Paging Dr. Tesla? Automaker to make house calls

Biden Clean Energy Plan 2035 accelerates carbon-free electricity with renewables, nuclear, hydropower, and biomass, invests $2T in EVs, grid and energy efficiency, and tightens fuel economy standards beyond the Clean Power Plan.

Key Points

A $2T U.S. climate plan for carbon-free power by 2035, boosting renewables, nuclear, EVs, efficiency, and grid upgrades.

✅ Targets a zero-carbon electric grid nationwide by 2035

✅ Includes renewables, nuclear, hydropower, and biomass in standard

✅ Funds EVs, grid modernization, weatherization, and fuel economy rules

This month the Democratic presumptive presidential nominee, Joe Biden, outlined an ambitious plan, including Biden’s solar plan to expand clean energy, for tackling climate change that shows how far the party has shifted on the issue since it controlled the White House.

President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan had called for the electricity sector to cut its carbon pollution 32 percent by 2030, and did not lay out a trajectory for phasing out oil, coal or natural gas production.

This year, Democratic 2020 hopefuls such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) went much further, suggesting the United States should derive all of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030, moving to 100% renewables as part of a $16.3 trillion plan to wean the nation away from fossil fuels. Many other congressional Democrats have embraced the Green New Deal — the nonbinding resolution calling for a carbon-free power sector by 2030 and more energy efficient buildings and vehicles, along with a massive investment in electric vehicles and high-speed rail.

Last year, 38 percent of U.S. electricity generated came from clean sources, according to a Washington Post analysis of data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and in April renewables hit a record 28% nationwide.

Biden’s new plan, which carries a price tag of $2 trillion, would eliminate carbon emissions from the electric sector by 2035, impose stricter gas mileage standards, fund investments to weatherize millions of homes and commercial buildings, and upgrade the nation’s transportation system. To reach its 2035 carbon-free electricity goal, the campaign includes wind, solar and several forms of energy, acknowledging why the grid isn’t yet 100% renewable while balancing reliability, that are not always counted in state renewable portfolio standards, such as nuclear, hydropower and biomass.

“A great appeal of the Biden proposal is that it is much closer to targeting carbon directly, which is the ultimate enemy, and plays fewer favorites with particular technologies,” said Michael Greenstone, who directs the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute. “This will reduce the costs to consumers and give more carbon bang for the buck.”

But some environmentalists, such as Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica, question the idea of including more controversial carbon-free technologies. “There is no role for nuclear in a least-cost, low carbon world. Including these dinosaurs in a clean energy standard is going to incentivize industry efforts to keep aging, dangerous facilities online,” Pica said in an email.

Hydropower, which relies on a system of moving water that constantly recharges, is defined as renewable by the Environmental Protection Agency. Biomass is often considered as carbon neutral because even though it releases carbon dioxide when it is burned, the plants capture nearly the same amount of CO2 while growing.

Both forms of energy have come under fire for their environmental impacts, however. Damming streams and rivers can destroy fish habitat and make it more difficult for them to spawn, and it also seems unlikely that hydropower will expand its current 6 percent share of the nation’s electrical grid.

Many experts argue that classifying biomass energy as carbon neutral provides an incentive to cut down trees that would otherwise remain standing and sequester carbon. “If burning this wood were good for the climate, then we should not recycle paper, we should burn it,” noted Tim Searchinger, a research scholar at the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs.

Illinois lead the nation in the amount of electricity generated from nuclear power

More than half of the country — 30 states, Washington, and three territories — have adopted a renewable portfolio standard (RPS), according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, and seven states and one territory have set renewable energy goals. While 14 states, along with the District, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, have established requirements of 50 percent or more carbon-free electricity, nearly as many have set theirs at 15 percent or less.

Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D), who has called for 100% renewable electricity in the state, has pushed clean electricity aggressively since taking office in 2019, lifting a wind energy moratorium imposed by her predecessor and signing bills aimed at expanding the state’s carbon-free energy sources. Biomass accounts for a quarter of the state’s electricity, more than any other state.

New York has one of the country’s most ambitious climate targets, which it scaled up last year. It aims to obtain 70 percent of its power from renewable sources within a decade, a period when renewables surpassed coal in U.S. generation, and eliminate carbon altogether by 2040, even as the state is in the process of shutting down a major nuclear plant near New York City, Indian Point, which is slated to cease operating on April 30, 2021.

... while other states are weakening theirs

Last year, Ohio weakened its renewable energy standard from a target of 12.5 percent in 2027 to 8.5 percent by 2026, even as renewables topped coal nationwide for the first time in over a century, without setting any future goals, and jettisoned its energy efficiency standard. West Virginia — which established modest renewable requirements in 2009 — repealed them altogether in 2015, the year they were set to take effect.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Amazon Renewable Energy Projects advance net zero goals with a Scotland wind farm PPA and US solar farms in North Carolina and Virginia, delivering clean power, added capacity, and lower carbon emissions across cloud operations.

Key Points

Amazon initiatives adding wind and solar capacity in the UK and US to cut carbon and power cloud operations.

✅ Largest UK corporate wind PPA on Scotland Kintyre Peninsula

✅ Two US solar farms in North Carolina and Virginia

✅ 265 MW added capacity, 668,997 MWh clean power annually

Amazon is launching three renewable energy projects in the United States and the United Kingdom that support Amazon’s commitment to using net zero carbon energy by 2040.

The U.K. project is a wind farm on the Kintyre Peninsula in Scotland, aligned with a 10 GW renewables contract boosting the U.K. grid. It will generate 168,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of clean energy each year, enough to power 46,000 U.K. homes. It will be the largest corporate wind power purchase agreement (PPA) in the U.K.

Offshore wind energy in the UK is powering up rapidly, complementing onshore developments.

The other two are solar projects – one in Warren County, N.C, and the other in Prince George County, Va, reflecting broader US solar and wind growth trends nationwide. Together, they are expected to generate 500,997 MWh of energy annually. It is Amazon’s second renewable energy project in North Carolina, following the Amazon Wind Farm US East operated by Avangrid Renewables, and eighth in Virginia.

The three new Amazon wind and solar projects – which are expected to be in operation in 2012 — will provide 265 MW of additional renewable capacity, and align with U.K. wind power lessons for the U.S. market nationwide.

“In addition to the environmental benefits inherently associated with running applications in the cloud, Amazon is committed to minimizing our carbon emissions and reaching 80% renewable energy use across the company by 2024. We’ve announced eight projects this year and have more projects on the horizon – and we’re committed to investing in renewable energy as a critical step toward addressing our carbon footprint globally,” Kara Hurst, director of sustainability at Amazon, said. “With nearly 70 renewable energy projects around the globe – including 54 solar rooftops – we are making significant progress towards reaching Amazon’s company-wide commitment to reach 100% renewable energy by 2030.”

Amazon has launched 18 utility-scale wind and solar renewable energy projects to date, and in parallel, Duke Energy Renewables has acquired three California solar projects, underscoring sector momentum. They will generate over 1,600 MW of renewable capacity and deliver more than 4.6 million MWh of clean energy annually. Amazon has also installed more than 50 solar rooftops on fulfillment centers and sort centers around the world. They generate 98 MW of renewable capacity and deliver 130,000 MWh of clean energy annually.

“Today’s announcement by Amazon is another important step for North Carolina’s clean energy plan that will increase our reliance on renewables and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions,” North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper said. “Not only is this the right thing to do for our planet, it’s the right thing to do for our economy. More clean energy jobs means better jobs for North Carolina families.”

Amazon reports on its sustainability commitments, initiatives, and performance on a new web site the company recently launched. It includes information on Amazon’s carbon footprint and other metrics and updates the company’s progress towards reaching The Climate Pledge. 

“It’s wonderful to see the announcement of these new projects, helping bring more clean energy to the Commonwealth of Virginia where Amazon is already recognized as a leader in bringing renewable energy projects online,” Virginia Governor Ralph Northam said. “These solar farms help reaffirm the Commonwealth’s role as a leading producer of clean energy in the U.S., helping take the nation forward in responding to climate change.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Bangladesh Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant advances nuclear energy with IAEA support and ROSATOM construction, boosting energy security, baseload capacity, and grid reliability; 2400 MW units aid development, regulatory compliance, and newcomer infrastructure milestones.

Key Points

A 2400 MW nuclear project in Rooppur, built with IAEA guidance and ROSATOM, to boost Bangladesh's reliable power.

✅ Two units totaling 2400 MW for stable baseload supply

✅ IAEA Milestones and INIR reviews guide safe deployment

✅ ROSATOM builds; national regulator strengthens oversight

The beginning of construction at Bangladesh’s first nuclear power reactor on 30 November 2017 marked a significant milestone in the decade-long process to bring the benefits of nuclear energy to the world’s eighth most populous country. The IAEA has been supporting Bangladesh on its way to becoming the third ‘newcomer’ country to nuclear power in 30 years, following the United Arab Emirates in 2012 and Belarus in 2013.

Bangladesh is in the process of implementing an ambitious, multifaceted development programme to become a middle-income country by 2021 and a developed country by 2041. Vastly increased electricity production, with the goal of connecting 2.7 million more homes to the grid by 2021, is a cornerstone of this push for development, and nuclear energy will play a key role in this area, said Mohammad Shawkat Akbar, Managing Director of Nuclear Power Plant Company Bangladesh Limited. Bangladesh is also working to diversify its energy supply to enhance energy security, reduce its dependence on imports and on its limited domestic resources, he added.

#google# In the region, India's nuclear program is taking steps to get back on track, underscoring broader momentum.

“Bangladesh is introducing nuclear energy as a safe, environmentally friendly and economically viable source of electricity generation,” said Akbar.  The plant in Rooppur, 160 kilometres north-west of Dhaka, will consist of two units, with a combined power capacity of 2400 MW(e). It is being built by a subsidiary of Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corporation ROSATOM. The first unit is scheduled to come online in 2023 and the second in 2024, reflecting progress similar to the UK's latest nuclear power station developments.  “This project will enhance the development of the social, economic, scientific and technological potential of the country,” Akbar said.

The country’s goal of increased electricity production via nuclear energy will soon be a reality, Akbar said. “For 60 years, Bangladesh has had a dream of building its own nuclear power plant. The Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant will provide not only a stable baseload of electricity, but it will enhance our knowledge and allow us to increase our economic efficiency.

Milestones for nuclear

Bangladesh is among around 30 countries that are considering, planning or starting the introduction of nuclear power, with milestones at nuclear projects worldwide offering context for this progress. The IAEA assists them in developing their programmes through the Milestones Approach — a methodology that provides guidance on working towards the establishment of nuclear power in a newcomer country, including the associated infrastructure. It focuses on pointing out gaps, if any, in countries’ progress towards the introduction of nuclear power.

The IAEA has been supporting Bangladesh in developing its nuclear power infrastructure, including in establishing a regulatory framework and developing a radioactive waste-management system. This support has been delivered under the IAEA technical cooperation programme and is partially funded through the Peaceful Uses Initiative.

Nuclear infrastructure is multifaceted, containing governmental, legal, regulatory and managerial components, in addition to the physical infrastructure. The Milestones Approach consists of three phases, with a milestone to be reached at the end of each.

The first phase involves considerations before a decision is taken to start a nuclear power programme and concludes with the official commitment to the programme. The second phase entails preparatory work for the contracting and construction of a nuclear power plant, as seen in Bulgaria's nuclear project planning, ending with the commencement of bids or contract negotiations for the construction. The final phase includes activities to implement the nuclear power plant, such as the final investment decision, contracting and construction. The duration of these phases varies by country, but they typically take between 10 and 15 years.

“The IAEA Milestones Approach is a guiding document and the Integrated Work Plan (IWP) is the important means of bringing all of the stakeholders in Bangladesh together to ensure the fulfilment of all safety, security, and safeguards requirements of the Rooppur NPP project,” said Akbar. “This IWP enabled Bangladesh to develop a holistic approach to implementing IAEA guidance as well as cooperating with national stakeholders and other bilateral partners towards the development of a national nuclear power programme.”

When completed, the two units of the Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant will have a combined power capacity of 2400 MW(e). (Photo: Arkady Sukhonin/Rosatom)

INIR Mission

The Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR) is a holistic peer review to assist Member States in assessing the status of their national infrastructure for introducing nuclear power. The IAEA completed its first INIR mission to Bangladesh in November 2011, making recommendations on how to develop a plan to establish the nuclear infrastructure. Nearly five years later, in May 2016, a follow-up mission was conducted, which noted the progress made — Bangladesh had established a nuclear regulatory body, had chosen a site for the power plant and had completed site characterization and environmental impact assessment.

“The IAEA and other bodies, including those from experienced countries, can and do provide support, but the responsibility for safety and security will lie with the Government,” said Dohee Hahn, Director of the IAEA’s Division of Nuclear Power, at the ceremony for the pouring of the first nuclear safety-related concrete at Rooppur on 30 November 2017. “The IAEA stands ready to continue supporting Bangladesh in developing a safe, secure, peaceful and sustainable nuclear power programme.”

Supporting Infrastructure for Introducing a Nuclear Power Plant in Bangladesh: the IAEA Assists with the Review of Regulatory Guidance on Site Evaluation

How the IAEA Assists Newcomer Countries in Building Their Way to Sustainable Energy

"Exciting times for nuclear power," IAEA Director General Says

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Australian Electric Vehicle Sales tripled in 2019 amid expanding charging infrastructure and more models, but market share remains low, constrained by limited government policy, weak incentives, and absent emissions standards despite growing ultra-fast chargers.

Key Points

EV units sold in Australia; in 2019 they tripled to 6,718, but market share was just 0.6%.

✅ Sales rose from 2,216 (2018) to 6,718 (2019); ~80% were BEVs.

✅ Public charging sites reached 2,307; fast chargers up 40% year-on-year.

✅ Policy gaps and absent standards limit model supply and EV uptake.

Sales of electric vehicles in Australia tripled in 2019 despite a lack of government support, according to the industry’s peak body.

The country’s network of EV charging stations was also growing, the Electric Vehicle Council’s annual report found, including a rise in the number of faster charging stations that let drivers recharge a car in about 15 minutes.

But the report, released on Wednesday, found the market share for electric vehicles was still only 0.6% of new vehicle sales – well behind the 2.5% to 5% in other developed countries.

The chief executive of the council, Behyad Jafari, said the rise in sales was down to more models becoming available. There are now 28 electric models on sale, with eight priced below $65,000.

Six more were due to arrive before the end of 2021, including two priced below $50,000, the council’s report said.

“We have repeatedly heard from car companies that they were planning to bring vehicles here, but Australia doesn’t have that policy support.”

The Morrison government promised a national electric vehicle strategy would be finalised by the middle of this year, but the policy has been delayed. The prime minister, Scott Morrison, last year accused Labor of wanting to “end the weekend” and force people out of four-wheel drives after the opposition set a target of 50% of new car sales being electric by 2030.

Jafari cited the Kia e-Niro – an award-winning electric SUV that was being prepared for an Australian launch, but is now reportedly on hold because the manufacturer favoured shipping to countries with emissions standards.

The council’s members include BMW, Nissan, Hyundai and Harley Davidson, as well as energy, technology and charging infrastructure companies.

Sales of electric vehicles – which include plug-in hybrids – went from 2,216 in 2018 to 6,718 in 2019, the report said. Jafari said about 80% of those sales were all-electric vehicles.

There have been 3,226 electric vehicles sold in 2020, the report said, despite an overall drop of 20% in vehicle sales due to the Covid-19 pandemic, while U.S. EV sales have surged into 2024.

Jafari said: “Our report is showing that Australian consumers want these cars.

“There is no controversy that the future of the industry is electric, but at the moment the industry is looking at different markets. We want policies that show [Australia] is going on this journey.”

Government agency data has forecast that half the new cars sold will be electric by 2035, underscoring that the age of electric cars is arriving even if there is no policy to support their uptake.

Manufacturers currently selling electric cars in Australia are Nissan, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, Tesla, Volvo, Porsche, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar and Renault, the report said.

Jafari said most G20 countries had emissions standards in place for vehicles sold and incentives in place to support electric vehicles, such as rebates or exemptions from charges. This hadn’t happened in Australia, he said.

The report said: “Globally, carmakers are rolling out more electric vehicle models as the electric car market expands, but so far production cannot keep up with demand. This means that without policy signals, Australians will continue to be denied access to the full global range of electric vehicles.”

On Tuesday, one Australian charging provider, Evie Networks, opened an ultra-fast station at a rest stop at Campbell Town in Tasmania – between Launceston and Hobart.

The company said the station would connect EV owners in the state’s north and south and the two 350kW chargers could recharge a vehicle in 15 minutes, highlighting whether grids have the power to charge EVs at scale. Two more sites were planned for Tasmania, the company said.

A Tasmanian government grant to support electric vehicle charging had helped finance the site. Evie was also supported with a $15m grant from the federal government’s Australian Renewable Energy Agency.

According to the council report, Australia now has 2,307 public charging stations, including 357 fast chargers – a rise of 40% in the past year.

A survey of 2,900 people in New South Wales, the ACT, Victoria and South Australia, carried out by NRMA, RACV and RAA on behalf of the council, found the main barriers to buying an electric vehicle were concerns over access to charging points, higher prices and uncertainty over driving range.

Consumers favoured electric vehicles because of their environmental footprint, lower maintenance costs and vehicle performance.

The report said the average battery range of electric vehicles available in Australia was 400km, but almost 80% of people thought the average was less.

According to the survey, 56% of Australians would consider an electric car when they next bought a vehicle, and in the UK, EV inquiries soared during a fuel supply crisis.

“We are far behind, but it is surmountable,” Jafari said.

The council report also rated state and territories on the policies that supported its industry and found the ACT was leading, followed by NSW and Queensland.

A review of commercial electric vehicle use found public electric bus trials were planned or under way in Queensland, NSW, WA, Victoria and ACT. There are now more than 400,000 electric buses in use around the globe.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ermineskin First Nation Solar Project delivers a 1 MW distributed generation array with 3,500 panels, selling power to Alberta's grid, driving renewable energy revenue, jobs, and regional economic development with partner SkyFire Energy.

Key Points

A 1 MW, 3,500-panel distributed generation plant selling power to Alberta's grid to support revenue and jobs.

✅ 1 MW array, 3,500 panels; grid-tied distributed generation

✅ Annual revenue projected at $80k-$150k, scalable

✅ Built with SkyFire Energy; expansion planned next summer

The switch will soon be flipped on a solar energy project that will generate tens of thousands of dollars for Ermineskin First Nation, while energizing economic development across Alberta, where selling renewables is emerging as a promising opportunity.

Built on six acres, the one-megawatt generator and its 3,500 solar panels will produce power to be sold into the province’s electrical grid, providing annual revenues for the band of $80,000 to $150,000, depending on energy demand and pricing.

The project cost $2.7 million, including connection costs and background studies, said Sam Minde, chief executive officer of the band-owned Neyaskweyahk Group of Companies Inc.

It was paid for with grants from the Western Economic Diversification Fund and the province’s Climate Leadership Plan, and, amid Ottawa’s green electricity contracting push, is expected to be connected to the grid by mid-December.

“It’s going to be the biggest distributed generation in Alberta,” he said.

Called the Sundancer generator, it was built and will be operated through a partnership with SkyFire Energy, reflecting how renewable power developers design better projects by combining diverse resources.

Minde said the project’s benefits extend beyond Ermineskin First Nation, one of four First Nations at Maskwacis, 20 km north of Ponoka, in a province where renewable energy surge could power thousands of jobs.

“Our nation is looking to do the best it can in business. It’s competitive, but at the same time, what is good for us is good for the region.

“If we’re creating jobs, we’re going to be building up our economy. And if you look at our region right now, we need to continue to create opportunities and jobs.”

Electricity prices are rock bottom right now, in the six to nine cents per kilowatt hour range, with recent Alberta solar contracts coming in below natural gas on cost. During the oilsands boom, when power demand was skyrocketing, the price was in the 16 to 18 cent range.

That means there is a lot of room for bigger returns for Ermineskin in the future, especially if pipelines such as TransMountain get going or the oilsands pick up again, and as Alberta solar growth accelerates in the years ahead.

The band is so confident that Sundancer will prove a success that there are plans to double it in size, a strategy echoed by community-scale efforts such as the Summerside solar project that demonstrate scalability. By next summer, a $1.5-million to $1.7-million project funded by the band will be built on another six acres nearby.

Minde said the project is an example of the community’s connection with the environment being used to create opportunities and embracing technologies that will likely figure large in the world’s energy future.

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