Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Congratulates the Ontario Government for Taking Steps to Reduce Electricity Prices

Hurricane Grid Resilience examines how utilities manage outages with renewables, microgrids, and robust transmission and distribution systems, balancing solar, wind, and batteries to restore service, harden infrastructure, and improve storm response and recovery.

Key Points

Hurricane grid resilience is a utility approach to withstand storms, reduce outages, and speed safe power restoration.

✅ Focus on T&D hardening, vegetation management, remote switching

✅ Balance generation mix; integrate solar, wind, batteries, microgrids

✅ Plan 12-hour shifts; automate forecasting and outage restoration

When operators of Duke Energy's control room in Raleigh, North Carolina wait for a hurricane, the mood is often calm in the hours leading up to the storm.

“Things are usually fairly quiet before the activity starts,” said Mark Goettsch, the systems operations manager at Duke. “We’re anxiously awaiting the first operation and the first event. Once that begins, you get into storm mode.”

Then begins a “frenzied pace” that can last for days — like when Hurricane Florence parked over Duke’s service territory in September.

When an event like Florence hits, all eyes are on transmission and distribution. Where it’s available, Duke uses remote switching to reconnect customers quickly. As outages mount, the utility forecasts and balances its generation with electricity demand.

The control center’s four to six operators work 12-hour shifts, while nearby staff members field thousands of calls and alarms on the system. After it’s over, “we still hold our breath a little bit to make sure we’ve operated everything correctly,” said Goettsch. Damage assessment and rebuilding can only begin once a storm passes.

That cycle is becoming increasingly common in utility service areas like Duke's.

A slate of natural disasters that reads like a roll call — Willa, Michael, Harvey, Irma, Maria, Florence and Thomas — has forced a serious conversation about resiliency. And though Goettsch has heard a lot about resiliency as a “hot topic” at industry events and meetings, those conversations are only now entering Duke’s control room.

Resilience discussions come and go in the energy industry. Storms like Hurricane Sandy and Matthew can spur a nationwide focus on resiliency, but change is largely concentrated in local areas that experienced the disaster. After a few news cycles, the topic fades into the background.

However, experts agree that resilience is becoming much more important to year-round utility planning and operations as utilities pursue decarbonization goals across their fleets. It's not a fad.

“If you look at the whole ecosystem of utilities and vendors, there’s a sense that there needs to be a more resilient grid,” said Miki Deric, Accenture’s managing director of utilities, transmission and distribution for North America. “Even if they don’t necessarily agree on everything, they are all working with the same objective.”

Can renewables meet the challenge?

After Hurricane Florence, The Intercept reported on coal ash basins washed out by the storm’s overwhelming waters. In advance of that storm, Duke shut down one nuclear plant to protect it from high winds. The Washington Post also recently reported on a slowly leaking oil spill, which could surpass Deepwater Horizon in size, caused by Hurricane Ivan in 2004.

Clean energy boosters have seized on those vulnerabilities.They say solar and wind, which don’t rely on access to fuel and can often generate power immediately after a storm, provide resilience that other electricity sources do not.

“Clearly, logistics becomes a big issue on fossil plants, much more than renewable,” said Bruce Levy, CEO and president at BMR Energy, which owns and operates clean energy projects in the Caribbean and Latin America. “The ancillaries around it — the fuel delivery, fuel storage, water in, water out — are all as susceptible to damage as a renewable plant.”

Duke, however, dismissed the notion that one generation type could beat out another in a serious storm.

“I don’t think any generation source is immune,” said Duke spokesperson Randy Wheeless. “We’ve always been a big supporter of a balanced energy mix, reflecting why the grid isn't 100% renewable in practice today. That’s going to include nuclear and natural gas and solar and renewables as well. We do that because not every day is a good day for each generation source.”

In regard to performance, Wade Schauer, director of Americas Power & Renewables Research at Wood Mackenzie, said the situation is “complex.” According to him, output of solar and wind during a storm depends heavily on the event and its location.

While comprehensive data on generation performance is sparse, Schauer said coal and gas generators could experience outages at 25 percent while stormy weather might cut 95 percent of output from renewables, underscoring clean energy's dirty secret about variability under stress. Ahead of last year’s “bomb cyclone” in New England, WoodMac data shows that wind dropped to less than 1 percent of the supply mix.

“When it comes to resiliency, ‘average performance’ doesn't cut it,” said Schauer.

In the future, he said high winds could impact all U.S. offshore wind farms, since projects are slated for a small geographic area in the Northeast. He also pointed to anecdotal instances of solar arrays in New England taken out by feet of snow. During Florence, North Carolina’s wind farms escaped the highest winds and continued producing electricity throughout. Cloud cover, on the other hand, pushed solar production below average levels.

After Florence passed, Duke reported that most of its solar came online quickly, although four of its utility-owned facilities remained offline for weeks afterward. Only one was because of damage; the other three remained offline due to substation interconnection issues.

“Solar performed pretty well,” said Wheeless. “But did it come out unscathed? No.”

According to installer reports, solar systems fared relatively well in recent storms, even as the Covid-19 impact on renewables constrained projects worldwide. But the industry has also highlighted potential improvements. Following Hurricanes Maria and Irma, the Federal Emergency Management Agency published guidelines for installing and maintaining storm-resistant solar arrays. The document recommended steps such as annual checks for bolt tightness and using microinverters rather than string inverters.

Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) also assembled a guide for retrofitting and constructing new installations. It described attributes of solar systems that survived storms, like lateral racking supports, and those that failed, like undersized and under-torqued bolts.

“The hurricanes, as much as no one liked them, [were] a real learning experience for folks in our industry,” said BMR’s Levy. “We saw what worked, and what didn’t.”          

Facing the "800-pound gorilla" on the grid

Advocates believe wind, solar, batteries and microgrids offer the most promise because they often rely less on transmitting electricity long distances and could support peer-to-peer energy models within communities.

Most extreme weather outages arise from transmission and distribution problems, not generation issues. Schauer at WoodMac called storm damage to T&D the “800-pound gorilla.”

“I'd be surprised if a single customer power outage was due to generators being offline, especially since loads where so low due to mild temperatures and people leaving the area ahead of the storm,” he said of Hurricane Florence. “Instead, it was wind [and] tree damage to power lines and blown transformers.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

EU Solar Impact on Electricity Prices highlights how rising solar PV penetration drives negative pricing, shifts peak hours, pressures wholesale markets, and challenges grid balancing, interconnection, and flexibility amid changing demand and renewables growth.

Key Points

Explains how rising solar PV cuts wholesale prices, shifts negative-price hours, and strains grid flexibility.

✅ Negative pricing events surge with higher solar penetration.

✅ Afternoon price dips replace night-time wind-led lows.

✅ Grid balancing, interconnectors, and flexibility become critical.

The latest EU electricity market report has confirmed the affect deeper penetration of solar is having on wholesale electricity prices more broadly.

The Quarterly Report on European Electricity Markets for the final three months of last year noted the number of periods of negative electricity pricing doubled from 2019, to almost 1,600 such events, as global renewables set new records in deployment across markets.

Having experienced just three negative price events in 2019, the Netherlands recorded almost 100 last year “amid a dramatic increase in solar PV capacity,” in the nation, according to the report.

Whilst stressing the exceptional nature of the Covid-19 pandemic on power consumption patterns, the quarterly update also noted a shift in the hours during which negative electric pricing occurred in renewables poster child Germany. Previously such events were most common at night, during periods of high wind speed and low demand, but 2020 saw a switch to afternoon negative pricing. “Thus,” stated the report, “solar PV became the main driver behind prices falling into negative territory in the German market in 2020, as Germany's solar boost accelerated, and also put afternoon prices under pressure generally.”

The report also highlighted two instances of scarce electricity–in mid September and on December 9–as evidence of the problems associated with accommodating a rising proportion of intermittent clean energy capacity into the grid, and called for more joined-up cross-border power networks, amid pushback from Russian oil and gas across the continent.

Rising solar generation–along with higher gas output, year on year–also helped the Netherlands generate a net surplus of electricity last year, after being a net importer “for many years.” The EU report also noted a beneficial effect of rising solar generation capacity on Hungary‘s national electricity account, and cited a solar “boom” in that country and Poland, mirroring rapid solar PV growth in China in recent years.

With Covid-19 falls in demand helping renewables generate more of Europe's electricity (39%) than fossil fuels (36%) for the first time, as renewables surpassed fossil fuels across Europe, the market report observed the 5% of the bloc's power produced from solar closed in on the 6% accounted for by hard coal. In the final three months of the year, European solar output rose 12%, year on year, to 18 TWh and “the increase was almost single-handedly driven by Spain,” the study added.

With coal and lignite-fired power plunging 22% last year across the bloc, it is estimated the European power sector reduced its carbon footprint 14% as part of Europe's green surge although the quarterly report warned cold weather, lower wind speeds and rising gas prices in the opening months of this year are likely to see carbon emissions rebound.

There was good news on the transport front, though, with the report stating the scale of the European “electrically-charged vehicle” fleet doubled in 2020, to 2 million, with almost half a million of the new registrations arriving in the final months of the year. That meant cars with plug sockets accounted for a remarkable 17% of new purchases in Q4, twice the proportion seen in China and a slice of the pie six times bigger than such products claimed in the U.S.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

IESO Fictitious Demand Error inflated HOEP in the Ontario electricity market, after embedded generation was mis-modeled; the OEB says double-counted load lifted wholesale prices and shifted costs via the Global Adjustment.

Key Points

An IESO modeling flaw that double-counted load, inflating HOEP and charges in Ontario's wholesale market.

✅ Double-counted unmetered load from embedded generation

✅ Inflated HOEP; shifted costs via Global Adjustment

✅ OEB flagged transparency; exporters paid more

For almost a year, the operator of Ontario’s electricity system erroneously counted enough phantom demand to power a small city, causing prices to spike and hundreds of millions of dollars in extra charges to consumers, according to the provincial energy regulator.

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) also failed to tell anyone about the error once it noticed and fixed it.

The error likely added between $450 million and $560 million to hourly rates and other charges before it was fixed in April 2017, according to a report released this month by the Ontario Energy Board’s Market Surveillance Panel.

It did this by adding as much as 220 MW of “fictitious demand” to the market starting in May 2016, when the IESO started paying consumers who reduced their demand for power during peak periods. This involved the integration of small-scale embedded generation (largely made up of solar) into its wholesale model for the first time.

The mistake assumed maximum consumption at such sites without meters, and double-counted that consumption.

The OEB said the mistake particularly hurt exporters and some end-users, who did not benefit from a related reduction of a global adjustment rate applicable to other customers.

“The most direct impact of the increase in HOEP (Hourly Ontario Energy Price) was felt by Ontario consumers and exporters of electricity, who paid an artificially high HOEP, to the benefit of generators and importers,” the OEB said.

The mix-up did not result in an equivalent increase in total system costs, because changes to the HOEP are offset by inverse changes to a electricity cost allocation mechanism such as the Global Adjustment rate, the OEB noted.

A chart from the OEB's report shows the time of day when fictitious demand was added to the system, and its influence on hourly rates.

Peak time spikes
The OEB said that the fictitious demand “regularly inflated” the hourly price of energy and other costs calculated as a direct function of it.

For almost a year, Ontario's electricity system operator @IESO_Tweets erroneously counted enough phantom demand to power a small city, causing price spikes and hundreds of millions in charges to consumers, @OntEnergyBoard says. @5thEstate reports.

It estimated the average increase to the HOEP was as much as $4.50/MWh, but that price spikes, compounded by scheduled OEB rate changes, would have been much higher during busier times, such as the mid-morning and early evening.

“In times of tight supply, the addition of fictitious demand often had a dramatic inflationary impact on the HOEP,” the report said.

That meant on one summer evening in 2016 the hourly rate jumped to $1,619/MWh, it said, which was the fourth highest in the history of the Ontario wholesale electricity market.

“Additional demand is met by scheduling increasingly expensive supply, thus increasing the market price. In instances where supply is tight and the supply stack is steep, small increases in demand can cause significant increases in the market price.

The OEB questioned why, as of September this year, the IESO had failed to notify its customers or the broader public, amid a broader auditor-regulator dispute that drew political attention, about the mistake and its effect on prices.

“It's time for greater transparency on where electricity costs are really coming from,” said Sarah Buchanan, clean energy program manager at Environmental Defence.

“Ontario will be making big decisions in the coming years about whether to keep our electricity grid clean, or burn more fossil fuels to keep the lights on,” she added. “These decisions need to be informed by the best possible evidence, and that can't happen if critical information is hidden.”

In a response to the OEB report on Monday, the IESO said its own initial analysis found that the error likely pushed wholesale electricity payments up by $225 million. That calculation assumed that the higher prices would have changed consumer behaviour, while upcoming electricity auctions were cited as a way to lower costs, it said.

In response to questions, a spokesperson said residential and small commercial consumers would have saved $11 million in electricity costs over the 11-month period, even as a typical bill increase loomed province-wide, while larger consumers would have paid an extra $14 million.

That is because residential and small commercial customers pay some costs via time-of-use rates, including a temporary recovery rate framework, the IESO said, while larger customers pay them in a way that reflects their share of overall electricity use during the five highest demand hours of the year.

The IESO said it could not compensate those that had paid too much, given the complexity of the system, and that the modelling error did not have a significant impact on ratepayers.

While acknowledging the effects of the mistake would vary among its customers, the IESO said the net market impact was less than $10 million, amid ongoing legislation to lower electricity rates in Ontario.

It said it would improve testing of its processes prior to deployment and agreed to publicly disclose errors that significantly affect the wholesale market in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Wylfa Nuclear Project Cancellation reflects Hitachi's withdrawal, pulling £16bn from North Wales, risking jobs, reshaping UK nuclear power plans as renewables grow and Chinese involvement rises amid shifting energy market policies.

Key Points

An indefinite halt to Hitachi's Wylfa Newydd nuclear plant, removing about £16bn investment and jobs from North Wales.

✅ Hitachi withdraws funding amid changing energy market costs

✅ Puts 400 local roles and up to 10,000 construction jobs at risk

✅ UK shifts toward renewables as nuclear project support stalls

Chris Ruane said Japanese firm Hitachi’s announcement this morning about the Wylfa project would take £16 billion of investment out of the region.

He said it was the latest in a list of energy projects which had been scrapped as he responded to a statement from business secretary Greg Clark.

Mr Ruane, the Labour member for the Vale of Clywd, said: “In his statement he said the Government are relying now more on renewables, can I put the North Wales picture to him; 1,500 wind turbines were planned off the coast of North Wales. They were removed, those plans were cancelled by the private sector.

“The tidal lagoons for Wales were key to the development of the Welsh economy – the Government itself pulled the support for the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon. That had a knock-on effect for the huge lagoon planned off the coast of North Wales.

“And now today we hear of the cancellation of a £16 billion investment in the North Wales economy. This will devastate the North Wales economy. The people of North Wales need to know that the Prime Minister is batting for them and batting for the UK.”

Mr Clark blamed the changing landscape of the energy market for today’s announcement, and said Wales has been a “substantial and proud leader” in renewable energy during the UK’s green industrial revolution over recent years.

But another Labour MP from North Wales, Albert Owen, of Ynys Mon, said the Wylfa plant’s cancellation in his constituency is putting 400 jobs at risk, as well as the “potential of 8-10,000 construction jobs”, as well as hundreds of operational jobs and 33 apprenticeships.

He asked Mr Clark: “Can I say straightly can we work together to keep this project alive, to ensure that we create the momentum so it can be ready for a future developer or this developer with the right mechanism?”

The minister replied that he and his officials would “work together in a completely open-book way on the options” to try and salvage the project.

But in the Lords, Labour former security minister Lord West of Spithead said the UK’s nuclear industry was in crisis, noting that Europe is losing nuclear power as well.

“In the 1950s our nation led the world in nuclear power generation and decisions by successive governments, of all hues, have got us in the position today where we cannot even construct a large civil nuclear reaction,” he told peers at question time.

Lord West asked: “Are we content that now the only player seems to be Chinese and that by 2035… we are happy for the Chinese to control one third of the energy supply of our nation?”

Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy minister Lord Henley said the Government had hoped for a better announcement from Hitachi but that was not the case.

He said costs in the nuclear sector were rising, amid setbacks at Hinkley Point C, while costs for many renewables were coming down and this was one of the reasons for the problem.

Tory former energy secretary Lord Howell of Guildford said the Chinese were in “pole position” for the rebuilding and replacement “of our nuclear fleet” and this would have a major impact on UK energy policy and plans to meet net zero targets in the 2030s.

Plaid Cymru’s Lord Wigley warned that putting the Wylfa Newydd on indefinite hold would cause economic planning blight in north-west Wales and urged the Government to raise the level of support allocated to the region.

Lord Henley acknowledged the announcement was not welcome but added: “We remain committed to nuclear power. We will look to see what we can do. We still have a great deal of expertise in this country and we can work on that.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

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

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Amur-Heihe ETL Power Supply Tripling will expand Russia-China electricity exports, extending 750 MW DC full-load hours to stabilize northeast China grids amid coal shortages, peak demand spikes, and cross-border energy security concerns.

Key Points

Russia will triple electricity via Amur-Heihe ETL, boosting 750 MW DC operations to relieve shortages in northeast China.

✅ 500 kV converter station increases full-load hours from 5 to 16

✅ Supports Heilongjiang, Liaoning, and Jilin grids amid coal shortfall

✅ Cross-border 750 MW DC link enhances reliability, peak demand coverage

Russia will triple electricity supplies via the Amur-Heihe electric transmission line (ETL) starting October 1, China Central Television has reported, a move seen within broader shifts in China's electricity sector by observers.

"Starting October 1, the overhead convertor substation of 500 kW (750 MW DC) will increase its daily time of operation with full loading from 5 to 16 hours per day," the TV channel said.

"This measure will make it possible to dramatically ease the situation with the electricity supply," the report said. Electricity from this converting station is used in three northeastern provinces of China - Heilongjiang, Liaoning and Jilin, while regional markets are strained as India rations coal supplies amid surging demand today. In 29 years, Russia supplied over 30 bln kilowatt hours of electricity, according to the channel.

The Amur-Heihe overhead transnational power line was constructed for increasing electricity exports to China, where projections see electricity to meet 60% of energy use by 2060 according to Shell. It was commissioned in 2012. Its maximum capacity is 750 MW.

China’s Jiemian News reported on September 27 that, amid nationwide power cuts affecting grids, 20 regions were limited in electricity supplies to a various extent due to the ongoing coal deficit. In particular, in China’s northeastern provinces, restrictions on power consumption were imposed not only on industrial enterprises, but also on households, as well as on office premises, raising concerns for U.S. solar supply chains among downstream manufacturers.

Later, China’s financial media Zhongxin Jingwei noted that the coal deficit had been triggered by price hikes brought on by tightened national environmental standards and efforts to reduce coal power production across the country. Reduced coal imports amid disruptions in the work of foreign suppliers due to the coronavirus pandemic was an additional reason, and earlier power demand drops as factories shuttered compounded imbalances.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News