“Just when it seemed hard reality had stamped out the last baseless predictions of a global green energy revolution saving the world from climate change, the WSJ publishes a cringe-worth essay so detached from reality it’s hard to read.” (— D. Sheridan, below)
Doug Sheridan of EnergyPoint Research is part of an intellectual energy brigade that runs circles around learned academics on energy/climate issues. He recently rebutted a Review article in the weekend Wall Street Journal edition, “The Clean Energy Revolution is Unstoppable” by Eric Beinhocker and J. Doyne Farmer of Oxford University, subtitled “The Trump administration is determined to promote fossil fuels, but the economic and technological forces driving solar, wind and other sources are now too powerful to resist.”
Bunk. Such an article is now out of date with the energy “transition” going in reverse. I’ll let Sheridan take it from here, before adding a final comment.
Just when it seemed hard reality had stamped out the last baseless predictions of a global green energy revolution saving the world from climate change, the WSJ publishes a cringe-worth essay so detached from reality it’s hard to read.
The essay’s authors, Eric Beinhocker and J. Doyne Farmer, both professors at the Oxford University, apparently fell into a worm hole that transported them back to Davos 2020. We found these assertions especially ridiculous:
1. “The clean energy revolution is being driven by fundamental technological and economic forces… too strong to stop. Trump’s policies can marginally slow progress in the US… but they cannot halt the fundamental dynamics of technological change or save a fossil fuel industry that will inevitably shrink dramatically in the next two decades.”
Our Take: Really? Care to tell us professors when fossil fuels will fall to below 70% of primary energy consumed globally? Because most self-respecting energy experts we follow say it’s going to be decades into the future.
2. “Solar energy is 10,000 times cheaper today than when it was first used… in 1958. The [IEA] calculates electricity from solar power with battery storage is less expensive today than electricity from new coal-fired plants in India and new gas-fired plants in the US. We project that by 2050 solar energy will cost a tenth of what it does today, making it far cheaper than any other source of energy.”
Our Take: Since 1958… seriously? That’s almost 70 years ago. Not only have the declines been far less, even flat, in recent years, solar panels now comprise too little of the cost of solar installations for further declines to matter much. And the number of places in the world in which solar + batteries is cheaper than gas- + coal-fired generation is so small as to basically be zero. It’s certainly not so in North America.
3. “When a technology is new… it grows exponentially early on. As exponential growth continues, its share suddenly becomes large, making its absolute growth large too… until the market eventually becomes saturated, and growth starts to flatten. The result is an S-shaped adoption curve.”
Our Take: This claim isn’t tethered to reality. Few if any green technologies are on paths to the kinds of high global market shares that constitute “saturation.” Not renewables, not EVs, not heat pumps, not biofuels. So spare us the S-curve claptrap.
4. “The energy transition is a one-way ticket. As the asset base shifts to clean energy technologies, large segments of fossil fuel demand will permanently disappear. Very few consumers who buy an EV will go back to fossil-fuel cars. Once utilities build cheap renewables and storage, they won’t go back to expensive coal plants.”
Our Take: There’s virtually no chance fossil fuel demand declines to such levels in the timeframe envisioned by the authors. Growth in energy demand in non-developed countries virtually guarantees it.
Final Comment
The WSJ article is a blast to an imaginary past where hopes and hyperbole pollute rational analysis. Wind and solar as grid electricity was always a government play, being dilute, intermittent, and fragile. And with the new politics toward energy exceptionalism (free market energies), the stock prices of the rent-seekers are headed south, with regular news of bankruptcies, actual and likely (Sunnova, yesterday, was the latest). [1]
The new reality is exemplified by Daniel Yergin latest. He is polite and late to question the great hoax of ‘energy transformation’. It is now just too obvious, sped up by Trump reversing the Podesta-Biden-Harris ‘all of government’ climate policy.
He recently wrote in Foreign Affairs (March/April 2025) with three coauthors, “The Troubled Energy Transition: How to Find a Pragmatic Path Forward”:
… what has been unfolding is not so much an “energy transition” as an “energy addition.” …. This was not how the energy transition was expected to proceed. Concern about climate change had raised expectations for a rapid shift away from carbon-based fuels. But the realities of the global energy system have confounded those expectations, making clear that the transition—from an energy system based largely on oil, gas, and coal to one based mostly on wind, solar, batteries, hydrogen, and biofuels—will be much more difficult, costly, and complicated than was initially expected.
He ends with a polite, something-for-everyone, all-of-the-above energy forecast:
The scale and variety of the challenges associated with the transition mean that it will not proceed as many expect or in a linear way: it will be multidimensional, proceeding at different rates with a different mix of technologies and different priorities in different regions. That reflects the complexities of the energy system at the foundation of today’s global economy. It also makes clear that the process will unfold over a long period and that continuing investment in conventional energy will be a necessary part of the energy transition. A linear transition is not possible; instead, the transition will involve significant tradeoffs. The importance of also addressing economic growth, energy security, and energy access underscores the need to pursue a more pragmatic path.
Daniel Yergin is half intellectual, half business maximizer. His pronouncements must stay in reality but not dismiss the climate agenda as anti-energy, anti-efficiency. His consultancy (in the old days Cambridge Energy Research Associates, now part of IHS Energy), has had programs for every political energy, and everyone needs to be kept happy. But Trump has changed the game, and the massive shrinkage of solar and wind firms in the new environment will end a huge constituency.
A separation of government and energy, in fact, will shrink the whole consulting business. Energy majors and trade associations can do their own work, thank you. And maybe the energy future will look back at Yergin/CERA as an artifact of the political energy era.
————–
[1] “The ups and downs of solar installers aren’t new to the industry. In 2024, ADT, Titan Solar, SunPower and Lumio all declared bankruptcy or went out of business, though subsequently, SunPower was acquired by Complete Solar in Chapter 11 proceedings.
With new tariffs on solar manufacturers and many of the US’s closest trading partners, solar installations are likely to become more expensive in 2025. Sunnova may be one of the first companies to face serious challenges to its business model this year, but it’s not likely to be the last.”
– Sunnova Energy: Another Big Solar Installer Teeters on the Edge of Bankruptcy CNET (March 3, 2025).
Like Chuckie (“Which way is the wind blowing today?”) Schumer, Dan Yergin has always been a political animal— ever mindful of the lynch mob outside his Cambridge, Massachusetts residence.