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 no “energy transition”. Wind and solar power are being added but fossil fuels, nuclear, and hydro still provide the vast majority of electricity and back up is still being provided by those means. You can’t propagandize that solar and wind are replacing fossil fuels no matter how hard you try.