Daniel Yergin's thoughts on the energy transition that isn't
Source: “Foreign Affairs,” February 25, 2025
Daniel Yergin has been a leading energy and economic historian, thought leader, and consultant for decades. His books are epic in length and unmatched in their detailed presentation of history and depth of thought. I have used Dan’s books in my energy classes for many years, the latest being “The New Map: Energy, Climate, and the Clash of Nations,” published in 2020, for which he was awarded a Pulitzer Prize. His other epic books include “The Quest, “The Prize” and “Shattered Peace.”
His latest analysis, coauthored with Peter Orszag and Atul Arya and published in Foreign Affairs on February 25, 2025, is titled “The Troubled Energy Transition: How to Find a Pragmatic Path Forward.” The analysis focuses on the failure of what was supposed to be an “energy transition,” which was intended to be transformative but so far has been an addition, not a replacement. Dan and his coauthors will present this analysis at CERAWeek, March 10-14, in Houston, with the theme “Moving Ahead: Energy strategies for a complex world.”
I highly recommend reading the entire 5,000-plus word article, but the closing paragraph provides a good summary:
Today’s energy transition is meant to be fundamentally distinct from every previous energy transition: it is meant to be transformative rather than an additive. But so far it is “addition,” not replacement. 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.
My Take: Now that there is starting to be widespread recognition that the “energy transition” has been extremely costly and came close to destroying U.S. power grids and the economy, I think the energy transition in the U.S. is dead. U.S. energy policies are moving to bury it forever. The pushback will be fierce, but the U.S. will continue to move in the right direction for at least the next 4 years.
Your thoughts and comments are always welcome!
Thank you for reading “Thoughts about Energy and Economics.” This publication is reader-supported, so please “Like” it, share it with friends and colleagues, and become a paid subscriber. Your support is greatly appreciated!
Yergin sounds like he still thinks wind 'farms' and battery 'backup' will be part of a "transition", but I like your take better - that it's dead already in the US - plus my take - that it can't survive much longer in Europe either.
Intermittent solar and wind require some form of backup to "fill in the blanks" when they are unavailable. As long as that is the case, solar and wind are redundant capacity and redundancy costs. Storage might eliminate the redundancy but at a monumental cost. DEFRs might eventually provide the required backup, but solar and wind would still be redundant and thus unnecessary.