Canada and U.S. to work on clean energy

Calgary EV Charging for Apartments and Condos streamlines permitting for multi-unit dwellings, guiding condo boards and property managers to install EV charging stations, expand infrastructure, and advance sustainability with cleaner air and lower emissions.

Key Points

A Calgary program simplifying permits and guidance to add EV charging stations in multi-unit residential buildings.

✅ Streamlined permitting for condo boards and property managers

✅ Technical assistance to install EV charging stations

✅ Boosts property value and reduces emissions citywide

As the demand for electric vehicles (EVs) continues to rise, and as national EV targets gain traction, Calgary is taking significant strides to enhance its charging infrastructure, particularly in apartment and condominium complexes. A recent initiative has been introduced to facilitate the installation of EV charging stations in these residential buildings, addressing a critical barrier for potential EV owners living in multi-unit dwellings.

The Growing EV Market

Electric vehicles are no longer a niche market; they have become a mainstream option for many consumers. As of late 2023, EV sales have surged, with projections indicating that the trend will only continue. However, a significant challenge remains for those who live in apartments and condos, where high-rise charging can be a mixed experience and the lack of accessible charging stations persists. Unlike homeowners with garages, residents of multi-unit dwellings often rely on public charging infrastructure, which can be inconvenient and limiting.

The New Initiative

In response to this growing concern, the City of Calgary has launched a new initiative aimed at easing the process of installing EV chargers in apartment and condo buildings. This program is designed to streamline the permitting process, reduce red tape, and provide clear guidelines for property managers and condo boards, similar to strata installation rules adopted in other jurisdictions to ease installations.

The initiative includes various measures, such as providing technical assistance and resources to building owners and managers. By simplifying the installation process, the city hopes to encourage more residential complexes to adopt EV charging stations. The initiative also emphasizes practical support, such as providing technical assistance, including condo retrofit guidance, and resources to building owners and managers. This is a significant step towards creating an eco-friendly urban environment and meeting the growing demand for sustainable transportation options.

Benefits of the Initiative

The benefits of this initiative are manifold. Firstly, it supports Calgary's broader climate goals by promoting electric vehicle adoption. As more residents gain access to charging stations, the city can expect a corresponding reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to cleaner air and a healthier urban environment.

Additionally, providing charging infrastructure can enhance property values. Buildings equipped with EV chargers become more attractive to potential tenants and buyers who prioritize sustainability. As the market for electric vehicles expands, properties that offer charging facilities are likely to see increased demand, making them a sound investment for landlords and developers.

Overcoming Challenges

While this initiative marks a positive step forward, there are still challenges to address. Property managers and condo boards may face initial resistance from residents who are uncertain about the costs associated with installing and maintaining EV chargers, though rebates for home and workplace charging can offset upfront expenses and ease adoption. Clear communication about the long-term benefits, including potential energy savings and the value of sustainable living, will be essential in overcoming these hurdles.

Furthermore, the city will need to ensure that the installation of EV chargers is done in a way that is equitable and inclusive. This means considering the needs of all residents, including those who may not own an electric vehicle but would benefit from a greener community.

Looking Ahead

As Calgary moves forward with this initiative, it sets a precedent for other cities, as seen in Vancouver's EV-ready policy, facing similar challenges in promoting electric vehicle adoption. By prioritizing charging infrastructure in multi-unit residential buildings, Calgary is taking important steps towards a more sustainable future.

In conclusion, the push for EV charging stations in apartments and condos is a critical move for Calgary. It reflects a growing recognition of the role that urban planning and infrastructure play in supporting the transition to electric vehicles, which complements corridor networks like the BC Electric Highway for intercity travel. With the right support and resources, Calgary can pave the way for a greener, more sustainable urban landscape that benefits all its residents. As the city embraces this change, it will undoubtedly contribute to a broader shift towards sustainable living, ultimately helping to combat climate change and improve the quality of life for all Calgarians.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Solar-Wind-Water West Africa integrates hydropower with solar and wind to boost grid flexibility, clean electricity, and decarbonization, leveraging the West African Power Pool and climate data modeling reported in Nature Sustainability.

Key Points

A strategy using hydropower to balance solar and wind, enabling reliable, low-carbon electricity across West Africa.

✅ Hydropower dispatch covers solar and wind shortfalls.

✅ Regional interconnection via West African Power Pool.

✅ Cuts CO2 versus gas while limiting new dam projects.

Hydropower plants can support solar and wind power, rather unpredictable by nature, in a climate-friendly manner. A new study in the scientific journal Nature Sustainability has now mapped the potential for such "solar-wind-water" strategies for West Africa: an important region where the power sector is still under development, amid IEA investment needs for universal access, and where generation capacity and power grids will be greatly expanded in the coming years. "Countries in West Africa therefore now have the opportunity to plan this expansion according to strategies that rely on modern, climate-friendly energy generation," says Sebastian Sterl, energy and climate scientist at Vrije Universiteit Brussel and KU Leuven and lead author of the study. "A completely different situation from Europe, where power supply has been dependent on polluting power plants for many decades - which many countries now want to rid themselves of."

Solar and wind power generation is increasing worldwide and becoming cheaper and cheaper. This helps to keep climate targets in sight, but also poses challenges. For instance, critics often argue that these energy sources are too unpredictable and variable to be part of a reliable electricity mix on a large scale, though combining multiple resources can enhance project performance.

"Indeed, our electricity systems will have to become much more flexible if we are to feed large amounts of solar and wind power into the grid. Flexibility is currently mostly provided by gas power plants. Unfortunately, these cause a lot of CO2 emissions," says Sebastian Sterl, energy and climate expert at Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) and KU Leuven. "But in many countries, hydropower plants can be a fossil fuel-free alternative to support solar and wind energy. After all, hydropower plants can be dispatched at times when insufficient solar and wind power is available."

The research team, composed of experts from VUB, KU Leuven, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), and Climate Analytics, designed a new computer model for their study, running on detailed water, weather and climate data. They used this model to investigate how renewable power sources in West Africa could be exploited as effectively as possible for a reliable power supply, even without large-scale storage, in line with World Bank support for wind in developing countries. All this without losing sight of the environmental impact of large hydropower plants.

"This is far from trivial to calculate," says Prof. Wim Thiery, climate scientist at the VUB, who was also involved in the study. "Hydroelectric power stations in West Africa depend on the monsoon; in the dry season they run on their reserves. Both sun and wind, as well as power requirements, have their own typical hourly, daily and seasonal patterns. Solar, wind and hydropower all vary from year to year and may be impacted by climate change, including projections that wind resources shift southward in coming years. In addition, their potential is spatially very unevenly distributed."

West African Power Pool

The study demonstrates that it will be particularly important to create a "West African Power Pool", a regional interconnection of national power grids to serve as a path to universal electricity access across the region. Countries with a tropical climate, such as Ghana and the Ivory Coast, typically have a lot of potential for hydropower and quite high solar radiation, but hardly any wind. The drier and more desert-like countries, such as Senegal and Niger, hardly have any opportunities for hydropower, but receive more sunlight and more wind. The potential for reliable, clean power generation based on solar and wind power, supported by flexibly dispatched hydropower, increases by more than 30% when countries can share their potential regionally, the researchers discovered.

All measures taken together would allow roughly 60% of the current electricity demand in West Africa to be met with complementary renewable sources, despite concerns about slow greening of Africa's electricity, of which roughly half would be solar and wind power and the other half hydropower - without the need for large-scale battery or other storage plants. According to the study, within a few years, the cost of solar and wind power generation in West Africa is also expected to drop to such an extent that the proposed solar-wind-water strategies will provide cheaper electricity than gas-fired power plants, which currently still account for more than half of all electricity supply in West Africa.

Better ecological footprint

Hydropower plants can have a considerable negative impact on local ecology. In many developing countries, piles of controversial plans for new hydropower plants have been proposed. The study can help to make future investments in hydropower more sustainable. "By using existing and planned hydropower plants as optimally as possible to massively support solar and wind energy, one can at the same time make certain new dams superfluous," says Sterl. "This way two birds can be caught with one stone. Simultaneously, one avoids CO2 emissions from gas-fired power stations and the environmental impact of hydropower overexploitation."

Global relevance

The methods developed for the study are easily transferable to other regions, and the research has worldwide relevance, as shown by a US 80% study on high variable renewable shares. Sterl: "Nearly all regions with a lot of hydropower, or hydropower potential, could use it to compensate shortfalls in solar and wind power." Various European countries, with Norway at the front, have shown increased interest in recent years to deploy their hydropower to support solar and wind power in EU countries. Exporting Norwegian hydropower during times when other countries undergo solar and wind power shortfalls, the European energy transition can be advanced.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.

Key Points

Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐​ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐​meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.

Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.

Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐​cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐​income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.

What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐​demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐​varying cost of additional electricity supply.

Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐​income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐​cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐​income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.

The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.

The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐​cost rooftop to lower‐​cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.

Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nova Scotia Power Rate Increase Settlement faces UARB scrutiny as regulators weigh electricity rates, fuel costs, storm rider provisions, Bill 212 limits, and Muskrat Falls impacts on ratepayers and affordability for residential and industrial customers.

Key Points

A deal proposing 13.8% electricity hikes for 2023-2024, before the UARB, covering fuel costs, a storm rider, and Bill 212.

✅ UARB review may set different rates than the settlement

✅ Fuel cost prepayment and hedging incentives questioned

✅ Storm rider shifts climate risk onto ratepayers

Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston is calling on provincial regulators to reject a settlement agreement between Nova Scotia Power and customer groups that would see electricity rates rise by nearly 14% electricity rate hike over the next two years.

"It is our shared responsibility to protect ratepayers and I can't state strongly enough how concerned I am that the agreement before you does not do that," Houston wrote in a letter to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board late Monday.

Houston urged the three-member panel to "set the agreement aside and reach its own conclusion on the aforementioned application."

"I do not believe, based on what I know, that the proposed agreement is in the best interest of ratepayers," he said.

The letter does not spell out what his Progressive Conservative government would do if the board accepts the settlement reached last week between Nova Scotia Power and lawyers representing residential, small business and large industrial customer classes.

Other groups also endorsed the deal, although Nova Scotia Power's biggest customer — Port Hawkesbury Paper — did not sign on.

'We're protecting the ratepayers'
Natural Resources Minister Tory Rushton said the province was not part of the negotiations leading up to the settlement.

"As a government or department we had no intel on those conversations that were taking place," he said Tuesday. "So, we saw the information the same as the public did late last week, and right now we're protecting the ratepayers of Nova Scotia, even though the province cannot order Nova Scotia Power to lower rates under current law. We want to make sure that that voice is still heard at the UARB level."

Rushton said he didn't want to presuppose what the UARB will say.

"But I think the premier's been very loud and clear and I believe I have been, too. The ratepayers are at the top of our mind. We have different tools at our [disposal] and we'll certainly do what we can and need to [do] to protect those ratepayers."

The settlement agreement
If approved by regulators, rates would rise by 6.9 per cent in 2023 and 6.9 per cent in 2024 — almost the same amount on the table when hearings before the review board ended in September.

The Houston government later intervened with legislation, known as Bill 212, that capped rates to cover non-fuel costs by 1.8 per cent. It did not cap rates to cover fuel costs or energy efficiency programs.

In a statement announcing the agreement, Nova Scotia Power president Peter Gregg claimed the settlement adhered "to the direction provided by the provincial government through Bill 212."

Consumer advocate Bill Mahody, representing residential customers, told CBC News the proposed 13.8 per cent increase was "a reasonable rate increase given the revenue requirement that was testified to at the hearing."

Settlement 'remarkably' similar to NSP application
The premier disagrees, noting that the settlement and rate application that triggered the rate cap are "remarkably consistent."

He objects to the increased amount of fuel costs rolled into rates next year before the annual true up of actual fuel costs, which are automatically passed on to ratepayers.

"If Nova Scotia Power is effectively paid in advance, what motive do they have to hedge and mitigate the adjustment eventually required," Houston asked in his letter.

He also objected to the inclusion of a storm rider in rates to cover extreme weather, which he said pushed the risk of climate change on to ratepayers.

Premier second-guesses Muskrat Falls approval
Houston also second-guessed the board for approving Nova Scotia Power's participation in the Muskrat Falls hydro project in Labrador.

"The fact that Nova Scotians have paid over $500 million for this project with minimal benefit, and no one has been held accountable, is wrong," he said. "It was this board of the day that approved the contracts and entered the final project into rates."

Ratepayers are committed to paying $1.7 billion for the Maritime Link to bring the green source of electricity into the province, while rate mitigation talks in Newfoundland lack public details for their customers.

Although the Maritime Link was built on time and on budget by an affiliated company, only a fraction of Muskrat Falls hydro has been delivered because of ongoing problems in Newfoundland, including an 18% electricity rate hike deemed unacceptable by the province's consumer advocate.

"I find it remarkable that those contracts did not include different risk sharing mechanisms; they should have had provisions for issues in oversight of project management. Nevertheless, it was approved, and is causing significant harm to ratepayers in the form of increased rates."

Houston notes that because of non-delivery from Muskrat Falls, Nova Scotia Power has been forced to buy much more expensive coal to burn to generate electricity.

Opposition reaction
Opposition parties in Nova Scotia reacted to Houston's letter.

NDP Leader Claudia Chender dismissed it as bluster.

"It exposes his Bill 212 as not really helping Nova Scotians in the way that he said it would," she said. "Nothing in the settlement agreement contravenes that bill. But it seems that he's upset that he's been found out. And so here we are with another intervention in an independent regulatory body."

Liberal Leader Zach Churchill said the government should intervene to help ratepayers directly.

"We just think that it makes more sense to do that directly by supporting ratepayers through heating assistance, lump-sum electricity credits, rebate programs and expanding the eligibility for that or to provide funding directly to ratepayers instead of intervening in the energy market in this way," he said.

The premier's office said that no one was available when asked about an interview on Tuesday.

"The letter speaks for itself," the office responded.

Nova Scotia Power issued a statement Tuesday. It did not directly address Houston's claims.

"The settlement agreement is now with the NS Utility and Review Board," the utility said.

"The UARB process is designed to ensure customers are represented with strong advocates and independent oversight. The UARB will determine whether the settlement results in just and reasonable rates and is in the public interest."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

Europe 2023 Energy Shortfall underscores how weak hydro and nuclear offset record solar and wind, tightening grids as natural gas supplies shrink and demand rebounds, heightening risks of electricity shortages across key economies.

Key Points

A regional gap as weak hydro and nuclear offset record solar and wind, straining supply as gas stays tight.

✅ Hydro and nuclear output fell sharply in early 2023

✅ Record solar and wind could not offset the deficit

✅ Industrial demand rebound pressures limited gas supplies

Shortfalls in Europe's hydro and nuclear output have more than offset record electricity generation from wind and solar power sites over the first quarter of 2023, leaving the region vulnerable to acute energy shortages for the second straight year.

European countries fast-tracked renewable energy capacity development in 2022 in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine last February, which upended natural gas flows to the region and sent power prices soaring.

Europe lifted renewable energy supply capacity by a record 57,290 megawatts in 2022, or by nearly 9%, according to the International Energy Agency (IRENA), amid a scramble to replace imported Russian gas with cleaner, home-grown energy.

However, steep drops in both hydro and nuclear output - two key sources of non-emitting energy - mean Europe's power producers have limited ways to lift overall electricity generation, as the region is losing nuclear power at a critical moment, just as the region's economies start to reboot after last year's energy shock.

POWER PLATEAU
Europe's total electricity generation over the first quarter of 2023 hit 1,213 terawatt hours, or roughly 6.4% less than during the same period in 2022, according to data from think tank Ember.

At the same time, European power hits records during extreme heat as plants struggle to cool, exacerbating supply risks.

As Europe's total electricity demand levels were in post-COVID-19 expansion mode in early 2022 before Russia's so-called special operation sent power costs to record highs amid debates over how electricity is priced in Europe, it makes sense that overall electricity use was comparatively stunted in early 2023.

However, efforts are now underway to revive activity at scores of European factories, industrial plants and production lines that were shuttered or curtailed in 2022, so Europe's collective electricity consumption totals are set to trend steadily higher over the remainder of 2023.

With Russian natural gas unavailable in the previous quantities due to sanctions and supply issues, Europe's power producers will need to deploy alternative energy sources, including renewables poised to eclipse coal globally, to feed that increase in power demand.

And following the large jump in renewable capacity brought online in 2022, utilities can deploy more low-emissions energy than ever before across Europe's electricity grids.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News