3 Strong Energy Investments to Make Right Now

Geothermal Power Plant Risks include hydrogen sulfide leaks, toxic gases, lava flow hazards, well blowouts, and earthquake-induced releases at sites like PGV and the Geysers, threatening public health, grid reliability, and environmental safety.

Key Points

Geothermal Power Plant Risks include toxic gases, lava impacts, well failures, and induced quakes that threaten health.

✅ Hydrogen sulfide exposure can cause rapid pulmonary edema.

✅ Lava can breach wells, venting toxic gases into communities.

✅ Induced seismicity may disrupt grids near PGV and the Geysers.

If lava reaches Hawaii’s PGV geothermal power plant, it could release of deadly hydrogen sulfide gas. That’s the latest potential danger from the Kilauea volcanic eruption in Hawaii. Residents now fear that lava flow will trigger a meltdown at the Puna Geothermal Venture (PGV) power plant that would release even more toxic gases into the air.

Nobody knows what will happen if lava engulfs the PGV because magma has never engulfed a geothermal power plant, Reuters reported. A geothermal power plant uses steam and gas heated by lava deep in the earth to run turbines that make electricity.

The PGV power plant produces 25% of the power used on Hawaii’s “Big Island.” The plant is considered a source of clean energy because geothermal plants burn no fossil fuels and produce little pollution under normal circumstances, even as nuclear retirements like Three Mile Island reshape low-carbon options.

The Potential Danger from Geothermal Energy

The fear is that the lava would release chemicals used to make electricity at the plant. The PGV has been shut down and authorities moved an estimated 60,000 gallons of flammable liquids away from the facility. They also shut down wells that extract steam and gas used to run the turbines.

Another potential danger is that lava would open the wells and release clouds of toxic gases from them. The wells are typically sealed to prevent the gas from entering the atmosphere.

The most significant threat is hydrogen sulfide, a highly toxic and flammable gas that is colorless. Hydrogen sulfide normally has a rotten egg smell which people might not detect when the air is full of smoke. That means people can breathe hydrogen sulfide in without realizing they have been exposed.

The greatest danger from hydrogen sulfide is pulmonary edema; the accumulation of fluid in the lungs, which causes a person to stop breathing. People have died of pulmonary edema after just a few minutes of exposure to hydrogen sulfide gas. Many victims become unconscious before the gas kills them. Long-term dangers that survivors of pulmonary edema face include brain damage.

Hydrogen sulfide can also cause burns to the skin that are similar to frostbite. Persons exposed to hydrogen sulfide can also suffer from nausea, headaches, severe eye burns, and delirium. Children are more vulnerable to hydrogen sulfide because it is a heavy gas that stays close to the ground.

Geothermal Danger Extends Far Beyond Hawaii

The danger from geothermal energy extends far beyond Hawaii. The world’s largest collection of geothermal power plants is located at the Geysers in California’s Wine Country, and regulatory timelines such as the postponed closure of three Southern California plants can affect planning.

The Geysers field contains 350 steam production wells and 22 power plants in Sonoma, Lake, and Mendocino counties. Disturbingly, the Geysers are located just north of the heavily-populated San Francisco Bay Area and just west of Sacramento, where preemptive electricity shutdowns have been used during extreme fire weather. Problems at the Geysers might lead to significant blackouts because the field supplies around 20% of the green energy used in California.

Another danger from geothermal power is earthquakes because many geothermal power plants inject wastewater into hot rock deep below to produce steam to run turbines, a factor under review as SaskPower explores geothermal in new settings. A geothermal project in Switzerland created Earthquakes by injecting water into the Earth, Zero Hedge reported. A theoretical threat is that quakes caused by injection would cause the release of deadly gases at a geothermal power plant.

The dangers from geothermal power might be much greater than its advocates admit, potentially increasing reliance on natural-gas-based electricity during supply shortfalls.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Electricity Billing Changes include OEB-backed shifts to time-of-use or tiered pricing, landlord blanket elections, LDC implementation guidance, a customer choice webpage with a bill calculator, and ENDM rate mitigation messaging.

Key Points

They are OEB measures enabling TOU-to-tiered switching, landlord elections, LDC guidance, and ENDM bill messages.

✅ Option to switch from TOU to tiered pricing

✅ Landlord blanket elections on tenant turnover

✅ ENDM-led bill info and rate mitigation messaging

By David Stevens, Aird & Berlis LLP

Electricity consumers in Ontario may see a couple of electricity rate changes in their bills in the coming months.

First, as we have already discussed, as of November 1, 2020, regulated price plan customers will have the option to switch to "tiered pricing" instead of time-of-use (TOU) pricing structures. Those who switch to "tiered pricing" will see changes in their electricity bills.

The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) has now issued final amendments to the Standard Supply Service Code to support the customer election process necessary to switch from TOU pricing to tiered pricing. The main change from what was already published in previous OEB notices is that landlords will be permitted to make a "blanket election" between TOU pricing and tiered pricing that will apply each time a tenant's account reverts back to the landlord on turnover of the rental unit. In its most recent notice, the OEB acknowledges that implementing the new customer billing option as of Nov. 1 (less than two months from now) will be challenging and directs Local Distribution Companies (LDCs) who cannot meet this date to be immediately in touch with the OEB. Finally, the OEB indicates that there will be a dedicated "customer choice webpage for consumers, including a bill calculator" in place by early October.

Second, as of January 1, 2021 low-volume consumers will see additional messaging on their bills to inform them of available rate mitigation programs.

A recent proposal posted on Ontario's Regulatory Registry indicates that the Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines (ENDM) proposes that LDCs and Utility Sub-Meter Providers will be required to include a new on-bill message for low-volume consumers that "will direct customers to ENDM's new web page for further information about how the province provides financial support to electricity consumers." This new requirement is planned to be in place as of January 1, 2021. In conjunction with this requirement, the ENDM plans to launch a new web page that will provide "up-to-date information about electricity bills," including information about rate mitigation programs available to consumers. Parties are invited to submit comments on the ENDM proposal by October 5, 2020.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Electricity Prices are surging across PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E territories, driven by fixed grid costs, wildfire mitigation, CARE subsidies, and Net Energy Metering, burdening low-income renters and increasing statewide utility debt, CPUC reports show.

Key Points

High rates driven by fixed grid costs and policies, burdening low-income customers across PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E.

✅ Fixed costs: transmission, distribution, wildfire mitigation

✅ Solar NEM shifts grid costs onto remaining ratepayers

✅ CPUC, CARE, LIHEAP aim to relieve rising utility debt

California's electricity prices are among the highest in the country, new research says, and those costs are falling disproportionately on a customer base that's already struggling to pay their bills.

PG&E customers pay about 80 percent more per kilowatt-hour than the national average, according to a study by the energy institute at UC Berkeley's Haas Business School with the nonprofit think tank Next 10. The study analyzed the rates of the state's three largest investor-owned utilities and found that Southern California Edison charged 45 percent more than the national average, while San Diego Gas & Electric charged double. Even low-income residents enrolled in the California Alternate Rates for Energy program paid more than the average American.

"California's retail prices are out of line with utilities across the country," said UC Berkeley assistant professor and study co-author Meredith Fowlie, citing Hawaii and some New England states among the outliers with even higher rates. "And they're increasing, as regulators face calls for action across the state."

So why are prices so high?
One reason is that California's size and geography inflate the "fixed" costs of operating its electric system, even as the state considers revamping electricity rates to clean the grid in parallel, which include maintenance, generation, transmission, and distribution as well as public programs like CARE and wildfire mitigation, according to the study. Those costs don't change based on how much electricity residents consume, yet between 66 and 77 percent of Californians' electricity bills are used to offset the costs of those programs, the study found.

These are legitimate expenses, Fowlie said. However, because lower-income residents use only moderately less electricity than higher income households, they end up with a disproportionate share of the burden, according to the study. And while the bills of older, wealthier Californians continue to decrease as they adopt cost-efficient alternatives like the state's Net Energy Metering solar program and the resulting solar power cost shift dynamic, costs will keep rising for a shrinking customer base composed mostly of low- and middle-income renters who still use electricity as their main energy source.

"When households adopt solar, they're not paying their fair share," Fowlie said. While solar users generate power that decreases their bills, they still rely on the state's electric grid for much of their power consumption - without paying for its fixed costs like others do.

"As this continues it's going to make electricity even more unaffordable," said F. Noel Perry, founder of Next 10, which funds nonpartisan research on the economy and environment.

PG&E this month raised its electricity rates 3.7 percent, amounting to a $5.01 a month increase for the average residential customer, who now pays $138.85 a month for electricity. It was the second increase this year, as regulators consider major changes to electric bills statewide, said Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, who noted that higher rates are particularly difficult for those who have lost their jobs in the pandemic. The California Public Utilities Commission last year approved a PG&E plan for more incremental increases through Dec. 31, 2022.

PG&E spokesperson Kristi Jourdan said in an email statement that the company was committed to keeping prices as low as possible as the state weighs income-based flat-fee utility bills proposals, and that although some programs are meant to be subsidized through rates, "in other cases, given that some customers have greater access to energy alternatives, the remaining customers - often those with limited means - are left paying unintended subsidies."

The costs quickly became overwhelming for Fretea Sylver, who rents a small house in Castro Valley and lost much of her work as the owner of a small woodwork business early in the pandemic. "They're little tiny changes but they accumulate. You turn around and you're like wait a second, why is my bill $20 more?," Sylver said. "And you have to pay it, no matter what."

Many more are unable to pay. Between February and December of last year, Californians accumulated more than $650 million in late payments from their utility providers, according to an analysis by the CPUC. In 2019, utility debt fell $71,646,869 from the prior year.

Sylver, who was on unemployment for 10 months last year, accumulated over $600 in unpaid PG&E bills. "We sort of went into a bit of debt, having to use credit cards and loans to sustain what we had to pay for. We're trying to catch up," Sylver said. The family received some help from the federal Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which provides up to $1,000 to those who are late on their utility bills.

The study identified improvements to make California's power grid more equitable, such as income-based fixed electricity charges for the grid's cost that are based on income. Republican state senators this week called on the state to use federal relief money to forgive the billions Californians owe in utility debt, even as some lawmakers move to overturn income-based utility charges amid ongoing debate. Californians are currently protected by a statewide moratorium on disconnection for nonpayment of electricity bills through June 30. The CPUC this month began taking public input on the issue of how to grant some relief to those who have fallen behind on their utility bills.

This article is part of the California Divide, a collaboration among newsrooms examining income inequality and economic survival in California.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario SMR BWRX-300 leads Canada in next-gen nuclear energy at Darlington, with GE Vernova and Hitachi, delivering clean, reliable power via modular design, passive safety, scalability, and lower costs for grid integration.

Key Points

Ontario SMR BWRX-300 is a 300 MW modular boiling water reactor at Darlington with passive safety and clean power.

✅ 300 MW BWR supplies power for about 300,000 homes

✅ Passive safety enables safe shutdown without external power

✅ Modular design reduces costs and speeds grid integration

Ontario has initiated the construction of Canada's first small modular nuclear reactor (SMR), supported by OPG's SMR commitment to deployment, marking a significant milestone in the province's energy strategy. This development positions Ontario at the forefront of next-generation nuclear technology within the G7 nations.

The project, known as the Darlington New Nuclear Project, is being led by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) in collaboration with GE Vernova and Hitachi Nuclear Energy, and through its OPG-TVA partnership on new nuclear technology development. The chosen design is the BWRX-300, a 300-megawatt boiling water reactor that is approximately one-tenth the size and complexity of traditional nuclear reactors. The first unit is expected to be operational by 2029, with plans for additional units to follow.

Each BWRX-300 reactor is projected to supply electricity to about 300,000 homes, contributing to Ontario's efforts, which include the decision to refurbish Pickering B for additional baseload capacity, to meet the anticipated 75% increase in electricity demand by 2050. The compact design of the SMR allows for easier integration into existing infrastructure, reducing the need for extensive new transmission lines.

The economic impact of the project is substantial. The construction of four such reactors is expected to create up to 18,000 jobs and contribute approximately $38.5 billion CAD to the Canadian economy, reflecting the economic benefits of nuclear projects over 65 years. The modular nature of SMRs also allows for scalability, with each additional unit potentially reducing costs through economies of scale.

Safety is a paramount consideration in the design of the BWRX-300. The reactor employs passive safety features, meaning it can safely shut down without the need for external power or operator intervention. This design enhances the reactor's resilience to potential emergencies, aligning with stringent regulatory standards.

Ontario's commitment to nuclear energy is further demonstrated by its plans for four SMRs at the Darlington site. This initiative reflects a broader strategy to diversify the province's energy mix, incorporating clean and reliable power sources to complement renewable energy efforts.

While the development of SMRs in Ontario is a significant step forward, it also aligns with the Canadian nuclear initiative positioning Canada as a leader in the global nuclear energy landscape. The successful implementation of the BWRX-300 could serve as a model for other nations exploring advanced nuclear technologies.

Ontario's groundbreaking work on small modular nuclear reactors represents a forward-thinking approach to energy generation. By embracing innovative technologies, the province is not only addressing future energy demands but also, through the Pickering NGS life extension, contributing to the global transition towards sustainable and secure energy solutions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EU Renewable Energy Transition is accelerating under REPowerEU, as wind and solar generation hit records, improving energy security, efficiency, and decarbonization while reducing reliance on Russian fossil fuels across the EU grid.

Key Points

EU shift to wind and solar under REPowerEU to cut fossil fuels, boost efficiency, and secure energy supply.

✅ Wind and solar set record 22% of EU electricity in 2022

✅ REPowerEU targets over 40% renewables and 15% lower demand by 2030

✅ Diversifies away from Russian fuels; partners with US and Norway

Europe is producing all-time highs of wind and solar energy as the 27-country group works to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels from Russia, a shift underscored by Europe's green surge across the bloc.

Four months after Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the European Commission launched REPowerEU. This campaign aims to:

• Boost the use of renewable energy.
• Reduce overall energy consumption.
• Diversify energy sources.

EU countries were already moving toward renewable energy, but Russia’s war against Ukraine accelerated that trend. In 2022, for the first time, renewables surpassed fossil fuels and wind and solar power surpassed gas as a source of electricity. Wind and solar provided a record-breaking 22% of EU countries’ electrical supply, according to London-based energy think tank Ember.

“We have to double down on investments in home-grown renewables,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in October 2022. “Not only for the climate but also because the transition to the clean energy is the best way to gain independence and to have security of energy supply.”

Across the continent, growth in solar generation rose by 25% in 2022, according to Ember, as solar reshapes electricity prices in Northern Europe. Twenty EU countries produced their highest share of solar power in 2022. In October, Greece ran entirely on renewables for several hours and is seven years ahead of schedule for its 2030 solar capacity target.

Meanwhile, Ireland's green electricity target aims to make more than a third of its power supply renewable within four years.

By 2030, RePowerEU aims to provide more than 40% of the EU’s total power from renewables, aligning with global renewable records being shattered worldwide.

To meet the European Commission’s goal to cut EU energy usage by 15%, people and governments changed their habits and became more energy-efficient, while Germany's solar power boost helped bolster supply. Among their actions:

• Germany turned down the heat in public buildings and lowered the cost of train tickets to reduce car usage, as clean energy hit 50% in Germany during this period.
• Spain ordered stores and public buildings to turn off their lights at night.
• France dimmed the Eiffel Tower and reduced city speed limits.

For the oil and gas that the EU still needed to import, countries turned to partners such as Norway and the United States.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy 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