas, skills and experience through storytelling.” This is the process that organizers settled on to fulfill a plan formed in Paris in 2015.

That year, along with signing the Paris agreement, nations released a decision that in 2018 there should be a “facilitative dialogue" among the countries “to take stock” of where their efforts stood to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This was important because going into that Paris meeting, it was already clear that countries' promises were not strong enough to hold global warming below a rise of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures.

This dialogue, in the Talanoa process, was meant to prompt reflection and maybe even soul searching about what more would have to be done. Throughout the year, “inputs” to the Talanoa dialogue — most prominently, the recent report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the meaning and consequences of 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming —have been compiled and synthesized. Now, over two days in Poland, countries' ministers will assemble to share stories in small groups about what is working and what is not and to assess where the world as a whole is on achieving the required greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

What remains to be seen is whether this process will culminate in any kind of product or statement that calls clearly for immediate, strong ramping up of climate change promises across the world.

With the clock ticking, will countries do anything to increase their ambition at this meeting?

If negotiating the Paris rule book sounds disappointingly technical, well, you’re not the only one feeling that way. Pressure is mounting for countries to accomplish something more than that in Poland — to at minimum give a strong signal that they understand that the science is looking worse and worse, and the world’s progress on the global energy transition isn’t matching that outlook.

“The bigger issue is how we’re going to get to an outcome on greater ambition,” said Lou Leonard, senior vice president for climate and energy at the World Wildlife Fund, who is in Poland observing the talks. “And I think the first week was not kind on moving that part of the agenda forward.”

Most countries are not likely to make new emissions-cutting promises this week. But there are two ways that the meeting could give a strong statement that countries should — or will — come up with new promises at least by 2020. That’s when extremely dramatic emissions cuts would have to start, including progress toward net-zero electricity by mid-century, according to the recent report on 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming.

The first is the aforementioned “Talanoa dialogue” (see above). It’s possible that the outcome of the dialogue could be a statement acknowledging that the world isn’t nearly far enough along and calling for much stronger steps.

There will also be a decision text released for the meeting as a whole, which could potentially send a signal. Leonard said he hopes that would include details for the next steps that will put the world on a better course.

“We have to create milestones, and the politics around it that will pressure countries to do something that quite frankly they don’t want to do,” he said. “It’s not going to be easy. That’s why we need a process that will help make it happen. And make the most of the IPCC report that was designed to come out right now so it could do this for us. That’s why we have it, and it needs to serve that role.”

The United States says it will withdraw from the agreement, so what role is it playing in Poland?

Despite President Trump’s pledge to withdraw, the United States remains in the Paris agreement (for now) and has sent a delegation of 44 people to Poland, largely from the State Department but also from the Environmental Protection Agency, Energy Department and even the White House, while domestically a historic U.S. climate law has recently passed to accelerate clean energy. Many of these career government officials remain deeply engaged in hashing out details of the agreement.

Still, the country as a whole is being cast in an antagonistic role in the talks.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Gaza Power Plant Shutdown underscores the Gaza Strip's fuel ban, Israeli blockade, and electricity crisis, cutting megawatts, disrupting hospitals and quarantine centers, and exposing fragile energy supply, GEDCO warnings, and public health risks.

Key Points

An abrupt halt of Gaza's sole power plant due to a fuel ban, deepening the electricity crisis and straining hospitals.

✅ Israeli fuel ban halts Gaza's only power plant

✅ Available supply drops far below 500 MW demand

✅ Hospitals and COVID-19 quarantine centers at risk

The only electricity plant in the Gaza Strip shut down yesterday after running out of fuel banned from entering the besieged enclave by the Israeli occupation, Gaza Electricity Distribution Company announced.

“The power plant has shut down completely,” the company said in a brief statement, as disruptions like China power cuts reveal broader grid vulnerabilities.

Israel banned fuel imports into Gaza as part of punitive measures over the launching incendiary balloons from the Strip.

On Sunday, GEDCO warned that the industrial fuel for the electricity plant would run out, mirroring Lebanon's fuel shortage challenges, on Tuesday morning.

Since 2007, the Gaza Strip suffered under a crippling Israeli blockade that has deprived its roughly two million inhabitants of many vital commodities, including food, fuel and medicine, and regional strains such as Iraq's summer electricity needs highlight broader power insecurity.

As a result, the coastal enclave has been reeling from an electricity crisis, similar to when the National Grid warned of short supply in other contexts.

The Gaza Strip needs some 500 megawatts of electricity – of which only 180 megawatts are currently available – to meet the needs of its population, while Iran supplies about 40% of Iraq's electricity in the region.

Spokesman of the Ministry of Health in Gaza, Ashraf Al Qidra, said the lack of electricity undermines offering health services across Gaza’s hospitals.

He also warned that the lack of electricity would affect the quarantine centres used for coronavirus patients, reinforcing the need to keep electricity options open during the pandemic.

Gaza currently has three sources of electricity: Israel, which provides 120 megawatts and is advancing coal use reduction measures; Egypt, which supplies 32 megawatts; and the Strip’s sole power plant, which generates between 40 and 60 megawatts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

UK Electricity Grid Investment underpins net zero, reinforcing transmission and distribution networks to integrate wind, solar, EV charging, and heat pumps, while Ofgem balances investor returns, debt risks, price controls, resilience, and consumer bills.

Key Points

Capital to reinforce grids for net zero, integrating wind, solar, EVs and heat pumps while balancing returns and bills.

✅ 170bn-210bn GBP by 2050 to reinforce cables, pylons, capacity.

✅ Ofgem to add investability metric while protecting consumers.

✅ Integrates wind, solar, EVs, heat pumps; manages grid resilience.

Prime Minister Sunak's recent upgrade to his home's electricity grid, designed to power his heated swimming pool, serves as a microcosm of a much larger challenge facing the UK: transforming the nation's entire electricity network for net zero emissions, amid Europe's electrification push across the continent.

This transition requires a monumental £170bn-£210bn investment by 2050, earmarked for reinforcing and expanding onshore cables and pylons that deliver electricity from power stations to homes and businesses. This overhaul is crucial to accommodate the planned switch from fossil fuels to clean energy sources - wind and solar farms - powering homes with electric cars, as EV demand on the grid rises, and heat pumps.

The UK government's Climate Change Committee warns of potentially doubled electricity demand by 2050, the target date for net zero, even though managing EV charging can ease local peaks. This translates to a significant financial burden for companies like National Grid, SSE, and Scottish Power who own the main transmission networks and some regional distribution networks.

Balancing investor needs for returns and ensuring affordable energy bills for consumers presents a delicate tightrope act for regulators like Ofgem. The National Audit Office criticized Ofgem in 2020 for allowing network owners excessive returns, prompting concerns about potential bill hikes, especially after lessons from 2021 reshaped market dynamics.

Think-tank Common Wealth reported that distribution networks paid out a staggering £3.6bn to their owners between 2017 and 2021, raising questions about the balance between profitability and affordability, amid UK EV affordability concerns among consumers.

However, Ofgem acknowledges the need for substantial investment to finance network upgrades, repairs, and the clean energy transition. To this end, they are considering incorporating an "investability" metric, recognizing how big battery rule changes can erode confidence elsewhere, in the next price controls for transmission networks, ensuring these entities remain attractive for equity fundraising without overburdening consumers.

This proposal, while welcomed by the industry, has drawn criticism from consumer advocacy groups like Citizens Advice, who fear it could contribute to unfairly high bills. With energy bills already hitting record highs, public trust in the net-zero transition hinges on ensuring affordability.

High debt levels and potential credit rating downgrades further complicate the picture, potentially impacting companies' ability to raise investment funds. Ofgem is exploring measures to address this, such as stricter debt structure reporting requirements for regional distribution companies.

Lawrence Slade, CEO of the Energy Networks Association, emphasizes the critical role of investment in achieving net zero. He highlights the need for "bold" policies and regulations that balance ambitious goals with investor confidence and ensure efficient resource allocation, drawing on B.C.'s power supply challenges as a cautionary example.

The challenge lies in striking a delicate balance between attracting investment, ensuring network resilience, and maintaining affordable energy bills. As Andy Manning from Citizens Advice warns, "Without public confidence, net zero won't be delivered."

The UK's journey to net zero hinges on navigating this complex landscape. By carefully calibrating regulations, fostering investor confidence, and prioritizing affordability, the country can ensure its electricity grid is not just robust enough to power heated swimming pools, but also a thriving green economy for all.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ontario ICI Electricity Pricing Freeze helps Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI) participants by stabilizing Global Adjustment charges, suspending peak hours curtailment, and reducing COVID-19-related electricity cost volatility to support large employers returning operations to full capacity.

Key Points

A two-year policy stabilizing GA costs and pausing peak-hour cuts to aid industrial and commercial recovery.

✅ GA cost share frozen for two years

✅ No peak-hour curtailment obligations

✅ Supports industrial and commercial restart

The Ontario government is helping large industrial and commercial companies return to full levels of operation without the fear of electricity costs spiking by providing more stable electricity pricing for two years. Effective immediately, companies that participate in the Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI) will not be required to reduce their electricity usage during peak hours or shift some load to ultra-low overnight pricing where applicable, as their proportion of Global Adjustment (GA) charges for these companies will be frozen.

"Ontario's industrial and commercial electricity consumers continue to experience unprecedented economic challenges during COVID-19, with electricity relief for households and small businesses introduced to help," said Greg Rickford, Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines. "Today's announcement will allow large industrial employers to focus on getting their operations up and running and employees back to work, instead of adjusting operations in response to peak electricity demand hours."

Due to COVID-19, electricity consumption in Ontario has been below average as fall in demand as people stayed home across the province, and the province is forecast to have a reliable supply of electricity, supported by the system operator's staffing contingency plans during the pandemic, to accommodate increased usage. Peak hours generally occur during the summer when the weather is hot and electricity demand from cooling systems is high.

"Today's action will reduce the burden of anticipating and responding to peak hours for more than 1,300 ICI participants with 2,000 primarily industrial facilities in Ontario," said Bill Walker, Associate Minister of Energy. "Now these large employers can focus on getting their operations back up and running at full tilt and explore new energy-efficiency programs to manage costs."

The government previously announced it was providing temporary relief for industrial and commercial electricity consumers that do not participate in the Regulated Price Plan (RPP) by deferring a portion of GA charges for April, May and June 2020 and by extending off-peak rates for many customers, as well as a disconnect moratorium extension for residential electricity users.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations 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