Guest “They’re right, but for the wrong reason” by David Middleton
Citigroup still has ESG analysts? That is so 2021. That said, they are correct. President Trump can’t stop something that isn’t happening. To the extent a “transition” is occurring, it’s from coal to natural gas. This is not really a transition. Both are carbon-based fossil fuels, with high energy densities;. It’s more of an energy clean-up, rather than a transition.
While coal may have surpassed renewables (wood) in the late 1800’s, we never transitioned away from consuming wood for energy.
There is absolutely no evidence of a transition from fossil fuels to renewables (unreliables).
In 1949, there was no nuclear power generation and renewables were pretty well limited to hydroelectric and wood. From 1949 through 2023 US total energy production more than tripled. To the extent fossil fuels were displaced, it was mostly by nuclear power. Despite $gazillions of subsidies, the renewables share barely budged from 6% to 8%.
| Year | Fossil Fuels | Nuclear | Renewables | Energy Production (quads) |
| 1949 | 94% | 0% | 6% | 30.61 |
| 2023 | 84% | 8% | 8% | 102.78 |
This bit is hilarious:
The energy transition has progressed and is now more advanced compared to when President Trump entered the White House for the first time in 2017, according to the analysts.
Really?
I’m not an ESG analyst, but I did minor in math back in the Pleistocene:
| Year | Fossil Fuels | Nuclear | Renewables | Energy Production (quads) |
| 2017 | 81% | 10% | 9% | 84.36 |
| 2023 | 84% | 8% | 8% | 102.78 |
The growth in US energy production since 2017 has been almost entirely driven by crude oil and natural gas.
Energy Transition…
Fossil Fuels…
There is where you need an activist shareholder to challenge Citigroup’s ESG analysts to provide evidence for their claims. I don’t see how anybody can make a sustainable claim that renewable energy is cheaper. Prove it. I’m from Missouri. Show me.
I also see no evidence of a true market-driven transition to renewables. The big funds push ESG and renewables, but that’s not truly market-driven, is it?
There’s a reason their stock price is about its same level from 5 years ago, and down ~80% from its 2007 high.
The total return for Citigroup (C) stock is +53.24% over the past 12 months.
CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) over 5 years: Around 4.45%
Current 5-year total return: +27.58%
According to available data, the total return for C (Citigroup) stock over the past 7 years is approximately +25.25%
2017 high $60.94
1/30/25 close $81.85
plus current dividend yield of 2.74%
You say C is down 80% from its 2017 high
You are a BS artist.
He said 2007 high.
A quick google gives me a Reddit article claiming its shares were worth > $500.00 then.
So if it’s $81.85 now, that’s down over 80%
We should keep our words sweet. We may have to eat them.
A stock which has returned 25% in 8 years during the biggest bull market ever is a complete turd. The loss of value since 2007 is nothing short of catastrophic.
And you should learn to read more carefully you utter clown.
please refrain from personal attacks
please refrain from personal attacks
Comparing peak to average. You should write climate software models.
Once you remove Government money (subsidies) from the equation, New Renewable Energy construction dries up and existing goes away.
If Trump and the Republican House and Senate can act to overturn renewable subsidies and “Take or Pay” guarantees, renewables will Blow Away
No taxpayer money for windmills and solar!
and fire-prone battery systems.
No federal and state tax credits and cash grants,
No 5-y Accelerated Depreciation write off of the entire project
No deduction of interest of borrowed money
Those three items have the net effect of reducing the cost of a project by 50%, which means electricity can be sold at 50% less than it costs to produce.
Offshore wind cost to produce is 30 cent/kWh, or 15 cents/kWh with 50% subsidies
Offshore floating wind cost to produce is 36 cent/kWh, or 18 cents/kWh with 50% subsidies
But there are OTHER COSTS
Excluded costs, at a future 30% wind/solar penetration on the grid, the current UK level:
– Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement, about 2 c/kWh
– Traditional plants counteracting wind/solar variable output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, about 2 c/kWh
– Traditional plants providing electricity during 1) low-wind periods, 2) high-wind periods, when rotors are locked in place, and 3) low solar periods, about 2 c/kWh
– Wind and solar electricity that could have been produced, if not curtailed, about 1 c/kWh
– Disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh
These values exponentially increase as more wind and solar systems are added to the grid
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
.
The economic insanity and environmental damage of it all is off the charts.
No wonder Europe’s near-zero, real-growth economy is in such big do-do
agreed. And if they are correct (they are not) then there is no need for the subsidies and energy distribution laws.
‘Citigroup ESG analysts’. Citi should do a better job in its core banking business, and lose the ESG stuff spouting nonsense. Don’t and will never own Citi stock.
True story. I have had a high credit limit CitiBusiness Card for over two decades. Once on a European business trip, the card just stopped working. Fortunately I had a personal backup. When got back to US, called and complained. Citi explained they had had to cancel the card because my account had been hacked, and a new one was on the way. Turns out wasn’t just my account. All Citi Business Cards had been hacked at the same time—from inside Citi!
Separate observation supporting DM’s excellent factual post. The shift from coal to CCGT generation is caused by two unstoppable things.
First, Most US coal is old, and the average age at retirement is 42 years. When I last checked, 25% of US coal fleet GW was due for retirement by end of this year.
Second, CCGT is much cheaper capital cost, 1-2 years faster to put in place, and at any natgas price below about $8/mmbtu has a significantly lower LCOE than cheapest US coal from Powder River Basin. The last new US coal plant was SCC Turk in Arkansas, which came on line in 2012 and burns Powder River Basin coal. Its construction started in 2007—at a time when US gas prices were $5 and projected to go to above $8 because the natgas fracking revolution was not yet on the radar.
Rud, PRB coal was $14.20 per ton last week. That works out to $0.84 per million BTU by my figures. So, you must be adding a fair amount of transportation into the cost comparison. Admittedly PRB coal has the disadvantage of being far from the market for electric power generation. But then look at how volatile natural gas prices are in some market areas for power production and gas can be held hostage to international politics.
Yes.Turk is supplied by rail, about 1200 miles.
But your comment also overlooks something else. Turk (650 Mw) is at best 40% thermal efficient at full load. Comparably sized CCGT ( one GE 660) is 61% at full load, and still 58% at 40% ( shutdown under 40% load). It isn’t mmbtu in, it is E out from mmbtu in. Pretty sure my numbers are roughly correct.
C up +53% in past year
Plus 2.7% dividend yield.
“Don’t and will never own Citi stock.”
Too bad.
Dear Mr. Greene, I see why you struggle with some of the global warming scare tactics. Please let me help.
Bad:
Good:
CS:
Did you by chance get that “Good” hockey stick-like graph from U of Penn, say
M. Mann’s webpage? /sarc
Lol
The reason coal is old is because federal CO2 emissions restrictions effectively prevented building any new ones. Remember Obama indicating that you can have your coal plants but they will be too expensive to run was the truth, he made sure that would happen.
And that just does not apply to coal plants. And new 60%+ combined cycle gas plants are also getting CO2 restrictions if the state permitting agency has an agenda.
Also, Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center went on line in 2012. It is capable of co-firing wood and “gob,” or waste coal. But it has been hamstrung with unrealistic permit conditions.
Trump removed EV mandates and now the new Dept of Transport head is backtracking ridiculous emission standards that would force EVs
Trump’s DOT Moves To Overturn Biden’s Costly Fuel Economy Standards – Climate Change Dispatch
Any transition will now be by consumer choice… not political mandate.
No doubt the alarmists will attribute the life expectancy increases to everything except the increases in fossil fuel uses; namely, better healthcare, higher agriculture output, improved housing , easier transportation availability, more labor-saving devices in the home and workplace, more leisure time, etc. What they either don’t realize or choose to overlook or suppress is that the above lifestyle improvements have been brought about by the exploitation of fossil fuels and their various forms of derivatives. Ordinary citizens aren’t supposed to be made aware of this, though, and that’s the reason that the mainstream media and leftist governments rarely let the facts interfere with their propaganda.
“Without hydrocarbons we will starve.” Statement I heard two generations ago along with pending failures of ‘renewable’ energy. Lot long ago I read a ‘scientific’ paper about oysters that did not know something known a century or more ago. Homework anybody! I know excuse, too much!!!
Better Healthcare (pharmaceuticals) … petrochemicals
Higher Agricultural output (ammonia based fertilizers) … petrochemicals
Easier Transportation (Gasoline/Diesel engines and paved roads) petrochemicals / oil exploration
Labor saving devices (Oil, Gas and Coal)
Electronics (plastic insulation) … petrochemicals
Yes!
Vaclav Smil’s “4 Pillars ” of civilization that all require fossil fuels: cement, steel, plastics and fertilizer. His book “How the World Works” (2022) is a good read.
_____________________________________________________
Double Plus Tremendous.
The Pacific Northwest has had High Pressure for about 2 weeks. No-to-little wind and no wind energy showing on the BPA Balancing chart. This will change on Friday about Noon.
I drove past a relatively new wind facility today. Not a blade was turning. What happened to the idea the generators need to draw from the grid for continued rotation or bearings get flat spots? There has been almost no wind for two weeks.
Nuclear went from 10 to 8 percent. Is that because gas increased bigly and Nuk not so much?
JH, the axial race bearings will go flat. Just simple engineering. And then you will eventually be treated to the spectacle of burning blades flying off to start forest fires.
Just a small clarification here. Most of Washington State’s wind turbines are located on high desert grasslands or on high desert steppes. If burning blades fly off, they’ll be starting grassland wildfires as opposed to forest fires.
John, by the end of the 1980’s the nuclear construction industry had learned how to build a nuclear power plant on cost and schedule, and at the lowest possible figure a nuclear power plant could cost within the regulatory environment that then existed.
In the late 1980’s, the industry was well-poised to move forward had new orders come. But those new orders never came, for two simple reasons: a gas-fired power plant was quicker and cheaper to build, and the total lifecycle cost of a gas-fired plant was cheaper than for a nuclear plant.
As for our current US Northwest dunkelflaute — I call it a dumkopfflauta given how hard the West Siders are pushing wind and solar — we are now into the 14th day of low or no wind and solar generation.
Story tip: EV batteries complicate LA fires clean-up.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/los-angeles-fire-cleanup-complicated-unprecedented-number-evs-combustible-lithium-ion-batteries
4 Electric Buses Burn Overnight: Lion Electric Demands Videos Removal
here in Wokeachusetts!
Lion Electric? I remember Lionel electric trains when I was a kid.
If I remember right, Lionel had three-rail tracks where American Flyer had two-rail like the HOs. At least to me, the American Flyers look more realistic :<)
Lionel transformers sent AC to the track. The trains AC motors (though they would also run on DC but then some of the features, like the tender with the whistle could become a problem). American Flyer and HO trains had DC motors DC and that’s what the transformers sent to the track.
Back in the days before circuit boards, things like the tender with the whistle had a DC solenoid which would close the circuit for the AC motor to use use track power to blow the whistle. When the whistle was called for the transformer would put a shot of DC on top of the AC to close the solenoid.
But, yes, the track itself looked more realistic.
PS I remember the instructions that came with the early ’50’s era Lionel trains for running them in certain buildings in NYC. Apparently some of the buildings still ran on Edison’s DC current.
Thanks for the info. I never got into it that deep. I had more fun building, crashing and rebuilding model airplanes :<)
I am curious about the house batteries and roof solar contribution to those clean up efforts as well.
Per Citi ESG, “Clean energy is cheaper, more widely available, and more efficient”.
None of the three assertions are true—by a long shot. Just common sense.
Like said above, Citi should do a better job in its core banking business, and otherwise stop proclaiming nonsense.
Some years ago over at Judith’s
True costs of wind electricity | Climate Etc.
\It takes account of all costs, and uses realistic capacity factors, so its LCOE done right. About the only example of LCOE done right that you will find!
Even this however – if I have got it right – doesn’t seem to weight the capacity factor by the fact that, when wind does produce, some of the time there is no demand for it, so you really should reduce the total output in the calculation by the amount which is wasted in this way. No-one ever does, so the implicit and probably wrong assumption is that you can always find some economic use for the surplus..
So expensive as wind comes out to be, if anything it errs on the optimistic side. As the British and Secretary Miliband will find out together in the next few years.
Yup. And TY.
Ontario Canada signed a contract with Big Wind that requires them to take everything Wind produces whether they need it or not. Can’t just take all that power, it has to go somewhere or very bad things happen.
So…they started selling the excess into the US based on a contract that fluctuates with need. When the US side grids don’t “need” it pushes the price negative. So Ontario is paying through the nose to buy the Wind and through the nose to get rid of the power.
Electricity prices went so high there was a rate payers revolt. Govt solved that problem by subsidizing the rate payers who apparently haven’t figured out that they are still paying the absurd rates, just out of a different pocket.
different pocket
In times past that was referred to as “the color of money.”
And both Wind and Solar are susceptible to the vagaries of Bad Weather requiring both storm damage induced replacement and short lifespan complete replacement compared to CCGT. Wind needs 2-3 replacement cycles and Solar will be replaced a minimum of 4 times over the lifespan of Gas…even more compared to Nuclear
Rud, when you compute the cost of CCGT, do you figure current cost with crippling intermittent generation due to regulation, or what those costs would be if those facilities could operate 24/ 7?
“By reversing and axing most climate policies of the Biden administration, U.S. President Donald Trump will not be able to reverse progress in the energy transition…”
What I find amusing here is that climate protesters were demonstrating in front of Citigroup’s headquarters in NYC last summer apparently in opposition to Citigroup’s financing of fossil fuel projects…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDBv12WGyDc
The protesters were apparently not aware of or were uninterested in Citigroup’s climate and ESG policies. LOL.
Natural gas. Nature’s bounty. Natural gas saved the Texas electricity infrastructure during that big freeze a few years ago and also continues to save England and environs. The USA has an abundance as shown by the following numbers, from the EIA except as noted. Units are trillion cubic feet; multiply by about 1.13 for quadrillion Btu.
Annual production (2023) 38
Annual net export (2024) 4.5
Proved reserves 625
Potential resources* 3353
Cumulative (all-time) production 1544
*Potential resources, from the Potential Gas Committee of the USA, Sept 2023, is an estimate of the undiscovered natural gas that might be produced using present technology.
Use it wisely.
The Proved Reserves are also as of year 2023.
A story about Citibank from long ago.
I had a patient in the 80’s who was part of a group that started Quotron based in Culver City Calif.
They formed in the early 80’s and developed software for the Stock exchange industry. What they did was lease computers and software to the major stock trading houses.
Things went very well for them and later they sold the company to Citibank. Citibank ran it into the ground in a very short time.
So what does that say about bankers? I think we have all seen some incredibly stupid things and malicious things come from the banking industry including debanking conservatives.
Incidentally, my patient told me when they first started they were struggling financially so each bought stock in the company for 10cents/share.
The stock went to $128.00 on the stock exchange.
Sounds like AT&T.
Off Topic Story Tip:
EVs are complicating the clean up after the fires in California.
Electric vehicle lithium-ion batteries challenge California wildfire cleanup | Fox News
The massive battery storage fire in CA near Elkhorn Slough has led to 10x elevated levels of nickel, manganese and cobalt—all very toxic to marine estuary organisms. We will see, but does not look good.
Don’t forget the hydrofluoric acid emitted when lithium ion batteries burn – horribly toxic and completely unbiodegradable, like heavy metals.
…not to mention all the solar panels, car ev batteries, and house EV batteries in the LA fires..
To all the comments, please remember the good intentions to preserve and protect the environment!
/s
Also remember: The pathway to Hell is paves with good intentions.
Very much what is missed: Just because a thing can be done does not mean it is the right thing to do.
Any energy transition will stop itself. Trump’s just preparing America to pick up the pieces in an orderly fashion.
The falsely named energy transition will revert back to the evolutionary process driven by technology innovation and governed by economics of supply and demand.
When natural gas starts to run out in a few hundred years, the world will transition back to coal. Assuming fusion is still 20 years off at that point.
All bets are off if a hybrid AI-Fusion Reactor comes online. If it is asked if there is sentient life on Earth it will likely respond, “There is now.”
I am fairly confident in 20th generation fission by that point.
A fusion project is kicking off in Virginia as we speak. A demo project in New Jersey (?) is underway.
These suggest a possibility that we may are within that 20 year window as opposing to chasing it.
Holding your breath?
Mark-As noted in the past, continental shelf methane clathrate ice might be exploited as well, providing additional years of use-if we only had some investment in perfecting its capture at depth. Cost prohibitive? For now…
Regards,
MCR
The author does not understand what an energy transition is and has presented inaccurate data showing renewables declining from 2017 to 2023, This is a biased, hack author
The energy transition consists of two parts
(1) Money being spent (large)
(2) Increased use of ureliables (small) as a percentage of US total primary energy consumption
A lot of money is still being spent but the increased use of ureliables energy is small.
Wind and solar are bad investments with a tiny return.
US Primary Energy Consumption
2017
Wind 1%+
Solar 1%-
Total under 2.5%
2023
Wind 1.6%
Solar 1.0%
Total 2.6%
Hydro was 0.9% in 2023 but data are unreliable for 2017. It is believed hydro was close to 0.9% in 2017 too
Wind and solar provided a slightly higher percentage of US total primary energy consumption in 2023 compared with 2017
The author should strive for better accuracy in future articles.
The author and EIA are deceiving us by including biomass energy as renewables. That is total BS. Burning biomass, mainly wood, creates more CO2 emissions than burning coal.
2023 5.4% from biomass
(also 0.1% from geothermal)
2027 biomass slightly less than in 2023
You have a talent for making friends and influencing people.
I am a graduate of the Don Rickles Charm School
I also strive to present accurate data which some authors do not do.
1 for 2.
You need to get a tuition refund.
Math is hard.
If CO2 production were actually meaningful, wildfire CO2 should also be counted against the containing jurisdiction. CA would get a large amount that would, by the numbers, totally overwhelm any and all of their reduction efforts. The only thing CA could do to actually reduce greenhouse gas production would be to put all of the monies and efforts in cleaning up their extensive grasslands and forests.
“This is a biased, hack author”
Please refrain from personal attacks. Beyond that, I think you quite incorrect.
More insults. All this means is people will not read your post. It may have some valid points but those are just going to blow on the wind like dry leaves because you offend readers so often.
President Trump is only thinking of the kiddies-
4 Electric Buses Burn Overnight: Lion Electric Demands Videos Removal
Don’t believe the usual suspects when they say the clouds of thick black lithium battery smoke are no threat to the community-
Fire crews battling factory fire in Melbourne
Local laypersons should not monitor it themselves but get the Hell outta there and upwind of that toxic crap ASAP.
That’s why democracy and freedom are best served by not being beholden to their lickspittle legacy media as Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt so rightly pointed out-
Karoline Leavitt’s Surprising Approach To Media As Press Secretary | News Space
story tip
The claim is that she is a woke hire. Disagree. She is totally competent as demonstrated so far.
Diversity is good. Inclusion naturally occurs when embracing diversity.
It is the “equity” that needs to be retired and revert back to equality (equal opportunities), which is being implemented with the new protocols.
“Diversity is good.”
As long as there’s a reason for it. Diversity for diversity’s sake is nonsense.
Probably much of the “renewable” class is hydroelectric power
Renew v.
resume (an activity) after an interruption
to begin doing something again
to begin something again after it stopped or was interrupted
So, based on the those definitions, solar and wind are definitely “renewable.”
Trump should resort to using the Nuclear Option.
Australian east coast grid, called NEM, has average demand of 23GW. Currently there is 13.45GW of wind capacity installed.
Looking at the wind data on Open NEM here:
https://explore.openelectricity.org.au/energy/nem/?range=1y&interval=1w&view=discrete-time&group=Detailed
It is apparent that the wind farms go through a low period from late March to late June; operating at average of 16% CF. The worst consecutive weeks are 8% and 10%.
To meet the average demand, battery firmed wind farms require an installed capacity of 144GW and a battery capacity of 3,749GWh. Using a 10% discount rate over a 25 year life with one battery replacement, the present cost at $2.356tr or LCOE of #1286/MWh.
Due to the capital intensive nature, the present value of just the O&M cost is $269.3bn.
For comparison, lignite fired USC steam plants with a capacity of 35GW to cover peak demand have an LCOE of $75.55/MWh. The present value of the fuel is just $24bn. Present value of O&M is $21.9bn.
The costings are given in AUDs.
This really highlights why countries pursuing NetZero are destroying their economies. Very high up front capital that is very poorly utilised. And I have not even included the proposed 10,000km of power lines.
Snowy 2 pumped storage will cost maybe $15bn and have a capacity of 200GWh. It is cheap storage at just $75/kWh but the NEM would need 18 more of them to ride through the low wind months and there are not enough sites for those. So lithium remains the current option and it is very expensive storage.
fixed position batteries do not have to be LI-ion and thus would be pretty much immune from those big fires. Of course having battery backup and such useless generators isn’t necessary either.
They just can’t help themselves with the quick 2 to 4 hour max returns for lithium competing with EVs for resources. None of the doomsters have the brains to see the big picture and besides fickle energy follows Moore’s Law dontcha know?
I know Moore’s Law and find your post filled with humor.
I suspect in decades to come, Citi will be proclaiming the success of their forecast, as fossil fuels become a smaller part of the energy mix.
Of course, I doubt that much, if any, of that change will be due to renewables, but rather to the increase in nuclear supported by the Trump Administration.
Love your posts David … and not just because I am a fellow geo but mostly because of the exceptionally clean logic !😁👍
Keep up the good work!
I’d like to think that the sarcasm is at least comparable to the logic… 🍻
in my opinion, it is. Well done.
Are you being sarcastic right now?
Not sure if this qualifies as “sarcasm” or not but …
https://youtu.be/kIv3m2gMgUU
I disagree that wood is a “renewable” fuel. It takes years to decades to replace trees.
If one ignores the timelines, oil, natural gas, and coal are renewable. True it is in terms of millions of years, but the concept was to ignore the timelines.
Hydro can refill in hours, days, or depending on weather months. Much shorter than growing new firewood.
Solar is in terms of speed of light. Wind is in terms of mph. Both are dependent on weather and time of day, and they do not require earth bound processes to replenish fuel.
Wood is not “renewable” on a useful timescale.
Wood has a large carbon footprint. For a section of a forest to be logged, a access road has to be constructed using a heavy bulldozer with a large Diesel engine. The loggers with chainsaws then come and fall trees. After the buckers with chainsaws buck the trees, the logs are dragged to a landing and sorting site using cables and winches operated with a Diesel engine. The slash from the trees is gathered up and burned after fire season is over.
Using a loader with a big Diesel engine, the logs are loaded on to trucks with large Diesel engines and taken to a sawmill for processing into lumber. In BC, the lumber from the interior is loaded on to rail cars and taken to the cities. Trucks then take the lumber from the rail yard to the lumber yard for commercial sale.
I learned about the above from “Big Timber”, a series show on the Discovery channel.
“Clean energy” is another of those false, warm fuzzy, expressions used to sway emotions rather than critical thinking and logic.
There are just too many others to list.
It’s advertising. A slogan.
“It’s the real thing”. If it’s not a Coke it’s not real?
“Everything taste good on a Ritz”. Really? “Everything”?
Of course, both those slogans aren’t meant to be literally believed by those products.
They just sounded good in an Ad.
But “Clean Energy”? They want us to literally believe it’s true.
And “Free with your paid subscription”, or “Buy one get one free”. There is nothing free in either of those instances.
I inform the Citi slicker Anita McBain that there will never, ever be a transition to “clean” energy. I mention that the heavy industries (e.g., mining, forestry, agriculture, smelters, steel mills, etc.) and heavy transports (cargo ships, freight trains and trucks, all air craft, emergency and military vehicles, etc.) will always use enormous amounts of fossil fuels.
Where does this Citi slicker live? Fantasy Land?
The question becomes one of how much growth there will be in renewable electricity generation once federal government mandates and taxpayer monies are taken away. If the investments were so great, lavish taxpayer bestowals would not have been necessary. If the demand were so great, no mandates were necessary. All I see is rate increases for every utility customer due to having to pay the costs of their trendy renewable accessory.