Comment: Mike, you're spot on. I was

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You make many assumptions... (see in situ)

Mike, you're spot on. I was

Mike, you're spot on. I was just responding to your post when my husband came home and poured himself a glass of wine. We got all engaged in the topic of your post and were discussing and getting off on our own thing. Our own thing was more about what we both see as some lolly-pseudo-science-wishful-thinking group of folks than your post.

The "fawning" and "moon-eyed" stuff was my words, cheered by my husband in our little couple discussion about a larger trend we get irked about. I'm sorry we got carried away and that I posted in a way that lumped you into the lolly-moon-eyed. Really, such discussions are just foreplay for us, and we're sorry we used your post on the DP for our own purposes.

We can only say that ALL known concentrated energy sources are limited. The Sun will die; same as our reserves of oil will die, despite their perpetuating nature, until the Sun quits us. We don't think the term "free energy" is a helpful way to either phrase or think about energy because it implies something for nothing. We don't think this is true and we think the term encourages fawning, moon-eyed types. We appreciate that you are not one of them and good on you. There are plenty of sources for energy that don't require drilling, but they are less concentrated and therefore less cost-efficient at present for mass distribution. The market really does work, and when fossil fuels become more costly than radiant energy, we hope that the moon-eyed folks will have at least helped cushion the fall by having worked out the most efficient way forward.