Jeff Currie’s “New Joule Order”—A Compelling but Flawed Energy Framework
Jeff Currie is a sharp thinker with decades in oil and commodities—when he speaks, I listen. His “New Joule Order“ offers an interesting but problematic take on the future of energy.
Currie argues that energy security now drives the transition, with nations prioritizing a localized, diverse energy mix to reduce geopolitical and financial risks. Electrification enables true diversification, integrating all sources into the grid and standardizing joules, leveling the importance of one energy source over another.
Peak Oil has become Peak Oil Trade. While fossil fuels remain, global oil trade volume has likely peaked as countries shift focus to energy independence over foreign reliance. Nations that fail to adapt will fall behind.
The New Joule Order replaces the green premium with a security premium, where tariffs and supply control take priority over carbon taxes. With the U.S. now a net petroleum exporter, it has less incentive to protect global supply chains, making energy dependence a growing liability.
Where Currie’s Framework Falls Short
Currie assumes a joule is a joule, but in practice, energy isn’t interchangeable. He focuses on electricity markets, overlooking fossil fuels’ grip on transport and industry—sectors that can’t easily electrify. Aviation, shipping, and trucking run on oil because batteries are too heavy, and hydrogen infrastructure is decades away. Steel, cement, plastics, and fertilizers rely on coal, oil, and gas for both energy and feedstock, with no scalable electric alternative today.
Replacing fossil fuels at scale will take decades. Nuclear takes too long to deploy, and renewables depend on storage that doesn’t exist at scale. Fossil fuels contain massive energy per unit volume, while renewables generate low power density intermittently. Energy must be available in the right form, at the right time—not all joules are equal.
Currie warns that trade wars threaten fossil fuels, but he ignores the trade vulnerabilities of renewables and nuclear. Solar panels, wind turbines, and EV batteries depend on rare earths, lithium, copper, and nickel, all requiring global trade flows. China dominates solar, battery, and rare earth refining, meaning a true trade war could cripple renewables—not just oil and gas.
Meanwhile, oil has already proven its resilience. Sanctions on Russia and Iran barely dented supply—demand always finds a way through gray markets.
Energy substitution isn’t simple—when supply chains break, countries don’t just switch to renewables, they burn more coal. Oil is flexible—it can be shipped, stored, and rerouted, while renewables depend on fixed infrastructure. Trade wars may shift who supplies oil, but not whether oil gets supplied.
The U.S. remains the world’s largest trade and financial market—energy independence doesn’t change that. Protecting trade routes remains essential to its economy and military power.
Currie presents a thought-provoking perspective which I appreciate but he underestimates the complexity of energy systems and the limits of interchageability. Energy security isn’t just about replacing joules—it’s about ensuring the right energy, in the right form, at the right time.
That challenge is far from solved.
Like Art's Work?
Share this Post:
Read More Posts
Hi Art,
I hope this doesn’t sound like a stupid question, I’m still quite new to your work. I only recently learned that the U.S. oil export ban (1977) was lifted by Congress in 2015. In one of your earlier posts, you mentioned that current policy seems to be focused on “draining the U.S. first.”
If I understand correctly, the U.S. doesn’t come close to Russia or the Middle East in terms of oil reserves. Do you think it’s likely that, in the medium to long term, the U.S. government might recognize the need to conserve some of its natural gas and oil for domestic use and future generations? And if so, could that lead to restrictions on oil and LNG exports—or even a new export ban?
I know it’s a speculative question, but i would like to hear your thoughts on the possibilities.
Cheers,
Jay
Jay,
I recommend that you read “Trump’s Bold Energy Gamble: It’s Not What You Think” and then comment again if you still have questions.
https://www.artberman.com/blog/trumps-bold-energy-gamble-its-not-what-you-think/
All the best,
Art
Personally think that Jeff Currie has it right, energy security (outside of the US and Middle East) is now a major consideration whether for Europe or China as Russia, Middle East and now the US are seen as hostile actors. There is also the green premium and a health premium especially in dense urban settings.
20 years ago it was thought unlikely that more than 10% renewables could be intergrated into the UK grid, now it has wiped out coal, which having family who worked in a 2GW coal station seems incredible. Having this past week riden a electric bus that runs an hourly 50 mile country road route I just think the future is a much nicer experience than a smelly, gear jerky diesel.
J McKenzie,
Your view of the UK’s “progress” on limiting coal use is narrow. Much of that coal use has simply been offshored, along with parts of its industrial base.
It’s worth stepping back from official narratives and looking at the bigger picture before drawing conclusions.
All the best,
Art
I really appreciate the insights you have given me. Are you familiar with Simon Michaux’s “Purple Transition“? Although futuristic it addresses the energy shortcomings of the current green paradigm, though it presupposes a different social context . However, it does show the viability of a more local or regional focus.
Joe,
Simon is a friend and valued colleague.
All the best,
Art
Mr Berman,
I fully agree with you. It would be nice indeed if we could electrify the whole economy. Mr Currie and others seem to believe that we are very fortunate that it’s a simple matter to build new grid infrastructure, re-equip oil tankers with a few light and power dense batteries and do other magical stuff. And the beauty is that all this can be rolled out now. Wishful thinking is still the best way of thinking if you want to make abstraction of all those pesky details. And yes a Joule is a Joule, nothing wrong with that. Just don’t take the idea too far.
Ray,
There has probably been a strategy change at Carlyle that Currie is now supporting. He’s smarter than wishful thinking.
All the best,
Art
Thanks for another thought provoking article. I’ve always found Jeff Currie knowledgeable and he makes complicated subjects easy to understand. You provided an excellent critique of his “New Joule Order”. What I appreciated was you showing him respect and presenting an alternative opinion. You also have the same gift of making this incredibly complicated subject of energy somewhat understandable to a person without an advanced science degree. When my friends who believe that the world should run on only renewable energy need a good education, I always refer them to one of your articles. Thanks for another good one.
Norman,
Many thanks for those comments. Jeff Currie always makes me see things differently even when I disagree with him. Perspective is what makes life interesting.
All the best,
Art
Hello Art,
I love your concise summary of our energy situation, world-wide. I completely agree that fossil fuels are best suited for transportation and industrial heating. Though I must admit, natural gas for household use (heating house and water as well as cooking, is most efficient.
Electricity production is best provided by nuclear. I’d rather we save fossil fuel for transportation rather than power electric generating plants. I would hope we can push SMRs into safe, wide-spread use, putting clean, reliable, safe electricity where it is needed. SMRs seem to be the perfect solution to expand nuclear energy over the conventional huge nuclear plants. What a great technology to bring electricity to the energy poor areas of the world.
While wind and solar sound good, per the media, wide-spread use, as in Europe, has shown the severe problems and limitations of these technologies.
Al,
Your argument, while well intentioned, has several major problems.
SMRs remain unproven at scale, with rising costs, delayed timelines, and no commercial deployments to date. Nuclear, including SMRs, is still expensive and slow to build.
Looking only at electric power, nuclear is expected to decrease from 9% in 2022 to 8% of world electric power generation by 2050 (see figure below).
Eight new nuclear plants were completed worldwide in 2022. An average of nine new plants must be built every year to reach IEA’s estimate of 4,353 terawatt hours of nuclear generation in 2050 shown in the figure.
In order to double that, an additional 24 plants must be added each year for a total annual addition of 33 new plants per year. Building four times the number of plants completed in 2022 every year for the next 27 years would move nuclear to only 4% of total energy supply and 16% of total electric power generation. That’s not going to happen. And even if it did, 4% and 16% is not going to make much difference.
It’s better to stop trying to find solutions and focus on what we’re going to do about the inevitability of our predicament.
All the best,
Art
The “standardization” of joules and their non-interchangeability for different technologies is primarily driven by the operational and capital (capacity factor) efficiencies of their conversion from source to end use. So while “standardized joules” are of limited use when comparing technologies and for comparing jurisdictions with different mixes of energy, because the mix within a region or country changes relatively slowly, the trend for energy consumption can be of use over the medium term within the region (say for up to 10 years).
Ian,
Standardizing joules is useful only for comparing the costs of electric power generation. I was surprised that Jeff Currie fell into the trap of thinking it somehow applied to all energy consumption. I suspect there’s been a sell-side shift at Carlyle that his story must now support.
All the best,
Art
I’m probably repeating what you say in different words, but it is one of my standard pet peeves. All countries have native renewable joules. Some also have hydrocarbons. Some have (much) more physically expensive renewable joules than others. On a full system cost basis, renewable joules are more expensive than hydrocarbon joules. Those countries that do not have enough native hydrocarbon joules will face more expensive energy costs than those that do (and potential energy shortages). And likely deindustrialization/loss of economic competitiveness. The best proxy for physical growth of an economy is energy consumption growth, net of efficiency gains. Europe is a prime example. Its energy consumption has been in significant decline. The extent of the problem is belied by GDP numbers (also not great – e.g. Germany) that are confounded by monetary and fiscal policies. Despite the fact that all joules can be numerically compared, they are NOT equal and can’t be standardized for practical purposes.
All of these dynamics exist before even considering the potential for supply chain disruptions and geopolitical upheaval.
We agree, Ian.
All the best,
Art
Hi Art
Energy is the blood of the economy.
I do agree : not all joules are equal. Oil is the magic energy.
With oil we can build another oil well.
With oil we can build other way to produce energy.
With oil we can build solar panels
With oil we can build windmills
With oil we can build a dam
With oil we can build a nuclear plant
With solar panels we cannot build solar panels (at scale).
With a nuclear plant we cannot build a new nuclear plant.
With windmills we cannot build a new windmill.
With a dam we cannot build another dam.
We have built a new way of living on Earth (with an abundant and cheap oil) in two centuries.
Oil will face a depletion within less than 20 years. Shifting toward a new way of living on Earth (in a world with less abundant and cheap oil) must be prepared.
Trump and his administration are far from the first step !!!
Regards
Thanks for your comments and oil poetry, Alfred.
All the best,
Art
Shared y’r concise post at LinkedIn with this comment:
‘The past had a shape but the last years tell awkward stories. Planning for predicament? USA, anybody, working at scale? Easier to break than replace?’
Thanks, Philip.
All the best,
Art