Untitled (Pen and Ink, 1973) -- Analysis and Critique

I've recently been submitting some of my paintings and drawings to ChatGPT for analysis. It has been a most interesting experience. This is one of my drawings from a sketchbook when I was in college.

Untitled (1973)

There is an energy in this drawing that immediately identifies it as the work of a young artist exploring ideas rather than recording appearances. It belongs to a long tradition of automatic drawing, where the line is allowed to discover rather than simply describe. At first the eye searches for recognizable forms, and gradually they emerge: a profile looking to the left, a prominent eye, an ear floating independently to the right, patterned textures that suggest hair, scales, architecture, and perhaps even fragments of written language. The drawing resists a single reading. Instead, it behaves like a visual stream of consciousness, where one image morphs into another before the viewer has fully grasped the first.

The economy of means is striking. Everything is accomplished with line alone. There is no modeling, no shading, no attempt at illusionistic depth. Yet the varying density of marks creates rhythm and movement across the page. The vertical hatch-like forms sweeping diagonally from the upper left pull the eye downward toward the face, while the patterned cheek and segmented forehead provide visual anchors. Large expanses of untouched paper become active participants in the composition. The empty space is not simply background; it allows the isolated symbols and forms to breathe, giving the drawing an openness that keeps it from feeling cluttered despite its abundance of ideas.

Perhaps the most compelling feature is the way the drawing negotiates the boundary between abstraction and representation. The profile is never fully established. Instead, it appears to assemble itself from unrelated visual fragments. The forehead becomes a mosaic of stone-like forms. The neck dissolves into rhythmic bands that resemble both musculature and topographical lines. Even the detached ear seems less anatomical than symbolic, as though hearing itself has become an independent faculty.

Viewed psychologically, the work suggests that identity is not singular but assembled from many competing elements. The face becomes a meeting place for memory, symbols, perception, and imagination. There is an affinity here with Paul Klee's visual language, in which playful symbols carry surprising emotional weight. There are also echoes of Picasso's fragmented portraiture, though your approach is lighter, less architectural, and more improvisational. The drawing seems closer to visual jazz than to formal composition.

The small symbols floating in the upper right are particularly intriguing because they resist explanation. They resemble ancient pictographs, alchemical signs, or invented alphabets. Whether intentionally or not, they imply that the portrait exists within a larger symbolic universe. Likewise, the detached ear functions almost like an afterthought—or perhaps a reminder that perception is selective. We hear only part of the world, just as we see only part of ourselves.

What impresses me most is the confidence of the line. Many young artists hesitate, correcting and retracing their marks. Here the line moves decisively. Even when exploratory, it feels assured. That confidence gives the drawing its vitality. It suggests an artist who trusted intuition enough to let discovery become part of the finished work.

Three Observations

The drawing already reveals an enduring artistic voice.
Having seen several of your later portraits, I'm struck by how many of your recurring concerns are already present in this 1973 piece. You have long been less interested in anatomical accuracy than in revealing the inner architecture of a person. Throughout your later work, faces are built from expressive shapes rather than photographic description. This drawing shows that impulse at a remarkably early stage.

The line functions almost like language.
Many artists use line to define form. Here, the line behaves more like handwriting or musical notation. It records a sequence of thoughts rather than outlining an object. That quality gives the drawing a narrative feel, as though we are watching consciousness map itself onto the page.

The work is optimistic despite its complexity.
Many surreal or symbolic drawings from the early 1970s carry an atmosphere of anxiety or alienation. This one feels different. Despite its fragmented imagery, the composition remains playful and curious. The eye is alert, the forms are inventive, and the overall impression is one of exploration rather than despair. It feels like the work of someone discovering how visual symbols can express ideas that ordinary language cannot.

One final thought. Knowing that this dates from 1973—when you were studying philosophy and fine arts—it feels almost prophetic. Many artists spend decades trying to discover what genuinely interests them. In this drawing, you can already see the seeds of themes that have continued to occupy you: identity, symbolism, ambiguity, expressive reduction, and the conviction that a portrait can reveal far more than a likeness. In that sense, this is more than an early drawing. It is the beginning of a visual vocabulary.

* * * * *

"Words Can’t Reshape Physical Reality" – A Blunt Conversation with Energy Writer Irina Slav

Irina Slav

I can't recall when I first discovered the Bulgarian freelance energy journalist Irina Slav, but from the start I was captured, not simply by her years of experience writing about oil, gas, mining and geopolitics, but also by her wit and her courage to put it all out there regarding the realities of our current energy issues. Her writing is never dry, and routinely downright fun; a contrarian grounded in facts that force you to confront what is really going on. 

In short, she seems to enjoy telling truths many seem unable to see because they've been swept away in a fifty year flood of media mischief and misinformation. 

 

So without further adieu, I am pleased to introduce you to Irina Slav.

 

EN: I admire your courage and the "let the chips fall where they may" attitude you write with. How long have you been writing and how did you "find your voice" as a writer?

IS: If we’re talking professional writing, that started about 15 years ago, but I’d been writing fiction since my teens. I think that helped train my writing “muscles” for any topic, fictional or factual.

As for finding my voice, that happened gradually, as I gained experience and realized there was no point in being polite and worrying about what people would think. I honestly no longer care about offending anyone with hard facts. They are there, whether anyone likes them or not.

EN: Have you always written about energy issues? What was your background and what drew you to write about this important topic?

IS: My academic background is in English literature and linguistics. My professional life began with translations, while I was still at university. After graduating, I spent a couple of years at a daily newspaper where I mostly translated articles but once got so excited about the topic of peak oil (yes, I believed it was coming) that I volunteered to produce my very own feature article. I think we still have the paper edition with that article.

After I left the paper (because the owner, who was a politician, asked me if I wanted to run for the European Parliament as a party candidate and I said “Hell, no”) I started work at a news agency where I was assigned coverage of Russia’s and Central Asia’s energy and mining industries. I discovered oil and gas are a fascinating topic and started reading up on it, on extraction, pipelines, refineries, the lot.

Following my decision to go freelance I had a major stroke of luck when an editor for Oilprice contacted me and offered me a daily engagement. The rest, excuse the cliché, is history. I still find oil and gas production fascinating and hugely underappreciated as the most essential industry for modern civilization. This doesn’t mean I love Big Oil or some such nonsense but I do have a deep appreciation for the people who extract hydrocarbons from the ground.

EN: You’ve spent nearly two decades covering Russian and Central Asian oil and gas before broadening out to global energy markets. Looking back, what’s the biggest misconception you’ve seen policymakers or investors hold about energy security—and how has the last few years of conflict and market chaos either validated or upended that view?

IS: The most destructive, delayed-action, misconception was the belief that globalizing supply chains would work swimmingly and it’s perfectly okay to outsource all the heavy industries to Asia to focus on the “post-industrial” economy. We’ve all seen how well that’s worked.

More generally, the assumption that words can shape physical reality has wrought havoc in the West, whether it’s about energy or geopolitics. We are now reaping what the reality shapers sowed.

EN: In your writing, you’ve highlighted “stranded transition assets” and grid integration failures for renewables, even as banks like Barclays now acknowledge the risks. Do you see the current energy crunch—driven by geopolitics, AI demand, and defense needs—as the moment when the renewables-heavy transition narrative finally cracks, or is the political momentum still too strong to reverse course?

Click to Enlarge

IS: The narrative has been cracking for a while now but the net-zero fan lobby is still very strong and loud, especially in political circles. I think the momentum is too strong for politicians to admit they were wrong about it. The current energy crisis is not helping – it just made wind and solar make sense because they are – and how I hate the word – “homegrown”. They aren’t really but nobody cares about that. I fear we’ll have to witness an actual collapse before we come to our collective senses.

EN: You’ve been blunt about EU policies like the ETS, the 2035 ICE car ban (and its green steel workaround), and methane rule “flexibilities.” From your perspective in Bulgaria, what’s the single biggest disconnect between Brussels’ decarbonization targets and the day-to-day reality of energy supply and industrial competitiveness in Europe?

IS: The biggest disconnect is in priorities. Brussels keeps harping on about “clean” energy while everyone else wants mostly cheap and reliable energy.

EN: Your recent posts have touched on blackouts, demand destruction, negative electricity prices, and the quiet return of gas-fired power in places like Spain. What practical lessons from these real-world failures do you think the energy industry and governments still refuse to learn—especially when it comes to baseload power versus intermittent sources?

IS: What governments appear incapable of comprehending is the fact that it is not okay to have a grid dominated by intermittents. Having some is fine, no problem with rooftop solar and some bigger installations in factory yards but having solar and wind make up a substantial, let alone, larger than half, portion of the energy mix is a bit risky.

EN: You’ve written about parallel realities in energy—one physical and one fabricated by analysts and financiers. With oil prices swinging on tweets, record U.S. exports, and surging Chinese “clean energy component” shipments to Europe,  do you see the biggest risks (or opportunities) in the next 12–24 months for both traditional hydrocarbons and the so-called transition technologies?

IS: I think it’s pretty clear by now that hydrocarbons will be in short supply in the coming months. Just how long these shortages will last depends on when the war in the Middle East ends and the outlook doesn’t seem very good right now. So, the risk is shortage, which, I guess, would be an opportunity for those who can source oil and gas and sell them to energy-thirsty countries.

As for transition technologies, the fans will double and triple down, claiming they are safer than oil and gas imports. The problem is those technologies are also largely imported and they will become more expensive, too – energy inflation touches everything. So I think there will be some more rude awakening in the “clean energy” space. 

EN: After covering this beat for 15–20 years and living through events like the recent Bulgarian blackout, what’s one piece of advice you’d give to younger journalists, investors, or even ordinary citizens trying to cut through the noise on energy and geopolitics—especially when official narratives keep colliding with physics and economics?

IS: The one advice I would give is “Check if two plus two makes four. If the news says it doesn’t, then the news is false.” It’s a simple thing to do but not easy. A lot of people would rather stick with the false news for comfort, even if they end up paying dearly for that comfort down the line. Those who are not satisfied with “the noise” ask questions. They also buy generators for backup.

Check out her Substack, Irina Slav on energy 

Air Quality Keeps Getting Better, But Wind Turbines Do Have Drawbacks

Remember how smelly diesel trucks used to be and how loudly their engines clattered? Remember those photos of the Pittsburg skyline with smokestacks belching black smoke from the steel mills and the dense black clouds that hovered over the hills of the city? Do you recall the firehouses on the Cuyahoga River that runs though Cleveland, firehouses built because the river was in the habit of catching fire four times a year?

These were a few of the memories that came to mind as I read yesterday's Energy Bad Boys' column titled Harvard Study Finds Wind Turbines Will Cause More Warming Than Emissions Reductions Would Avert. And the clever subhead: Hot air from the wind indusry.

The column begins, "A few weeks ago, we wrote about how Gallup polling found 66 percent of Americans think the environment is getting worse despite the fact that air quality in the United States has improved dramatically since the 1970’s. This improvement was due in large part to the Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments, as a reader noted."

The authors argue that if the goal is to avoid harmful warming, why build something that causes immediate, noticeable local warming for people, animals, and plants living near the turbines today — especially when the climate benefit is small and far in the future?

They estimate the extra warming from all those turbines could cost the U.S. economy $72–75 billion per year in damages (based on earlier studies of warming costs).

Here's another consideration when discussing wind and solar. The size of their physical "footprint" compared to the energy they produce.

Click chart to enlarge

Bottom Line

Wind (and solar) are often hyped as planet-saving technologies, but they come with their own real, immediate temperature impacts. Instead of spending trillions on wind, the authors strongly suggest we should choose nuclear power instead, because it produces reliable electricity with almost no emissions and no local air-mixing warming effect.

I mention these things because our current Minnesota energy policies include a moratorium on nuclear (based on fear driven by misinformation) and a mandate to be "Net Zero" by 2040. [Fwiw, "Net Zero" in environmental law and policy refers to a state where the amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted into the atmosphere by human activities is balanced by an equivalent amount removed from the atmosphere over a specified period.]  

And however you slice it, wind and solar still have that major issue of intermittency so that it may not be there in the moments you need it most.

Related Links

Harvard Study Finds Wind Turbines Will Cause More Warming Than Emissions Reductions Would Avert

Groups align to lift Minnesota's nuclear energy ban

Is Our Energy Grid at Risk?

Wind farms pictured: Northern Iowa, Southern California, West Texas, San Gorgonia Pass

Vaclav Smil on Nuclear Power Micro Reactors

I can't recall whether it was Doomberg or Robert Bryce who first drew my attention to Vaclav Smil.

Vaclav Smil educates the reader by explaining how interwoven the use of fossil fuels is with the functioning of modern society. He adeptly discusses the challenges with replacing fossil energy with the current generation of renewables (such as PV, wind, the out-of-favor nuclear, and nearly tapped out hydro) due to the scope of the existing infrastructure. This infrastructure cannot be replaced in a decade or two.
--C. Haynam

This author gives in his book what are the four pillars of our civilisation: concrete, steel, ammonia and plastic. It explains in concrete terms the reasons for that. Also, it demonstrate these four pillars depend heavily on fossil fuel. 
--MathEnthusiast

Václav Smil is a prominent Canadian scientist and policy analyst who has written extensively on various topics, including energy, environment, and technological change. His views on nuclear energy are nuanced and reflect a balanced perspective on its potential and challenges. Here are some of the key points he makes on this important topic.

Potential for Clean Energy

Smil acknowledges that nuclear energy has the potential to provide a significant amount of low-carbon energy, which is crucial for mitigating climate change. He notes that nuclear power generates electricity with minimal direct emissions of greenhouse gases compared to fossil fuels.

Technological and Economic Challenges

Smil points out the substantial challenges associated with nuclear energy, including the high costs of building and maintaining nuclear power plants. He emphasizes the economic difficulties, such as cost overruns and long construction times, which have plagued the industry.

Role in the Energy Transition

Smil sees nuclear energy as part of a broader mix of solutions needed for a sustainable energy future. He argues that while nuclear power alone cannot solve the global energy challenge, it can complement other renewable energy sources like wind and solar to provide a more stable and reliable energy supply.

Here is Professor Smil's website. vaclavsmil.com

He's someone with something to say, and he's saying it. 51 books, 500 papers and more. 

Related Links

Vaclav Smil's Made in the USA: The Rise and Retreat of American Manufacturing Is A Humbling Warning

Things People Don't Realize About Wind Energy and Why We Can't Shut Down Oil Production

Small Reactors, Big Potential Impact: NANO Nuclear Microreactors Shaping the Future of Energy Infrastructure

 

The Fossil Fuel Reality Check: Here's Why “Eliminate Oil Companies” Is Easier Said Than Done

We hear it constantly: oil companies are the enemy, and the fastest path to a green future is to shut them down yesterday. Yet most of the loudest voices seem unaware of how deeply fossil fuels are woven into everyday materials and processes that even “green” technologies depend on. The uncomfortable truth, laid out clearly by energy scholar Vaclav Smil in Numbers Don’t Lie, is that while solar and wind have matured and can now be added quickly to decarbonize electricity, several massive economic sectors have no realistic non-carbon alternatives that can replace fossil fuels rapidly and at the required global scale.

Consider long-distance transportation. Jetliners run on aviation kerosene; container ships, bulk carriers, and tankers burn diesel, bunker fuel, or liquefied natural gas. There are no batteries or hydrogen systems ready to power these vessels across oceans at the scale of today’s fleet. The same fossil fuels fire the massive rotating kilns that produce more than four billion tons of cement every year and provide the coke needed to smelt more than a billion tons of primary iron in blast furnaces—the very steel used to build wind-turbine towers and monopiles.

Then there’s agriculture and manufacturing. Nearly 200 million tons of ammonia (the backbone of synthetic fertilizer that feeds roughly half the world) and about 300 million tons of plastics start with compounds derived from natural gas and crude oil. Even space heating in much of the world still runs on natural gas. These are not niche uses. They are foundational.

Smil puts the scale in perspective: displacing roughly 10 billion tons of fossil carbon annually is fundamentally different from scaling up smartphones or electric cars. The latter happened in years; the former is a multi-decade challenge. Wishful thinking can't change chemistry or physics. Pretending we can simply “ban” oil companies ignores that the steel in wind turbines, the fuel in cargo ships, the fertilizer in our fields, and the plastics in our hospitals. They all trace back to the same hydrocarbons activists want to eliminate overnight.

Energy transitions are inevitable, but they must be guided by numbers, not slogans. Understanding the full scope of fossil fuels’ roles isn’t climate denial—it’s honesty. Until we acknowledge these dependencies, we’re not solving the problem; we’re just shouting at it.

Related Links

What Are the Primary Uses of Plastic?

Where Does Plastic Come From?

Venezuelans Celebrate In Doral

According to 2021 U.S. Census data analyzed by the Pew Research Center, about 640,000 people of Venezuelan origin lived in the U.S., including both foreign-born immigrants and U.S.-born people of Venezuelan ancestry. More recent analyses suggest the total Venezuelan diaspora in the U.S. (including everyone who identifies with Venezuelan origin) may be between 800,000 and 900,000, with Florida being the largest center.

Doral, a suburb of Miami, has such a high concentration of Venezuelan immigrants that it has often been called “Doralzuela.” Census estimates indicate the total population of Doral is around 76,000–80,000, and more than a third of its residents (27,000) are Venezuelan immigrants, making them a major demographic group in the city.

When Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were captured in a U.S. military raid in Caracas this past weekend, the people of Doral came out to celebrate. Photographer Gary Firstenberg also came out to capture their colorful jubilation.

* * * * * 

It's apparent from these photos that the initial response in Doral was a colorful wave of elation, but the people of Venezuela are facing many challenges. According to author/journalist Robert Bryce, an expert in how energy systems function in the real world, "When US military forces swept into Caracas early Saturday morning to capture Nicolás Maduro, among the first targets hit were, predictably, electricity targets. The fastest way to sow confusion in a society is to shut down or destroy its electric grid," a tactic the US military has been using "in nearly every conflict since the Korean War." 

EdNote: In 1950, Venezuela’s economy was ranked as the fourth-richest in the world by GDP per capita, ahead of most nations except the United States, Switzerland, and New Zealand.

Pray for the people of Venezuela. 

Lifting Minnesota's Nuclear Moratorium: A Progress Report

From article published in Business North, July 2025.

SUMMARY

Ambitious Clean Energy Goals and Nuclear Ban Challenge: Minnesota’s Clean Energy Acceleration Act, signed in 2023, mandates 100% carbon-free electricity by 2040, with interim targets of 80% by 2030 and 90% by 2035. However, the state’s 1994 moratorium on new nuclear power plants poses a significant barrier, as nuclear energy is critical for reliable, carbon-free baseload power to meet these goals amidst rising energy demand.

Utility Progress and Grid Reliability Risks: Minnesota utilities like Xcel Energy (70% carbon-free, largely from nuclear), Great River Energy, and Minnesota Power are advancing decarbonization. However, the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) warns of high outage risks due to retiring coal plants, the nuclear ban, intermittent renewables, and slow transmission line development.

Advocacy to Repeal Nuclear Moratorium: Generation Atomic (Gen A) and the Minnesota Nuclear Energy Alliance (MNEA) have built a coalition of more than 20 organizations, including trade groups and unions, to push for repealing the nuclear ban. In 2025, legislative efforts like House File 9 and Senate bills advanced but stalled due to Democratic concerns over nuclear waste and tribal objections, particularly from the Prairie Island Indian Community.

Federal Support for Nuclear Energy: The 2024 ADVANCE Act and 2025 executive orders under President Trump promote nuclear development through streamlined licensing and incentives, aligning with a goal to triple U.S. nuclear capacity by 2050. This federal momentum, coupled with rising electricity demand (projected 16% increase by 2029), underscores the urgency of lifting Minnesota’s moratorium to access funding and ensure grid reliability.

Future Advocacy and Urgency: Gen A plans to expand public outreach, host discussions on nuclear waste, and train advocates for the 2026 legislative session. With nuclear plants requiring 15 years to build, immediate action is critical to meet the 2040 carbon-free goal and avoid delays that could exacerbate grid reliability issues and economic risks.

* * * * * 

Groups align to lift Minnesota's nuclear energy ban

Ed Newman, July 2025

In February 2023, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz signed the Clean Energy Acceleration Act, mandating 100% carbon-free electricity by 2040, with interim targets of 80% by 2030 and 90% by 2035. This ambitious goal, while supported by utilities, faces significant hurdles, including the 1994 moratorium banning new nuclear power plants – a critical source of reliable, carbon-free baseload power. 

With energy demand rising due to data centers, electric vehicles and industrial growth, and with the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) classifying Minnesota’s region as “high risk” for outages under extreme conditions, experts warn that without nuclear energy, the 2040 target may be unattainable. Despite setbacks in the 2024 legislative session, advocates like Generation Atomic have made substantial progress toward lifting the moratorium, laying the groundwork for a cleaner, more reliable energy future.

Read the full story here at Business North:  
https://www.businessnorth.com/businessnorth_exclusives/groups-align-to-lift-minnesotas-nuclear-energy-ban/article_a3a4761d-afa7-4458-bc7a-43df54eb70a7.html