• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your WyoNation.com experience today!

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

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

 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
that is interesting , thanks.

Can you shed more light on why renewable energy is so expensive to the consumer, though? You have to admit it’s weird that the more this “cheapest” energy is used the more expensive it is. This is proven out not only on an international level on a country to country basis, but also on a state by state basis on a national level. It’s totally contradictory. Rising energy prices are a huge driver of inflation and ppl are getting f’ed. It’s not right. Unaffordable, unreliable energy is a hallmark of most second and third world countries.
 
that is interesting , thanks.

Can you shed more light on why renewable energy is so expensive to the consumer, though? You have to admit it’s weird that the more this “cheapest” energy is used the more expensive it is. This is proven out not only on an international level on a country to country basis, but also on a state by state basis on a national level. It’s totally contradictory. Rising energy prices are a huge driver of inflation and ppl are getting f’ed. It’s not right. Unaffordable, unreliable energy is a hallmark of most second and third world countries.
I’m no expert in electric or gas utility rates. In Wyoming, we have ‘regulated monopolies’ as to who can sell the energy to the consumer that prevent competition (so the developer is often basically forced to sell their energy to the utility). In one way, that is great because it prevents having several unnecessary electric lines and theoretically would incentivize reliability but at the same time having no competition can’t be good for encouraging utilities to keep their prices in balance with reasonable cost. Just my opinion.

But the reason why third world countries energy may be thought to be ‘cheap’ is because they use so much less and don’t require the infrastructure we do here to transport and utilize it. Energy consumption has a direct correlation to gross domestic product; I’m very happy we consume a lot of energy here as compared to other countries.
 
One of the other aspects of wind/solar that hasn't been discussed is the speed that those generation projects can be deployed. Land acquisition to permitting to construction-to generating electricity can be done fairly quickly 3-5 years and there are lots of projects right at the threshold of beginning construction. New natural gas fired generation is about the same time frame, however, gas turbines have really long lead times right now (5+ years), a new coal plant likely won't find much financial backing, and nuclear is also even longer right now (but as OrediggerPoke mentions, looks very promising). It's unfortunate that most solar panels, and turbine components are not all manufactured domestically. Companies are trying to solve for that, but that also takes time to scale up. AI and data center consumption is staring us in the face, and needs to be solved yesterday.

The new data center that Tallgrass/Crusoe have planned near Cheyenne in it's first iteration will consume ~3x more energy than the residential use of all of Wyoming-with plans to eventually scale to about ~4x the current proposal. They're not the only ones building facilities of this size. Imagine a city with ~750,000 residents electric demand drawing from the grid with each 1GW sized data center. So to maintain electricity reliability, when demand is growing exponentially, it's going to take every possible electron generating source to meet that demand. Wind turbines, solar panels, gas generation, nuclear, coal, all of it. Solar and wind can be brought on quickly to help fill that gap.
 

This is one of the NextEra projects I was referencing. NextEra would be wise to purchase goodwill IMO.

Just asking. Your assumption is that NextEra paying above market price for War Memorial naming rights will somehow alleviate their political hurdles and somehow UW is too inactive to ever capitalize on the opportunity to shake them down for more than market value?

I can certainly see them as an option at market price for an advertising opportunity along with all the other companies mentioned sans those with "optics issues".
 
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



Interesting discussion on a board about UW athletics, but it's what drives the economy in the state. It does seem like the cost is coming down though.

Why Solar and Wind Power Can Thrive Without Subsidies​

Rising electricity demand, in part due to AI needs, along with the increasing cost of alternatives should cushion the impact for green energy​


By

Jinjoo Lee
Follow

Aug. 22, 2025 7:00 am ET



324

Gift unlocked article

Listen

(6 min)


Solar panels and wind turbines in a field.
Wind turbines and solar panels near Palm Springs, Calif. Photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images
The government delivered a shock to the renewable energy industry when it took away subsidies for solar and wind as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It’s a shock the industry can actually absorb—and maybe even benefit from in the long term.

The two main tax credits used by the wind and solar industries have been in place since 1992 and 2005, respectively. These have been kept alive through multiple extensions. But the latest tax-and-spending law cuts these tax credits short. Treasury Department guidance, released more than a week ago, also placed stricter guidelines on qualifying for these subsidies.

Yet this doesn’t portend doom and gloom for the industry. And that could mean investors might currently have an attractive entry point to the industry.

Stocks of renewable developers such as NextEra Energy and AES have underperformed the S&P 500 so far this year, and their valuations, based on their multiple of expected earnings, are cheaper than the trailing 10-year average. That is a stark contrast to nuclear and natural gas-heavy power producers such as Constellation Energy and Vistra, which are trading at steep premiums to their historical average and are up roughly 40% year to date.

Why isn’t the sky falling for wind and solar? First, they are no longer the nascent technologies they were when they started receiving subsidies. The two renewable sources have been cheap relative to natural gas-fired power without subsidies for at least a decade.

Utility-scale solar today is 84% cheaper than it was 16 years ago; onshore wind costs have come down 56% over that period, according to Lazard. Even paired with battery storage, solar and wind remains cost competitive compared with natural gas, according to Lazard.



The tax credits were “so generous that there wasn’t as much pressure to minimize costs,” said Atin Jain, analyst at BloombergNEF. While equipment costs have declined dramatically for both solar and wind, other costs, such as labor and permitting, have been stickier, according to Jain. There may be opportunities for savings here and the phaseout of subsidies may cause companies to act.

Secondly, getting rid of a complicated form of subsidy might simplify renewable investments going forward—perhaps even opening them up to more investors. “No other major solar or wind market relies on any mechanism as complex and generous as the U.S. tax credits,” a BloombergNEF report noted.

Costs related to monetizing the incentives—hiring an “army of lawyers and project finance specialists”—would disappear with the end of tax credits, the report said.

The reliance on tax credits has led to a limited pool of institutions that can use or even understand them. That has given these investors the ability to add conditions on financing wind and solar that make the economics less appealing for the rest of the investors financing those assets.

Not having to rely on these types of investors would make financing a lot simpler, said Ray Spitzley, vice chairman at Morgan Stanley and co-head of the bank’s energy transition banking.

Most important, the removal of subsidies would bring more stability to an industry that has seen boom-and-bust cycles at the whims of Congress. Wind installations, for example, surged in 2012—the last year those projects were eligible for cash grants instead of tax credits—and then dropped off dramatically the following year.


extendedMultiyear extension of tax creditsthrough 2019Last yearto qualifyfor cash grant'05'10'15'20'25200002.55.07.510.012.515.017.520.0GW
Installations peaked again in 2020, when developers rushed to finish projects before the pending phaseout of tax credits in 2021. “The uncertainty related to that tax [credit] aspect just creates so much more headache than it’s worth for these investments,” according to an industry banker.

In the short term, of course, there will be some pain. Initially, there will be a glut of solar and wind developers rushing to find power purchasers before the deadline to qualify for subsidies, possibly creating a buyer’s market.

Not all will make it. BloombergNEF estimated that there would be 23% fewer new wind, solar and energy storage installations through 2030 than if the tax-and-spending bill hadn’t passed.

Advertisement


Longer-term, it looks like a seller’s market. Power demand is rising for the first time in a while. Artificial intelligence is one driver. So, too, is the broad shift from fossil fuels to electricity for things such as space and water heating and cars.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS​

How should the transition to green energy be financed? Join the conversation below.
Meanwhile, competing energy sources also face obstacles. Nuclear power takes a prohibitively long time to build. And the cost of building a new gas-fired power plant is almost double what it was five years ago, according to Chris Seiple, vice chairman at Wood Mackenzie.

Skilled labor to build out natural gas-fired power has also been scarce. If the U.S. adds more capacity to export natural gas, as the Trump administration wants, that could put upward pressure on the price of the commodity going forward.

Speed is another benefit. Solar and battery storage can take 12 to 18 months to build; wind projects take about two years, according to Seiple. A combined-cycle natural gas power plant takes three to four years, he added.

There could be more turbulence ahead if the current administration places roadblocks on permitting for wind and solar. Ultimately, though, electricity is a scarce commodity, and getting scarcer.

Subsidies can become addictive. Now might actually be a good time to kick the habit.

Write to Jinjoo Lee at [email protected]
 
that is interesting , thanks.

Can you shed more light on why renewable energy is so expensive to the consumer, though? You have to admit it’s weird that the more this “cheapest” energy is used the more expensive it is. This is proven out not only on an international level on a country to country basis, but also on a state by state basis on a national level. It’s totally contradictory. Rising energy prices are a huge driver of inflation and ppl are getting f’ed. It’s not right. Unaffordable, unreliable energy is a hallmark of most second and third world countries.
One interesting tib bit is the "C Word"..... no not the four letter C word.... but Capacity. Renewable energy is always expressed in terms of capacity and not energy delivered. For solar the global average for energy delivered / energy capacity is 20% (30%+ in Arizona, highest in the world, and 10% in Northern Germany where it is the lowest). Thus while solar has a very low cost in terms of $/KW of capacity, the cost of $/KWH delivered is 5X as high as the "touted number". For Wind I believe the efficiency number is higher as is likely to be 50% for a great location like windy WYO. Which means actual delivered wind energy is only 2X the publicized number.

Always beware of the "C word".
 
One interesting tib bit is the "C Word"..... no not the four letter C word.... but Capacity. Renewable energy is always expressed in terms of capacity and not energy delivered. For solar the global average for energy delivered / energy capacity is 20% (30%+ in Arizona, highest in the world, and 10% in Northern Germany where it is the lowest). Thus while solar has a very low cost in terms of $/KW of capacity, the cost of $/KWH delivered is 5X as high as the "touted number". For Wind I believe the efficiency number is higher as is likely to be 50% for a great location like windy WYO. Which means actual delivered wind energy is only 2X the publicized number.

Always beware of the "C word".
EIA delivers its cost numbers in production (the numbers I quoted).

BTW - speaking of capacity factor, solar is roughly 23-26 percent, wind is roughly 32-36 percent, coal is 40-60 percent, gas is roughly 50-60 but nuclear is currently 91-93 percent. Another very strong argument for nuclear when speaking in terms of grid reliability.
 
I am with you there, Nuclear is the hands down long term future of Electricity. I do think we are not on the same page with regard to "capacity" . I am not referring to efficiency, which is a function of the system thermodynamics to convert energy input into energy output. But capacity which is what is the system capable of producing on an hourly basis under ideal conditions, sun out directly overhead, etc. On that basis solar starts at 50% and given the other factors, clouds, incident angle of the sunlight, the best solar can do, (not the average) is 25% to 35%. Where as a 100 MW Coal plant can deliver close to 100% of its rated capacity far more often than a 100 MW wind or solar plant.
 
I am with you there, Nuclear is the hands down long term future of Electricity. I do think we are not on the same page with regard to "capacity" . I am not referring to efficiency, which is a function of the system thermodynamics to convert energy input into energy output. But capacity which is what is the system capable of producing on an hourly basis under ideal conditions, sun out directly overhead, etc. On that basis solar starts at 50% and given the other factors, clouds, incident angle of the sunlight, the best solar can do, (not the average) is 25% to 35%. Where as a 100 MW Coal plant can deliver close to 100% of its rated capacity far more often than a 100 MW wind or solar plant.
Capacity factor is a pretty simple calculation. It is a ratio of the actual electric energy produced over time versus the nameplate total capacity. Capacity factor figures in everything you describe.

Problem with wind and solar, as I alluded to earlier, is you have to ‘overbuild’ the system to have enough energy available for peak demand (or supplement with other sources) because it turns out that the wind is often silent on the coldest and hottest days when energy is in demand. But wind and solar actually work well with energy sources like gas and coal where you might be able to ramp up production.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top