I like that you are driven by a genuine desire to change what you know is a problem, and you put effort into what you believe in, I wish there were more similarly driven.
You might agree also that we are on a journey of learning, growth of knowledge in the population is something necessary for the survival of the species.
So in an ideal world, we would be individually rewarded for learning alone, by at least being supplied by an unconditional abundant physical energy source, the energy each of our bodies need to keep our creativity "burning bright", as bright as it can be.
So an unconditional abundant supply of physical energy is required for each human.
That means the energy actually consumed by each human, plus ablittle extra.
That is what we should be aspiring towards as a species, for each of us individually, I would say.
That is why I instinctively don't agree with the idea that each of us should be aspiring to cut ourselves down to minimal energy consumption.
We individually don't actually know how much energy we need, because we can't actually predict it in advance.
The amount of ideas that come from having a TV, smartphone, or other information, communication, or processing device switched on, at times you might define they should not be, is incalculable. The play time we spend at those devices is similarly necessary, to maximise that kind of creativity, it seems to me.
So what we should be doing is looking for ways to provide the energy necessary for every human to do that, without any restriction.
Now what if there were certain mathematical properties associated with what we currently conceive as various energy sources which we had in error, by not previously following the full implications of those errors, which are so fundamental, right at the base of all scientific knowledge, affecting everything the scientific world thought it knew about energy, and thus the knowledge of humanity in general, showing that contrary to what the established scientific world might believe, we each can have the unconditional fully creative individual energy supply we each need, at no cost to Earth or others, in fact adding only benefit to Earth and others?
The Joules of energy from the sun are added to those already on Earth.
That makes them mathematically positive, and anything done by them, by either us or nature is mathematically positive, adding to Earth
Joules taken from Earth, subtract from Joules on Earth.
So everything done by those is negative, mathematically subtracting from Earth.
So solar energy is fundamentally different from all of the other things it is economically and scientifically bundled with, all are considered as "rival" sources of energy.
The importance and implications of that distinction of mathematical sign, on energy can't be overstated.
What it says, is that solar is the only actual source of energy.
All those other things presented as sources are actually sinks of energy.
The real energy being wasted, is all business done by everything except solar.
Knowing this, how is it possible to be still be discussing solar in terms of loss, gain, efficiency, and profit?
Anyone thinking this issue is too complex to fix today, it can wait until another day, should think carefully about the effect it is having right now on money, and political discussions, and actual loss of life, now threatening even nuclear war.
In UK, right now, 50 Bn is being demanded by government of a public with no capability to pay it.
That demand is being made in error.
The error is the mathematical sign of the energy used to generate the sum if 50 Bn.
It propagates through the system from negatively signed energy depletion incorrectly assigned to solar, as a debt, when it should be a credit.
The debt being demanded of the public is not a debt at all, but a credit, from a much larger store of product not recognised because it has positive sign, a thing unheard of in a world which has lived on exclusively negative signed energy for its thousands of years of history to date, without even knowing it was all negative.
You were instrumental in assisting us to that realisation Jan.
I think that is the real story that you should be writing about.