Octopus Energy Makes Inroads into US Renewables

Offshore Wind-to-Hydrogen Integration enables green hydrogen by embedding an electrolyzer in offshore turbines. Siemens Gamesa and Siemens Energy align under H2Mare to decarbonize industry, advance the Paris Agreement, and unlock scalable, off-grid renewable production.

Key Points

A method integrating electrolyzers into offshore wind turbines to generate green hydrogen and reduce carbon emissions.

✅ Integrated electrolyzer at turbine base for off-grid operation

✅ Enables scalable, cost-efficient green hydrogen production

✅ Supports decarbonization targets under Paris Agreement

To reach the Paris Agreement goals, the world will need vast amounts of green hydrogen and, with offshore wind growth accelerating, wind will provide a large portion of the power needed for its production.

Siemens Gamesa and Siemens Energy announced today that they are joining forces combining their ongoing wind-to-hydrogen developments to address one of the major challenges of our decade - decarbonizing the economy to solve the climate crisis.

The companies are contributing with their developments to an innovative solution that fully integrates an electrolyzer into an offshore wind turbine as a single synchronized system to directly produce green hydrogen. The companies intend to provide a full-scale offshore demonstration of the solution by 2025/2026. The German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, reflecting Germany's clean energy progress, announced today that the developments can be implemented as part of the ideas competition 'Hydrogen Republic of Germany'.

'Our more than 30 years of experience and leadership in the offshore wind industry, coupled with Siemens Energy's expertise in electrolyzers, brings together brilliant minds and cutting-edge technologies to address the climate crisis. Our wind turbines play a huge role in the decarbonization of the global energy system, and the potential of wind to hydrogen means that we can do this for hard-to-abate industries too. It makes me very proud that our people are a part of shaping a greener future,' said Andreas Nauen, Siemens Gamesa CEO.

Christian Bruch, CEO of Siemens Energy, explains: 'Together with Siemens Gamesa, we are in a unique position to develop this game changing solution. We are the company that can leverage its highly flexible electrolyzer technology and create and redefine the future of sustainable offshore energy production. With these developments, the potential of regions with abundant offshore wind, such as the UK offshore wind sector, will become accessible for the hydrogen economy. It is a prime example of enabling us to store and transport wind energy, thus reducing the carbon footprint of economy.'

Over a time frame of five years, Siemens Gamesa plans to invest EUR 80 million and Siemens Energy is targeting to invest EUR 40 million in the developments. Siemens Gamesa will adapt its development of the world's most powerful turbine, the SG 14-222 DD offshore wind turbine to integrate an electrolysis system seamlessly into the turbine's operations. By leveraging Siemens Gamesa's intricate knowledge and decades of experience with offshore wind, electric losses are reduced to a minimum, while a modular approach ensures a reliable and efficient operational set-up for a scalable offshore wind-to-hydrogen solution. Siemens Energy will develop a new electrolysis product to not only meet the needs of the harsh maritime offshore environment and be in perfect sync with the wind turbine, but also to create a new competitive benchmark for green hydrogen.

The ultimate fully integrated offshore wind-to-hydrogen solution will produce green hydrogen using an electrolyzer array located at the base of the offshore wind turbine tower, blazing a trail towards offshore hydrogen production. The solution will lower the cost of hydrogen by being able to run off grid, much like solar-powered hydrogen in Dubai showcases for desert environments, opening up more and better wind sites. The companies' developments will serve as a test bed for making large-scale, cost-efficient hydrogen production a reality and will prove the feasibility of reliable, effective implementation of wind turbines in systems for producing hydrogen from renewable energy.

The developments are part of the H2Mare initiative which is a lighthouse project likely to be supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research ideas competition 'Hydrogen Republic of Germany'. The H2mare initiative under the consortium lead of Siemens Energy is a modular project consisting of multiple sub-projects to which more than 30 partners from industry, institutes and academia are contributing. Siemens Energy and Siemens Gamesa will contribute to the H2Mare initiative with their own developments in separate modular building blocks.

About hydrogen and its role in the green energy transition

Currently 80 million tons of hydrogen are produced each year and production is expected to increase by about 20 million tons by 2030. Just 1% of that hydrogen is currently generated from green energy sources. The bulk is obtained from natural gas and coal, emitting 830 million tons of CO2 per year, more than the entire nation of Germany or the global shipping industry. Replacing this current polluting consumption would require 820 GW of wind generating capacity, 26% more than the current global installed wind capacity. Looking further ahead, many studies suggest that by 2050 production will have grown to about 500 million tons, with a significant shift to green hydrogen already signaled by projects like Brazil's green hydrogen plant now underway. The expected growth will require between 1,000 GW and 4,000 GW of renewable capacity by 2050 to meet demand, and in the U.S. initiatives like DOE hydrogen hubs aim to catalyze this build-out, which highlights the vast potential for growth in wind power.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

UK Nuclear Free Electricity Incentive proposes community benefits near reactors, echoing France, supporting net zero goals, energy security, and streamlined planning, while addressing regulation and judicial review challenges for Sizewell C and future nuclear projects.

Key Points

A proposed policy to give free power to residents near reactors, supporting net zero and energy security.

✅ Free power for communities near nuclear plants

✅ Aligns with net zero and energy security goals

✅ Seeks streamlined planning and fewer approvals

UK Business Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg has endorsed a French-style nuclear system that sees people living near nuclear power stations receive free electricity.

Speaking at an event organised by Policy Exchange think tank, Jacob Rees-Mogg said: “Nuclear power is just fundamental. There’s no way we can get to net zero emissions, or even have an intelligent electricity strategy and grid reform in the UK, without nuclear.”

Highlighting that this was his view and not a government policy announcement, he said: “We should copy the French. As I understand, if you live near a nuclear power station in France, you get free electricity and that’s great because then, I’ll have two in my garden if I get free electricity for my children as well.

“I think you want to recognise that things you do that are in the national interest, such as a state-owned generation company, must benefit those who make the sacrifice for the national interest.”

Earlier Mr Rees-Mogg stressed that he would like to see a simpler development consent process for new nuclear power plants to enable the next waves of reactors in the UK, amid concerns that Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy.

He said: “That’s a lot of regulation around that, as seen when nuclear plant plans collapsed in Wales and impacted the local economy. Did you know that Sizewell C will require 140 individual approvals from arms of the state, each one of which is potentially subject to judicial review.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Kenya Nuclear Power Plant Project advances with environmental impact assessment, selecting Tana River County under a build-operate-transfer model to boost grid capacity, support manufacturing growth, and assess reactor technology for reliable baseload energy.

Key Points

A $5B BOT nuclear facility in Tana River to expand Kenya's grid, aiming to start operations in about seven years.

✅ Environmental impact study published for public review by NEMA

✅ Preferred site: Tana River County near coast; grid integration

✅ BOT concession; reactor tech under evaluation for baseload

Kenya’s nuclear agency submitted impact studies for a $5 billion power plant, and said it’s on course to build and start operating the facility in about seven years, as markets like China's nuclear program continue steady expansion.

The government plans to expand its nuclear-power capacity fourfold by 2035, mirroring policy steps in India to revive the sector, the Nuclear Power and Energy Agency said in a report on the National Environment Management Authority’s website. The document is set for public scrutiny before the environmental watchdog can approve it, aligning with global green industrial strategies that weigh nuclear in decarbonization, and pave the way for the project to continue.

President Uhuru Kenyatta wants to ramp up installed generation capacity from 2,712 megawatts as of April to boost manufacturing in East Africa’s largest economy, noting milestones such as Barakah Unit 1 reaching 100% power as indicators of nuclear readiness. Kenya expects peak demand to top 22,000 megawatts by 2031, and other jurisdictions, such as Ontario's exploration of new nuclear, are weighing similar large-scale options, partly due to industrial expansion, a component in Kenyatta’s Big Four Agenda. The other three are improving farming, health care and housing.

The nuclear agency is assessing technologies “to identify the ideal reactor for the country,” it said in the report, including next-gen nuclear designs now being evaluated.

A site in Tana River County, near the Kenyan coast was preferred after studies across three regions, according to the report. The plant will be developed with a concessionaire under a build, operate and transfer model, with innovators such as mini-reactor concepts informing vendor options.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ukraine Winter Energy Crisis highlights blackouts, damaged grid, and resilient solutions: solar panels, generators, wood stoves, district heating, batteries, and energy efficiency campaigns backed by EU and US aid to support communities through harsh winters.

Key Points

A wartime surge of blackouts driving resilient, off-grid and efficiency solutions to keep heat and power flowing.

✅ Solar panels, batteries, and generators stabilize essential loads

✅ Wood stoves and district heating maintain winter warmth

✅ Efficiency upgrades and aid bolster grid resilience

As winter sets in across Ukraine, the country faces not only the bitter cold but also the ongoing energy crisis exacerbated by Russia’s invasion. Over the past year, Ukraine has experienced widespread blackouts due to targeted strikes on its power infrastructure. With the harsh winter conditions ahead, Ukrainians are finding innovative ways to adapt to these energy challenges and to keep the lights on this winter despite shortages. From relying on alternative power sources to implementing energy-saving measures, the Ukrainian population is demonstrating resilience in the face of adversity.

The Energy Crisis in Ukraine

Since the onset of the war in February 2022, Ukraine’s energy infrastructure has become a prime target for Russian missile strikes. Power plants, electrical grids, and transmission lines have all been hit, causing significant damage to the nation’s energy systems, as Ukraine fights to keep the lights on amid repeated attacks. As a result, millions of Ukrainians have faced regular power outages, especially in the winter months when energy demand surges due to heating needs.

The situation has been compounded by the difficulty of repairing damaged infrastructure while the war continues. Many areas, particularly in eastern and southern Ukraine, still suffer from limited access to electricity, heating, and water, with strikes in western Ukraine occasionally causing further disruptions. With no end in sight to the conflict, the Ukrainian government and its citizens are being forced to think outside the box to ensure they can survive the harsh winter months.

Alternative Energy Sources: Solar Power and Generators

In response to these energy shortages, many Ukrainians are turning to alternative energy sources, particularly solar power and generators. Solar energy, which has been growing in popularity over the past decade, is seen as a promising solution. Solar panels can be installed on homes, schools, and businesses, providing a renewable source of electricity. During the day, the sun provides much-needed energy to power lights, appliances, and even heating systems in homes. While solar power may not fully replace the energy lost during blackouts, it can significantly reduce dependency on the grid, and recent electricity reserve updates suggest fewer planned outages if attacks abate.

To make solar power more accessible, many local and international organizations are providing solar panels and batteries to Ukrainians. These efforts have been critical, especially in rural areas where access to the national grid may be sporadic or unreliable. Additionally, solar-powered streetlights and community energy hubs are being set up in various cities to provide essential services during prolonged outages.

Generators, too, have become a vital tool for many households. Portable generators allow people to maintain some level of comfort during blackouts, powering essential appliances like refrigerators, stoves, and even small heaters. While generators are not a permanent solution, they offer a crucial lifeline when the grid is down for extended periods.

Wood and Coal Stoves: A Return to the Past

In addition to modern energy solutions, many Ukrainians are returning to more traditional sources of energy, such as wood and coal stoves. These methods of heating, while old-fashioned, are still widely available and effective. With gas shortages affecting the country and electricity supplies often unreliable, wood and coal stoves have become an essential part of daily life for many households.

Firewood is being sourced locally, and many Ukrainians are collecting and stockpiling it in preparation for the colder months. While this reliance on solid fuels presents environmental concerns, it remains one of the most feasible options for families living in rural areas or in homes without access to reliable electricity.

Moreover, some urban areas have seen a revival of district heating systems, where heat is generated centrally and distributed throughout a network of buildings. This system, although not without its challenges, is helping to provide warmth to thousands of people in larger cities like Kyiv and Lviv.

Energy Conservation and Efficiency

Beyond alternative energy sources, many Ukrainians are taking measures to reduce their energy consumption. Energy conservation has become a key strategy in dealing with blackouts, as individuals and families aim to minimize their reliance on the national grid. Simple steps like using energy-efficient appliances, sealing windows and doors to prevent heat loss, and limiting the use of electric heating have all become commonplace.

The Ukrainian government, in collaboration with international partners, has also launched campaigns to encourage energy-saving behaviors. These include public information campaigns on how to reduce energy consumption and initiatives to improve the insulation of homes and buildings. By promoting energy efficiency, Ukraine is not only making the most of its limited resources but also preparing for long-term sustainability.

The Role of the International Community

The international community has played a crucial role in helping Ukraine navigate the energy crisis. Several countries and organizations have provided funding, technology, and expertise to assist Ukraine in repairing its power infrastructure and implementing alternative energy solutions. For example, the United States and the European Union have supplied Ukraine with generators, solar panels, and other renewable energy technologies, though U.S. support for grid restoration has recently ended in some areas of assistance. This support has been vital in ensuring that Ukrainians can meet their energy needs despite the ongoing conflict.

In addition, humanitarian organizations have been working to provide emergency relief, including distributing winter clothing, heaters, and fuel to the most vulnerable populations, and Ukraine helped Spain amid blackouts earlier this year, underscoring reciprocal resilience. The global response has been a testament to the solidarity that exists for Ukraine in its time of need.

As winter arrives, Ukrainians are finding creative and resourceful ways to deal with the ongoing energy crisis caused by the war, reflecting the notion that electricity is civilization on the front lines. While the situation remains difficult, the country's reliance on alternative energy sources, traditional heating methods, and energy conservation measures demonstrates a remarkable level of resilience. With continued support from the international community and a commitment to innovation, Ukraine is determined to overcome the challenges of blackouts and ensure that its people can survive the harsh winter months ahead.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

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

Key Points

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

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

✅ LNG constraints and Russian pipeline dependence tightened supply

✅ Debate over marginal pricing vs regulated models intensifies

By Ronan Bolton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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