I've had an interesting exchange these past few days with a gentleman regarding a WSJ article discussing Germany's energy woes. He asked the question if there was a place for renewables. I argued not only no, but hell no. We went back and forth, politely, and he never got past the concept of "free" energy from the sun. He also challenged the need for REEs in solar panels implying it was either not necessary or, at most, only a small contributor.
As I said, it was a polite exchange, but he was firmly entrenched in the idea of free energy. It would be nice if you could follow up your essay today with a piece that discusses the myth of "free energy" in the context of the needs for minerals and other raw materials to capture that "free" sunlight.
Yes, I agree that the subject has been discussed almost ad nauseam by the likes of Bryce, Mills, Doomberg, as well as the peer-reviewed literature. But like a child, some people need to hear it over and over again before the "light comes on," so to speak.
Thank you for your good work, and I look forward to next Monday's post.
I'm glad to know what you're thinking about and the kind of questions that are of interest! There is no such thing as "free" energy - there are no solutions, only trade-offs (Thomas Sowell). I've got something major in the works that explores exactly that.
Thank you. I look forward to that "major" thing. In the meantime, if you need help, I'd be happy to assist. I don't know what kind of resources you have at your place in the Cities. If you haven't seen it already, I'd suggest James Conca's essay in Nuclear Newswire in June 2023, "How to compare energy sources—Apples to apples."
So you think the longer game is to get the U.S. hooked on renewables by 2040 or 2050, then start to restrict minerals from a weakened enemy? That seems likely, though it may be that China thinks it's reached that "critical mass" of dependence to destabilize the grid/national security already alongside restricting exports of other goods.
Good. Now embrace carbon and mine... BIGLY.
Thanks! You and Josh are both doing some great work.
I really appreciate that. Credit should go where credit is due!
Nicely done, Sarah, either to you or Josh!
I've had an interesting exchange these past few days with a gentleman regarding a WSJ article discussing Germany's energy woes. He asked the question if there was a place for renewables. I argued not only no, but hell no. We went back and forth, politely, and he never got past the concept of "free" energy from the sun. He also challenged the need for REEs in solar panels implying it was either not necessary or, at most, only a small contributor.
As I said, it was a polite exchange, but he was firmly entrenched in the idea of free energy. It would be nice if you could follow up your essay today with a piece that discusses the myth of "free energy" in the context of the needs for minerals and other raw materials to capture that "free" sunlight.
Yes, I agree that the subject has been discussed almost ad nauseam by the likes of Bryce, Mills, Doomberg, as well as the peer-reviewed literature. But like a child, some people need to hear it over and over again before the "light comes on," so to speak.
Thank you for your good work, and I look forward to next Monday's post.
I'm glad to know what you're thinking about and the kind of questions that are of interest! There is no such thing as "free" energy - there are no solutions, only trade-offs (Thomas Sowell). I've got something major in the works that explores exactly that.
Thank you. I look forward to that "major" thing. In the meantime, if you need help, I'd be happy to assist. I don't know what kind of resources you have at your place in the Cities. If you haven't seen it already, I'd suggest James Conca's essay in Nuclear Newswire in June 2023, "How to compare energy sources—Apples to apples."
Excellent advice, thank you!
I thought China would play a "long game". I think his recent activity actually helps us, if we respond.
https://open.substack.com/pub/edreid/p/chinas-long-game?r=hp9nv&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
So you think the longer game is to get the U.S. hooked on renewables by 2040 or 2050, then start to restrict minerals from a weakened enemy? That seems likely, though it may be that China thinks it's reached that "critical mass" of dependence to destabilize the grid/national security already alongside restricting exports of other goods.