By EVWorld.com Si Editorial Team

In its recent op-ed, The Wall Street Journal argues that government should step aside and let market forces determine the future of energy. Wind and solar, it claims, should compete without subsidies. Natural gas and nuclear, it insists, are more reliable. But this view, while tidy on paper, is myopic in practice.

Markets are great at pricing corn. They're terrible at pricing planetary survival.

The Real Cost of Energy

Let’s start with the numbers. According to Lazard’s 2025 Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE):

Wind and solar are now the cheapest new sources of electricity—even without subsidies. Natural gas is dispatchable but volatile. Nuclear is stable but expensive. Coal is a relic.

Reliability Isn’t Just About Generation

The op-ed’s fixation on reliability ignores the revolution happening in energy systems:

• Battery storage is scaling fast, smoothing out renewable intermittency.
• Smart grids and demand response programs are making consumption more flexible.
• EVs as mobile batteries—through vehicle-to-building (V2B) and vehicle-to-grid (V2G) tech—are poised to become decentralized energy assets.

Imagine millions of parked EVs stabilizing the grid during peak demand, powering homes during outages, and storing excess solar during the day. Ford’s F-150 Lightning already does this. California and Japan are piloting V2G programs. The future isn’t just clean—it’s interactive.

Fusion: The Black Swan That Could End the Debate

Fusion has long been the punchline of energy futurism: “always 30 years away.” But recent experiments—like the net energy gain at Lawrence Livermore’s National Ignition Facility—suggest we’re inching closer. If a fusion design achieves high EROEI and scalable engineering, it could displace fossil fuels, solar, and nuclear entirely.

Aneutronic fusion (hydrogen-boron) promises clean, radiation-free energy. Private startups like Helion and TAE Technologies are betting big. If they succeed, the market won’t lead—it’ll scramble to catch up.

UAPs and the Ultimate Disruption

And then there’s the wild card: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. The Pentagon and NASA are now openly studying craft that defy known propulsion physics—instant acceleration, silent movement, no visible fuel.

If even one of these is powered by a non-chemical, non-nuclear energy system—say, zero-point energy or quantum vacuum extraction—it would upend our entire energy paradigm. It’s speculative, yes. But so was nuclear power in 1938.

Toward a Class One Planet

The Kardashev Scale ranks civilizations by energy mastery. Earth is currently at ~0.73. A Class One planet harnesses all available energy—solar, geothermal, wind, tidal, atmospheric.

Getting there isn’t just about economics. It’s about coordination, vision, and planetary stewardship. It’s about building systems that serve not just shareholders, but generations.

A Seven-Generations Ethic

Native American philosophy teaches us to think seven generations ahead. That means asking not just what energy costs today, but what it will cost our descendants if we fail to act.

Climate change, grid fragility, and resource depletion are not theoretical—they are market failures. Correcting them requires more than letting the market “do its thing.” It requires wisdom.

Conclusion

The WSJ op-ed offers a defense of market purity. But energy is too important to be left to profit alone. The data shows renewables are cost-effective. The science shows they’re essential. And the future—whether powered by fusion, EVs, or something we haven’t imagined yet—demands systems that are resilient, clean, and just.

Let the market lead—but let policy guide. Let innovation flourish—but let wisdom prevail. Let us build an energy system worthy of seven generations—and ready for the black swans that may yet arrive.

Views: 477