Plans to sell naming rights of the AA and War? Thoughts?

[LanderPoke]

I guess that’s problematic that factual information is not presented and people believe things that probably aren’t really true.

The most recent EIA data (2024) shows that wind development now costs between 3-6 cents per kWH to produce for new generation and the closest real competitor is natural gas at 4-7 cents. Current coal costs are between 6-13 cents and nuclear between 9-13. I highly suspect nuclear costs will drop dramatically and perhaps become the cheapest as the industry evolves.

Note - there is a potential major disadvantage of wind in certain grid situations. This is the problem that it is not continuously generating like coal and natural gas. This is why any reliable grid needs both.

Then why is energy getting steeply more expensive the more of our energy comes from renewable vs coal and gas? And why do countries that rely on “green” energy have the most expensive energy. I find this unbelievable

https://twitter.com/x/status/1919044309015466127

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Then why is energy getting steeply more expensive the more of our energy comes from renewable vs coal and gas? And why do countries that rely on “green” energy have the most expensive energy. I find this unbelievable

Honestly, I look at pure data. This is what my job requires.

Here is some pure data that might help you better understand energy:

1) The metric we use to evaluate energy cost over time measures energy cost per real dollar of Gross Domestic Product. In 1975 this number was 11.51 thousand btu per dollar in the US. The trend has been a decrease pretty much every year since then and now stands at 4.04 thousand btu per dollar in 2024. This evidences a solid increase in energy efficiency over time.

2) Wind and Solar is still a very small part of the total energy mix in the US. In 2023, wind and solar made up approximately 9% of total energy consumption in the US. Petroleum 38%, natural gas 36%, coal 9%. Renewables are a relatively small portion of the mix and that is unlikely to change fast anytime soon.

3) Estimates right now expect electric energy consumption to increase more than 30% in the US in a very short time by 2030 due to a shift toward AI. What that means - we need a lot more energy and a lot more energy fast. I don’t see how we get there without utilizing all energy resources.

I know you probably aren’t that interested in these numbers and I don’t have any memes or shared Twitter posts to present them with but they are numbers we are looking at in the industry.

 

[laxwyo]

Honestly, I look at pure data. This is what my job requires.

Here is some pure data that might help you better understand energy:

1) The metric we use to evaluate energy cost over time measures energy cost per real dollar of Gross Domestic Product. In 1975 this number was 11.51 thousand btu per dollar in the US. The trend has been a decrease pretty much every year since then and now stands at 4.04 thousand btu per dollar in 2024. This evidences a solid increase in energy efficiency over time.

2) Wind and Solar is still a very small part of the total energy mix in the US. In 2023, wind and solar made up approximately 9% of total energy consumption in the US. Petroleum 38%, natural gas 36%, coal 9%. Renewables are a relatively small portion of the mix and that is unlikely to change fast anytime soon.

3) Estimates right now expect electric energy consumption to increase more than 30% in the US in a very short time by 2030 due to a shift toward AI. What that means - we need a lot more energy and a lot more energy fast. I don’t see how we get there without utilizing all energy resources.

I know you probably aren’t that interested in these numbers and I don’t have any memes or shared Twitter posts to present them with but they are numbers we are looking at in the industry.

I get it. If you need to add some extra capacity, it’d be easy to throw up some windmills without a gigantic investment. But there’s the government problem again. It’s expensive to use other power because of government and permitting etc. the barriers are far higher for coal/natural gas and nuclear. Democrats have waged war on coal since Obama. If government wants to interfere, make it even cheaper for roof solar.

 

[LanderPoke]

Honestly, I look at pure data. This is what my job requires.

Here is some pure data that might help you better understand energy:

1) The metric we use to evaluate energy cost over time measures energy cost per real dollar of Gross Domestic Product. In 1975 this number was 11.51 thousand btu per dollar in the US. The trend has been a decrease pretty much every year since then and now stands at 4.04 thousand btu per dollar in 2024. This evidences a solid increase in energy efficiency over time.

2) Wind and Solar is still a very small part of the total energy mix in the US. In 2023, wind and solar made up approximately 9% of total energy consumption in the US. Petroleum 38%, natural gas 36%, coal 9%. Renewables are a relatively small portion of the mix and that is unlikely to change fast anytime soon.

3) Estimates right now expect electric energy consumption to increase more than 30% in the US in a very short time by 2030 due to a shift toward AI. What that means - we need a lot more energy and a lot more energy fast. I don’t see how we get there without utilizing all energy resources.

I know you probably aren’t that interested in these numbers and I don’t have any memes or shared Twitter posts to present them with but they are numbers we are looking at in the industry.

I’m sure the numbers are jiggered by biased people, otherwise the data I presented would be different. Idk. It makes no logical sense.

Do the costs you presented factor in the subsidies wind has enjoyed until a few weeks ago?

 

[OrediggerPoke]

I’m sure the numbers are jiggered by biased people, otherwise the data I presented would be different. Idk. It makes no logical sense.

Do the costs you presented factor in the subsidies wind has enjoyed until a few weeks ago?

Those EIA numbers are average costs of new generation without any tax subsidies. They might actually be a bit on the higher end because the average for wind figures in both onshore and the more expensive offshore (probably goes without saying but we don’t have offshore wind development in Wyoming).

BTW - the cost of wind generation in areas with strong wind resource is hardly surprising. Studies from the early 90s indicated that wind would probably become the cheapest energy source (long before it became the rage to decrease carbon emissions). Way back when I was in school late 90s/early 00s, wind was quickly moving up and was more cost effective then than natural gas but coal was king in terms of cost. Back then, we were tasked in school with designing coal fired co-generation plants to maximize energy costs. Unfortunately, we haven’t really developed too much in the way of making removing coal from the ground cheaper and meeting NOX and SOX clean air act emission requirements. Since then, we have unlocked massive natural gas resources with shale drilling and it has easily surpassed coal in terms of price. Ironically, we probably wouldn’t have much of a coal industry in Wyoming if it weren’t for the clean air act and original emission reduction requirements. It was Wyoming’s Powder River Basin relatively low sulfur coal that made investment here attractive. Some of the current literature and projections on nuclear are now mirroring the early 90s wind projections. Nuclear seems like the wise investment to me in the future and doesn’t have the big land footprint of wind. But, with technology, it’s always a guessing game.