WTF?

mhaze - the thing that is interesting about companies such as Revolution Wind is that they are refusing the White House stop-work orders and are pressing on ahead by using injunctions through legal processes.

On his first day in office in 2025, Trump issued orders to pause permitting for wind and solar projects on federal land and, specifically, all offshore wind. His administration further imposed new, stricter "project density" requirements for renewable projects on federal lands, which made it harder to get permits.

These efforts have led to the cancellation or delay of hundreds of gigawatts of new renewable energy projects but a number of companies are successfully pressing forward.

The simple reality is Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" isn't causing the fossil fuel industry to meet increased needs. They seem uninterested. That has been left to renewables even though they are swimming upstream against a legislative current.

"A major shift occurred with the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" (enacted in 2025), mandating additional lease sales, particularly in the Gulf of America. The first such sale under this act, Lease Sale Big Beautiful Gulf 1 (or Gulf of America Oil and Gas Lease Sale), was held on December 10, 2025. It offered ~81 million acres, received high bids totalling around $279-372 million (with accepted amounts in the $300 million range), and awarded hundreds of leases/blocks covering over 1.6 million acres. This was the first offshore lease sale since 2023 and marked the start of a mandated series of 30 sales in the Gulf."

That has nothing to do with the point being discussed, mhaze.

The issue on the table is whether ageing coal plant delivers superior reliability compared to high-renewables systems in the Australian NEM. On that question, SA now runs a grid of approximately 75% wind and solar and is now one of the most secure energy systems in the market.

Meanwhile, Queensland's coal fleet continues to suffer repeated high-impact failures despite massive reinvestment.

US offshore leasing policy doesn't address that empirical comparison at all.

WTF?
Right on queue mhaze, unable to add to the topic, deflects away.

mhaze's example, of course, is a complete nonsense.

Natural gas supplies about 43% of electrical generation in the U.S.

The Gulf of Mexico supplies around 1-2% of the U.S. natural gas. While this percentage will increase over time, the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects the overall decline in natural gas production to continue.

I know that in mhaze's mind he can probably contort those numbers into natural gas taking up new electrical production.

The market says otherwise.

WTAF says..."The simple reality is Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" isn't causing the fossil fuel industry to meet increased needs. They seem uninterested."

"They seem uninterested."

I show data that proves they are very much interested and he and his word salad side-kick scream "no fair" and demand that I stop showing data that proves their fondest fantasies are....well fantasies. Pretty funny.

mhaze,

You're still talking past the point that was being made. The question was about time horizons and marginal signals, not whether fossil fuels dominate today or might regain ground in the future.

No one's argued that fossil fuels are "uninterested", or that Trump's policies have already reshaped the energy mix. The argument has been that large infrastructure systems respond with long lags, and that marginal additions move first while totals change slowly.

That's why it's possible for fossil fuels to dominate primary energy today and for most new capacity being added to be non-fossil - without contradiction, fantasy, or anyone needing to "scream".

If future policy, prices, or AI-driven demand tilt the market toward nuclear or gas, that will show up first in what actually gets financed and built. Until then, pointing to today's totals doesn't really address why this thread sat quietly in the first place.