Turbine likely behind fire at Michigan nuclear plant

California Income-Based Utility Fees would overhaul electricity bills as CPUC weighs fixed charges tied to income, grid maintenance costs, AB 205 changes, and per-kilowatt-hour rates, shifting from pure usage pricing to hybrid utility rate design.

Key Points

Income-based utility fees are fixed monthly charges tied to earnings, alongside per-kWh rates, to help fund grid costs.

✅ CPUC considers fixed charges by income under AB 205

✅ Separates grid costs from per-kWh energy charges

✅ Could shift rooftop solar and EV charging economics

Electricity bills in California are likely to change dramatically in 2026, with major changes under discussion statewide.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is in the midst of an unprecedented overhaul of the way most of the state’s residents pay for electricity, as it considers revamping electricity rates to meet grid and climate goals.

Utility bills currently rely on a use-more pay-more system, where bills are directly tied to how much electricity a resident consumes, a setup that helps explain why prices are soaring for many households.

California lawmakers are asking regulators to take a different approach, and some are preparing to crack down on utility spending as oversight intensifies. Some of the bill will pay for the kilowatt hours a customer uses and a monthly fixed fee will help pay for expenses to maintain the electric grid: the poles, the substations, the batteries, and the wires that bring power to people’s homes.

The adjustments to the state’s public utility code, section 739.9, came about because of changes written into a sweeping energy bill passed last summer, AB 205, though some lawmakers now aim to overturn income-based charges in subsequent measures.

A stroke of a pen, a legislative vote, and the governor’s signature created a move toward unprecedented income-based fixed charges across the state.

“This was put in at the last minute,” said Ahmad Faruqui, a California economist with a long professional background in utility rates. “Nobody even knew it was happening. It was not debated on the floor of the assembly where it was supposedly passed. Of course, the governor signed it.”

Faruqui wonders who was responsible for legislation that was added to the energy bill during the budget writing process. That process is not transparent.

“It’s a very small clause in a very long bill, which is mostly about other issues,” Faruqui said.

But that small adjustment could have a massive impact on California residents, because it links the size of a monthly flat fee for utility service to a resident’s income. Earn more money and pay a higher flat fee.

That fee must be paid even before customers are charged for how much power they draw.

Regulators interpreted legislative change as a mandate, but Faruqui is not sold.

“They said the commission may consider or should consider,” Faruqui said. “They didn’t mandate it. It’s worth re-reading it.”

In fact, the legislative language says the commission “may” adopt income-based flat fees for utilities. It does not say the commission “should” adopt them.

Nevertheless, the CPUC has already requested and received nine proposals for how a flat fee should be implemented, as regulators face calls for action amid soaring electricity bills.

The suggestions came from consumer groups, environmentalists, the solar industry and utilities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

DOE CCUS Funding advances carbon capture, utilization, and storage with FEED studies, regional deployment, and CarbonSAFE site characterization, leveraging 45Q tax credits to scale commercial CO2 reduction across fossil energy sectors.

Key Points

DOE CCUS Funding are federal FOAs for commercial carbon capture, storage, and utilization via FEED and CarbonSAFE.

✅ $110M across FEED, Regional, and CarbonSAFE FOAs

✅ Supports Class VI permits, NEPA, and site characterization

✅ Enables 45Q credits and enhanced oil recovery utilization

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Fossil Energy (FE) has announced approximately $110 million in federal funding for cost-shared research and development (R&D) projects under three funding opportunity announcements (FOAs), alongside broader carbon-free electricity investments across the power sector.

Approximately $75M is for awards selected under two FOAs announced earlier this fiscal year; $35M is for a new FOA.

These FOAs further the Administration’s commitment to strengthening coal while protecting the environment. Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) is increasingly becoming widely accepted as a viable option for fossil-based energy sources—such as coal- or gas-fired power plants under new EPA power plant rules and other industrial sources—to lower their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

DOE’s program has successfully deployed various large-scale CCUS pilot and demonstration projects, and it is imperative to build upon these learnings to test, mature, and prove CCUS technologies at the commercial scale. A recent study by Science of the Total Environment found that DOE is the most productive organization in the world in the carbon capture and storage field.

“This Administration is committed to providing cost-effective technologies to advance CCUS around the world,” said Secretary Perry. “CCUS technologies are vital to ensuring the United States can continue to safely use our vast fossil energy resources, and we are proud to be a global leader in this field.”

“CCUS technologies have transformative potential,” said Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy Steven Winberg. “Not only will these technologies allow us to utilize our fossil fuel resources in an environmentally friendly manner, but the captured CO2 can also be utilized in enhanced oil recovery and emerging CO2-to-electricity concepts, which would help us maximize our energy production.”

Under the first FOA award, Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) Studies for Carbon Capture Systems on Coal and Natural Gas Power Plants, DOE has selected nine projects to receive $55.4 million in federal funding for cost-shared R&D. The selected projects will support FEED studies for commercial-scale carbon capture systems. Find project descriptions HERE. 

Under the second FOA award, Regional Initiative to Accelerate CCUS Deployment, DOE selected four projects to receive up to $20 million in federal funding for cost-shared R&D. The projects also advance existing research and development by addressing key technical challenges; facilitating data collection, sharing, and analysis; evaluating regional infrastructure, including CO2 storage hubs and pipelines; and promoting regional technology transfer. Additionally, this new regional initiative includes newly proposed regions or advanced efforts undertaken by the previous Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSP) Initiative. Find project descriptions HERE. 

Elsewhere in North America, provincial efforts such as Quebec's and industry partners like Cascades are investing in energy efficiency projects to complement emissions-reduction goals.

Under the new FOA, Carbon Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (CarbonSAFE): Site Characterization and CO2 Capture Assessment, DOE is announcing up to $35 million in federal funding for cost-shared R&D projects that will accelerate wide-scale deployment of CCUS through assessing and verifying safe and cost-effective anthropogenic CO2 commercial-scale storage sites, and carbon capture and/or purification technologies. These types of projects have the potential to take advantage of the 45Q tax credit, bolstered by historic U.S. climate legislation, which provides a tax credit for each ton of CO2 sequestered or utilized. The credit was recently increased to $35/metric ton for enhanced oil recovery and $50/metric ton for geologic storage.

Projects selected under this new FOA shall perform the following key activities: complete a detailed site characterization of a commercial-scale CO2 storage site (50 million metric tons of captured CO2 within a 30 year period); apply and obtain an underground injection control class VI permit to construct an injection well; complete a CO2capture assessment; and perform all work required to obtain a National Environmental Policy Act determination for the site.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Canada Wind Energy Costs are plunging as renewable energy auctions, CfD contracts, and efficient turbines drive prices to 2-4 cents/kWh across Alberta and Saskatchewan, outcompeting grid power via competitive bidding and improved capacity factors.

Key Points

Averaging 2-4 cents/kWh via auctions, CfD support, and bigger turbines, wind is now cost-competitive across Canada.

✅ Alberta CfD bids as low as 3.9 cents/kWh.

✅ Turbine outputs rose from 1 MW to 3.3 MW per tower.

✅ Competitive auctions cut costs ~70% over nine years.

It's taken a decade of technological improvement and a new competitive bidding process for electrical generation contracts, but wind may have finally come into its own as one of the cheapest ways to create power.

Ten years ago, Ontario was developing new wind power projects at a cost of 28 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), the kind of above-market rate that the U.K., Portugal and other countries were offering to try to kick-start development of renewables. 

Now some wind companies say they've brought generation costs down to between 2 and 4 cents — something that appeals to provinces that are looking to significantly increase their renewable energy deployment plans.

The cost of electricity varies across Canada, by province and time of day, from an average of 6.5 cents per kWh in Quebec to as much as 15 cents in Halifax.

Capital Power, an Edmonton-based company, recently won a contract for the Whitla 298.8-megawatt (MW) wind project near Medicine Hat, Alta., with a bid of 3.9 cents per kWh, at a time when three new solar facilities in Alberta have been contracted at lower cost than natural gas, underscoring the trend. That price covers capital costs, transmission and connection to the grid, as well as the cost of building the project.

Jerry Bellikka, director of government relations, said Capital Power has been building wind projects for a decade, in the U.S., Alberta, B.C. and other provinces. In that time the price of wind generation equipment has been declining continually, while the efficiency of wind turbines increases.

Increased efficiency

"It used to be one tower was 1 MW; now each turbine generates 3.3 MW. There's more electricity generated per tower than several years ago," he said.

One wild card for Whitla may be steel prices — because of the U.S. and Canada slapping tariffs on one other's steel and aluminum products. Whitla's towers are set to come from Colorado, and many of the smaller components from China.

Canada introduces new surtaxes to curb flood of steel imports

"We haven't yet taken delivery of the steel. It remains to be seen if we are affected by the tariffs." Belikka said.

Another company had owned the site and had several years of meteorological data, including wind speeds at various heights on the site, which is in a part of southern Alberta known for its strong winds.

But the choice of site was also dependent on the municipality, with rural Forty Mile County eager for the development, Belikka said.

Alberta aims for 30% electricity from wind by 2030

Alberta wants 30 per cent of its electricity to come from renewable sources by 2030 and, as an energy powerhouse, is encouraging that with a guaranteed pricing mechanism in what is otherwise a market-bidding process.

While the cost of generating energy for the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) fluctuates hourly and can be a lot higher when there is high demand, the winners of the renewable energy contracts are guaranteed their fixed-bid price.

The average pool price of electricity last year in Alberta was 5 cents per kWh; in boom times it rose to closer to 8 cents. But if the price rises that high after the wind farm is operating, the renewable generator won't get it, instead rebating anything over 3.9 cents back to the government.

On the other hand, if the average or pool price is a low 2 cents kWh, the province will top up their return to 3.9 cents.

This contract-for-differences (CfD) payment mechanism has been tested in renewable contracts in the U.K. and other jurisdictions, including some U.S. states, according to AESO.

Competitive bidding in Saskatchewan

In Saskatchewan, the plan is to double its capacity of renewable electricity, to 50 per cent of generation capacity, by 2030, and it uses an open bidding system between the private sector generator and publicly owned SaskPower.

In bidding last year on a renewable contract, 15 renewable power developers submitted bids, with an average price of 4.2 cents per kWh.

One low bidder was Potentia with a proposal for a 200 MW project, which should provide electricity for 90,000 homes in the province, at less than 3 cents kWh, according to Robert Hornung of the Canadian Wind Energy Association.

"The cost of wind energy has fallen 70 per cent in the last nine years," he says. "In the last decade, more wind energy has been built than any other form of electricity."

Ontario remains the leading user of wind with 4,902 MW of wind generation as of December 2017, most of that capacity built under a system that offered an above-market price for renewable power, put in place by the previous Liberal government.

In June of last year, the new Conservative government of Doug Ford halted more than 700 renewable-energy projects, one of them a wind farm that is sitting half-built, even as plans to reintroduce renewable projects continue to advance.

The feed-in tariff system that offered a higher rate to early builders of renewable generation ended in 2016, but early contracts with guaranteed prices could last up to 20 years.

Hornung says Ontario now has an excess of generating capacity, as it went on building when the 2008-9 bust cut market consumption dramatically.

But he insists wind can compete in the open market, offering low prices for generation when Ontario needs new  capacity.

"I expect there will be competitive processes put in place. I'm quite confident wind projects will continue to go ahead. We're well positioned to do that."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Franco-German Nuclear Power Divide shapes EU energy policy, electricity market reform, and decarbonization strategies, as Paris backs reactors and state subsidies while Berlin prioritizes renewables, hydrogen, and energy security after Russian gas shocks.

Key Points

A policy rift over nuclear shaping EU market reform, subsidies, and the balance between reactors and renewables.

✅ Nuclear in EU targets vs. renewables-first strategy

✅ Market design disputes over long-term power prices

✅ Energy security after Russian gas; hydrogen definitions

Near the French village of Fessenheim, facing Germany across the Rhine, a nuclear power station stands dormant. The German protesters that once demanded the site’s closure have decamped, in a sign of Europe's nuclear decline, and the last watts were produced three years ago. 

But disagreements over how the plant from 1977 should be repurposed persist, speaking to a much deeper divide over nuclear power, which Eon chief's warning to Germany underscored, between the two countries on either side of the river’s banks.

German officials have disputed a proposal to turn it into a centre to treat metals exposed to low levels of radioactivity, Fessenheim’s mayor Claude Brender says. “They are not on board with anything that might in some way make the nuclear industry more acceptable,” he adds.

France and Germany’s split over nuclear power is a tale of diverging mindsets fashioned over decades, including since the Chernobyl disaster in USSR-era Ukraine. But it has now become a major faultline in a touchy relationship between Europe’s two biggest economies.

Their stand-off over how to treat nuclear in a series of EU reforms has consequences for how Europe plans to advance towards cleaner energy. It will also affect how the bloc secures power supplies as the region weans itself off Russian gas, even though nuclear would do little for the gas issue, and how it provides its industry with affordable energy to compete with the US and China. 

“There can be squabbles between partners. But we’re not in a retirement home today squabbling over trivial matters. Europe is in a serious situation,” says Eric-André Martin, a specialist in Franco-German relations at French think-tank IFRI. 

France, which produces two-thirds of its power from nuclear plants and has plans for more reactors, is fighting for the low-carbon technology to be factored into its targets for reducing emissions and for leeway to use state subsidies to fund the sector.

For Germany, which closed its last nuclear plants this year and, having turned its back on nuclear, has been particularly shaken by its former reliance on Russian gas, there’s concern that a nuclear drive will detract from renewable energy advances.

But there is also an economic subtext in a region still reeling from an energy crisis last year, reviving arguments for a needed nuclear option for climate in Germany, when prices spiked and laid bare how vulnerable households and manufacturers could become.

Berlin is wary that Paris would benefit more than its neighbours if it ends up being able to guarantee low power prices from its large nuclear output as a result of new EU rules on electricity markets, amid talk of a possible U-turn on the phaseout, people close to talks between the two countries say.

Ministers on both sides have acknowledged there is a problem. “The conflict is painful. It’s painful for the two governments as well as for our [EU] partners,” Sven Giegold, state secretary at the German economy and climate action ministry, where debates about whether a nuclear resurgence is possible persist, tells the Financial Times. 

Agnès Pannier-Runacher, France’s energy minister, says she wants to “get out of the realm of the emotional and move past the considerable misunderstandings that have accumulated in this discussion”.

In a joint appearance in Hamburg last week, German chancellor Olaf Scholz and French president Emmanuel Macron made encouraging noises over their ability to break the latest deadlock: a disagreement over the design of the EU’s electricity market. Ministers had been due to agree a plan in June but will now meet on October 17 to discuss the reform, aimed at stabilising long-term prices.

But the French and German impasse on nuclear has already slowed down debates on key EU policies such as rules on renewable energy and how hydrogen should be produced. Smaller member states are becoming impatient. The delay on the market design is “a big Franco-German show of incompetence again”, says an energy ministry official from another EU country who requested anonymity. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

IAEA OSART Cernavoda highlights strengthened operational safety at Romania’s Cernavoda NPP, citing improved maintenance practices, simulator training, and deficiency reporting, with ongoing actions on spare parts procurement, procedure updates, and chemical control for nuclear compliance.

Key Points

An IAEA follow-up mission confirming improved operational safety at Cernavoda NPP, with remaining actions tracked.

✅ Enhanced simulator training and crew performance

✅ Improved field deficiency identification and reporting

✅ Ongoing upgrades to procedures, spares, and chemical control

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said yesterday that the operator of Romania’s Cernavoda nuclear power plant had demonstrated "strengthened operational safety" by addressing the findings of an initial IAEA review in 2016. The Operational Safety Review Team (OSART) concluded a five-day follow-up mission on 8 March to the Cernavoda plant, which is on the Danube-Black Sea Canal, about 160 km from Bucharest.

The plant's two 706 MWe CANDU pressurised heavy water reactors, reflecting Canadian nuclear projects, came online in 1996 and 2007, respectively.

The OSART team was led by Fuming Jiang, a senior nuclear safety officer at the IAEA, which recently commended China's nuclear security in separate assessments.

"We saw improvements in key areas, such as the procurement of important spare parts, the identification and reporting of some deficiencies, and some maintenance work practices, as evidenced by relevant performance indicators," Jiang said, noting milestones at nuclear projects worldwide this year.

The team observed that several findings from the 2016 review had been fully addressed, including: enhanced operator crew performance during simulator training; better identification and reporting of deficiencies in the field; and improvement in maintenance work practices.

More time is required, it said, to fully implement some actions, including: further improvements in the procurement of important spare parts with relevance to safety; further enhancement in the revision and update of some operating procedures, drawing on lessons from Pickering NGS life extensions undertaken in Ontario; and control and labelling of some plant chemicals.

Dan Bigu, site vice president of Cernavoda NPP, said the 2016 mission had "proven to be very beneficial", adding that the current follow-up mission would "provide further catalyst support to our journey to nuclear excellence".

The team provided a draft report of the mission to the plant's management and a final report will be submitted to the Romanian government, which recently moved to terminate talks with a Chinese partner on a separate nuclear project, within three months.

OSART missions aim to improve operational safety by objectively assessing safety performance, even as the agency reports mines at Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia plant amid ongoing risks, using the IAEA's safety standards and proposing recommendations and suggestions for improvement where appropriate. The follow-up missions are standard components of the OSART programme and, as the IAEA has warned of risks from attacks on Ukraine's power grids, are typically conducted within two years of the initial mission.

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