Suppose for a moment that the Sierra Club was a political party, with candidates running and elected officials in government. They might look like Germany’s Green Party, which has drawn support from idealistic German voters since the 1980s. They are politically left, view everything through the narrow prism of environmentalism and have a history of pacifism although in recent years have become less so.

In other words, they promote wholly impractical solutions to the big problems of today. For Germans worried about economic growth, cheaper energy and national security, the Greens have little useful to say.

In 2011 the Greens’ fervent desire to shut down all nuclear power became a reality when Chancellor Angela Merkel led the Bundestag to do just that, forming the cornerstone of the world’s dumbest set of energy policies.

In this weekend’s election their share of the vote slipped by 3.1% to 11.6% compared with 2021. Few other countries are so burdened (see Germany’s Costly Climate Leadership).

European energy companies have adopted more aggressive renewables targets than their US counterparts, which has hurt operating performance and caused their stock prices to lag. BP recently abandoned their target to increase renewables generation 20X by 2030. Despite the claims by many environmental extremists that solar and wind are cheap, profits are elusive in this area and electricity prices where renewables dominate are high.

The only energy transition of any consequence in the US is the one from coal to gas (see The Natural Gas Energy Transition). One of my favorite charts shows the increase in energy output from natural gas consistently running 8X higher than renewables over the past couple of decades.

Many commentators are distracted by % growth rates which always appear impressive from a low starting point, creating the impression of dramatic change. They mistakenly think the country is rapidly shifting to solar and wind, which wasn’t happening even before the election.

Wood Mackenzie offers an interesting perspective on the drivers of natural gas demand in different regions of the world. In the US its reliability in power generation is seen as key to developing the most sophisticated AI models. Data centers are wholly avoiding weather-dependent power, which is useless to them and prohibitively expensive with or without costly back-up for when it’s dunkelflaute (German for calm and cloudy).

In Europe, Wood Mackenzie finds gas-fired power is gaining support to compensate for renewables’ intermittency and seasonal needs. This is where the world’s most expensive power is found. In this blog post, Robert Bryce listens to a London cab driver complaining that his energy bill has more than tripled in four years. The UK is “hurtling toward net-zero oblivion.”

Wood Mackenzie adds that in SE Asia gas is a vital source of baseload power to reduce their reliance on coal, which pollutes and generates as much as 2X the greenhouse gas emissions as natural gas. The US can help lower emissions with LNG exports that displace coal, allowing the region to emulate our success in cutting CO2.

Chris Wright, our new energy secretary and former CEO of Liberty Energy, has a view that’s shared by vast numbers of voters. Human-induced rising CO2 levels are real. But it’s just one of several major global challenges including energy poverty, malnutrition and endemic diseases. In spite of billions of words spilled in the media, our lives haven’t been much affected. It’s hard to maintain a permanent crisis that lasts for generations.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has morphed into a cheerleader for renewables in recent years. Their annual forecasts omit the most plausible scenarios in favor of absurdly unrealistic ones. Perhaps in response to criticism, the IEA is contemplating restoring the Current Policies Scenario in their next publication. This is the only one remotely worth consideration and restoring it may bring back an element of credibility.

EVs are undergoing a reality check. German automaker Porsche is spending over $800 million this year on traditional engines and hybrids as their EV sales continue to plummet. The most successful EV market is China where a new EV costs under $10K. This seems the right approach. At that price in the US range anxiety wouldn’t matter because households could make 95% of their trips on an overnight charge and still keep a regular car for longer journeys.

The rollout of US charging stations under the Inflation Reduction Act NEVI program has been painfully slow. Politico Energy reports that only 56 new stations were added last year, and now the Administration has ordered states to pause any such spending. With the outlook for EVs uncertain, I can’t see the point in buying much more than the road-worthy golf carts that glide around places like Naples, FL.

We have two have funds that seek to profit from this environment:

Energy Mutual Fund

Energy ETF

Important Disclosures

The information provided is for informational purposes only and investors should determine for themselves whether a particular service, security or product is suitable for their investment needs. The information contained herein is not complete, may not be current, is subject to change, and is subject to, and qualified in its entirety by, the more complete disclosures, risk factors and other terms that are contained in the disclosure, prospectus, and offering. Certain information herein has been obtained from third party sources and, although believed to be reliable, has not been independently verified and its accuracy or completeness cannot be guaranteed. No representation is made with respect to the accuracy,  completeness or timeliness of this information. Nothing provided on this site constitutes tax advice. Individuals should seek the advice of their own tax advisor for specific information regarding tax consequences of investments.  Investments in securities entail risk and are not suitable for all investors. This site is not a recommendation nor an offer to sell (or solicitation of an offer to buy) securities in the United States or in any other jurisdiction.

References to indexes and benchmarks are hypothetical illustrations of aggregate returns and do not reflect the performance of any actual investment. Investors cannot invest in an index and do not reflect the deduction of the advisor’s fees or other trading expenses. There can be no assurance that current investments will be profitable. Actual realized returns will depend on, among other factors, the value of assets and market conditions at the time of disposition, any related transaction costs, and the timing of the purchase. Indexes and benchmarks may not directly correlate or only partially relate to portfolios managed by SL Advisors as they have different underlying investments and may use different strategies or have different objectives than portfolios managed by SL Advisors (e.g. The Alerian index is a group MLP securities in the oil and gas industries. Portfolios may not include the same investments that are included in the Alerian Index. The S & P Index does not directly relate to investment strategies managed by SL Advisers.)

This site may contain forward-looking statements relating to the objectives, opportunities, and the future performance of the U.S. market generally. Forward-looking statements may be identified by the use of such words as; “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “should,” “planned,” “estimated,” “potential” and other similar terms. Examples of forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, estimates with respect to financial condition, results of operations, and success or lack of success of any particular investment strategy. All are subject to various factors, including, but not limited to general and local economic conditions, changing levels of competition within certain industries and markets, changes in interest rates, changes in legislation or regulation, and other economic, competitive, governmental, regulatory and technological factors affecting a portfolio’s operations that could cause actual results to differ materially from projected results. Such statements are forward-looking in nature and involves a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, and accordingly, actual results may differ materially from those reflected or contemplated in such forward-looking statements. Prospective investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements or examples. None of SL Advisors LLC or any of its affiliates or principals nor any other individual or entity assumes any obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of new information, subsequent events or any other circumstances. All statements made herein speak only as of the date that they were made. r

Certain hyperlinks or referenced websites on the Site, if any, are for your convenience and forward you to third parties’ websites, which generally are recognized by their top level domain name. Any descriptions of, references to, or links to other products, publications or services does not constitute an endorsement, authorization, sponsorship by or affiliation with SL Advisors LLC with respect to any linked site or its sponsor, unless expressly stated by SL Advisors LLC. Any such information, products or sites have not necessarily been reviewed by SL Advisors LLC and are provided or maintained by third parties over whom SL Advisors LLC exercise no control. SL Advisors LLC expressly disclaim any responsibility for the content, the accuracy of the information, and/or quality of products or services provided by or advertised on these third-party sites.

All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. Different types of investments involve varying degrees of risk, and there can be no assurance that any specific investment will be suitable or profitable for a client’s investment portfolio.

Past performance of the American Energy Independence Index is not indicative of future returns.