A fair price for Bitcoin: less than $33,300.

Leave a reply

Some 8 years ago, 2018, I calculated that a fair price for Bitcoin was likely $11,000, with a maximum of perhaps 4x more, $44,000. I used Fischer’s formula from my economics textbook, perhaps the only useful formula there. It’s based on the idea that the total currency value times the speed of money has to match the value of the things people buy with it. See the analysis here. Based on this formula, you see that, if you print more money, you get inflation — a concept that seems forgotten today.

It’s eight years later, and while there has been some inflation in the price of everything, the price of bitcoin has outstripped most everything else. After years of Bitcoin staying in the price range I’d suggested, it jumped to over $120,000 in 2025 before dropping back to $70,500. I figured I should revisit my calculations, and again find about the same result corrected for normal inflation: a “true value”, of <$33,300. I show why I value it this much, and share why, I think the market is wrong.

A history of Bitcoin prices

Bitcoin has only one “legitimate” use, as best I can tell, and that’s for illegal activities, like paying $6 million dollar to ransom Nancy Guthrie. The problems preventing a high bitcoin valuation, IMHO, are that there is not that much illegal trade, and there are other ways to pay for illegal things. Suitcases of cash can be used, or gold coins, or artwork. These are just as safe as bitcoin, and almost as easy to ship. For legitimate business, almost any pay method is better: easier, faster, and more secure.

Most people, I suspect, don’t use their bitcoin at all. They buy it as an investment, or as a gambling speculation, but that’s a zero-sum gamble, somewhat worse than gold, since gold have value above trade. Having no value aside from trade, Bitcoins are only as valuable as their use is.

One of the main use of bitcoin transactions is to avoid tariffs on legitimate goods – I explained how that was done, previously. I estimate the magnitude of this business to be $500 billion or so per year. The US collected about $220 billion in tariffs last year on a trillion dollars of trade, and I find it hard to believe that Bitcoins cover more than another 50%. Add to this, bitcoin is likely also used to hide payment for illegal, sanctioned oil from Iran and Russia. There are other ways to do this, but let’s assume it’s all bitcoin-trades. Since this oil trade seems to be about 8 million barrels per day, and since oil costs ~ $70 barrel, I calculate a business of $200 billion in world oil. Add a few more items that you don’t want traced: drugs, weapons, for a total of maybe $200 billion, add $100 billion to over-throw countries and for a kidnapping or two, and I find a total bitcoin trade of $1 trillion, or $1000 billion. If a bitcoin trades 1.5 times per year (a fairly low rate) the total value of bitcoin is $1000 billion /1.5 = $667 billion. Divide by the total number of bitcoins, 20 million, and I calculate a value of $33,300 per bitcoin or less.

A lot more value in bitcoins trade per year, about $10.5 trillion. The average Bitcoin price is three times higher than I estimate and it is spent 7.5 times per year. Most of this is churn: investment, plus some legitimate purchases based on illegal activity, like when the drug dealer buys a new car in Panama, but these sales are consequences of the other, illegal sales. I figured that each Bitcoin was used for an illegal purchase only 1.5 times per year because normal money is used ~4.5 times per year.

I should note that some illegal activity is done in US dollars, including most drug deals, and when Obama bought back US soldiers kidnaped by Iran, using bales of € 500 notes, and some is done using gold or silver. Bitcoin is easier to move but large quantity moves can still be traced, and there are other crypto currencies too. Bitcoin transactions aren’t free, either, or particularly cheap. And it takes time to process the transfer of bitcoin numbers, milliseconds, but that’s slow in world commerce. As a result. I don’t see bitcoin being used for legitimate business, and unless it can break out of the black market, the value seems limited to $33,300, and probably less.

Robert Buxbaum, February 15, 2026. Gold, by the way, is similarly overvalued, in my opinion. Like bitcoin, it’s a non-dividend investment that’s expensive to trade, but at least it has some other uses, as jewelry, and in electronics. Besides, it’s relatively hard to steal a billion dollars in gold from a Swiss bank – harder than stealing $1B in bitcoin.

James K. Polk, a great president who did what he said and made America great

Leave a reply

One of my favorite presidents is James K. Polk. While running for president he claimed we would do four major things –and do them as a one-term president. He then did them, and left office — and died 103 days later at the age of 53. Mr Polk’s four stated objectives were: a reduction in the tariff, an independent treasury, settlement of the Oregon boundary dispute, and acquisition of California. Acquisition of California required admission of Texas, plus a war with Mexico and a cash payment, but he was ready. Settling the Oregon border required a compromise and a cash payment. But he did it and more. Modern professors are not happy with Polk, ranking him far below Obama, Kennedy, or Adams, but his aims were good, and he got hem done. Few presidents do that, and even fewer left office if they had the power to stay. No professor I know has ever willingly left if he had the power to stay, and didn’t have a better job to go to.

News from Mexico, oil on canvas painting by Richard Caton Woodville Sr., Düsseldorf, 1848. Polk was a god-send for newspaper sales.

I believe that the clarity of Polk’s four objectives was the reason he was a candidate at all, and the reason he won the election, and also the reason he achieved the objectives. There is a magic in clear objectives, repeated often, I find. It’s a formula that got Trump elected that few seem to understand: “Make America Great Again.” “Build the Wall”, “Drill baby Drill” “Deport illegals” “Tariffs. ” Like these ideas or not, you know Trump’s aims. Also, you know that, if. you oppose them, you oppose him. Trump’s pastor, Norman Vincent Peale promoted this approach, one I’ve thought of trying myself. I suspect that Polk died so shortly after leaving office because he had no further goal beyond relaxing; bad water hurt him too.. I suspect that Trump will die shortly after leaving office too- from lack of purpose.

Polk wasn’t expected to be a candidate, but was a “dark horse”, ex-governor of Tennessee, who had lost his past two elections. Martin Van Burin was expected to be the Democrats’ candidate, but he opposed slavery, and most Democrats were for it. What’s more, he was opposing annexation of Texas, at least south of the Nueces River, and many Democrats were for, as were some Whigs.

Joseph Smith was shot multiple times while campaigning for president.

Polk was pro-slavery, as was the Whig candidate, Henry Clay. But Polk said repeatedly that he would annex Texas — all the way to the Rio Grande, “no matter what any Mexican said.” He also said he’d fight for California and all of Oregon too: “Fifty four forty or fight”. You might not agree with this, Grant did not, but you knew where he stood. And Polk said he’d serve only one term. Thus, if you didn’t like him, he’d be gone in four years. After a few ballots, Polk became the Democratic Party candidate, with George Dallas as his VP. Like Polk, Dallas was pro Texas – they eventually named a city after him. Clay was Polk’s main opposition, anti Texas, and more vague about everything else.

At first John Tyler, the incumbent, also ran against Polk, but when he saw he was losing, he dropped out to help Polk. Also running for president, 1844 was Joseph Smith, the Mormon founder-profit. he ran as an independent because God told him to. He was shot multiple times, and died while campaigning. Finally there was James G. Birney, the Liberty party candidate. He gained few votes running on an abolitionist ticket. It’s been speculated that Polk won because Birney split the Whig vote. My take is that’s unlikely: Clay was pro-slavery. Polk’s win, I think, was in the power of his clarity.

Map of the territory and war.

Once elected, Polk first moved to annex Texas, something he achieved with the help of expresident John Tyler. Tyler sent his Secretary of State, Abel Upsher to negotiat an annexation treaty with Sam Houston, but the Whig-controlled congress rejected it. After the election, Tyler resubmitted the treaty to the new, Democrat-controlled congress, and got two versions passed. The house passed a pro-slavery version, while the senate, pushed by Thomas Hart Benton (a favorite of mine) produced an annexation treaty that divided Texas in half, with a pro-slave and an anti-slave half. Polk liked the pro-slave, House version, returning it to Texas in his first week in office. He instructed the Texas legislature to accept it unconditionally, with no change so he could submit it directly to the Senate. The Texans did so, and congress approved this version later that year. Texas entered the union as one, large, slaveholder state.

With annexation not yet ratified by congress, Polk sent a diplomatic mission to buy California from Mexico along with all of the disputed Texas territory and everything in between for $25 million. Mexico refused, so Polk invited war. He sent 4000 soldiers into disputed Texas territory south of the Nueces River, under command of General Zachary Taylor. Mexican forces attacked them in April 1846, and Polk declared war. The war lasted to 1848, winning all the desired lands including California, and achieving a release of any rights Mexico might have on Oregon.

Polk, as governor of Tennessee

The next Polk goal was resolution of the Oregon dispute, ideally with us getting all of it: land that included the current states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, plus the Canadian Provence of British Columbia. Britain and Russia also claimed this land, so Polk’s first step was to buy off Russia. The British said they’d fight, noting that they had a larger army and navy and that the US was already at war with Mexico. Polk’s response was to back settlers going to Oregon. Americans had started migrating to Oregon in 1843. In his inaugural address, 1845, Polk said he would defend them “against the British and Indians.” By 1846 Britain recognized the difficulty of fighting US settlers so far from home. On June 15, they agreed to a deal that split the territory along the 49th parallel, giving the US the lower half, except for Vancouver Island, thus allowing Britain an opening to the sea. This deal had been proposed by Edward Everett, Tyler’s minister in London. Polk gave up nothing, beyond an informal agreement to lower tariffs on British goods, something he aimed to do anyway. It’s generally thought that Polk’s willingness for war allowed him to achieve so much without fighting. Polk said, in his inaugural, March 1845: “The world has nothing to fear from military ambition in our government,” a statement that clearly means the opposite of what it claims to say.

Polk’s third goal was lowering the “Black Tariffs”. High and uneven, they were 32% on average, with cut-outs to help specific, northern businesses. Polk’s secretary of the treasury, Robert Walker negotiated a flat advalorum tariff of 25%, with luxury goods, tobacco and alcohol tariffed higher. The “Walker tariff” bill was passed July, 1846, one month after the Oregon agreement. The British, reduced their “corn tariffs” against US grain, benefitting both countries. Our tariffs average 17%, currently, with many cut-outs. I think our tariffs should be more like the Walker tariff, perhaps 20% and simpler.

Polk’s 4th campaign promise was establishing an independent treasury. This was done to weaken “pet” banks, and stabilize the economy. The treasury would now hold all US assets; they would issue most currency, and would pay people directly, either in specie (gold or silver) or notes of debt. Independent banks could still issue notes, but only in amounts over $20. Polk passed this bill August 6, 1846, one week after the Walker Tariff bill. With this, Polk had already achieved all of his goals except California by the mid-term elections, 1846.

Having achieved so much, Polk set out to buy Cuba, but Spain said no. Some other accomplishments: opening the U.S. Naval Academy and the Smithsonian Institution, overseeing the groundbreaking for the Washington Monument, and the issuance of the first United States postage stamp. By the summer of 1848 Polk confirmed that he was satisfied and would not run for re-election. In his address to congress, December 1848, he said, “Peace, plenty, and contentment reign throughout our borders, and our beloved country presents a sublime moral spectacle to the world.” …. “I am heartily rejoiced that my term is so near its close. I will soon cease to be a servant and will become a sovereign.” I trust that was met with applause.

Robert Buxbaum. February 6, 2026. Edward Everett would go on to make the better received speech at Gettysburg. The officer who commanded the 4000 man Texas force, Zachary Taylor, became president in 1849. Like Polk, he died of bad water with too little alcohol added.

Fentanyl deaths are way down, maybe justifying drug-runner attacks. We’re still 10x worse than Europe.

Leave a reply

For the past few months, the US navy has been attacking drug-running boats from Venezuela. Videos show ships trying to run away with packages pushed overboard before the sailors are captured or killed. It’s claimed that the packages contained fentanyl, a deadly synthetic heroin. At the same time, there has been a dramatic drop in the rate of fentanyl deaths. Based on the graph above, it seems that some 1500 US lives were saved per month, from fentanyl death alone.

2023 from the Harlem Coalition. There are far more US drug overdose deaths than firearm or vehicle deaths/year.

Opioid overdose deaths have exceeded gun or vehicle deaths since 2005. But there has been a big uptick since the introduction of synthetic opioids, about 2014. Fentanyl is now the leading cause of overdose deaths, alone outpacing gun and vehicle deaths, see graph.

It’s not clear that the attacks on the boats is a primary reason for the drop in deaths, by the way. A lot of credit goes to seizures at the Mexico and Canada border, including the decrease in migrant passage. Some of those were “mules”, carrying drugs. Improved screening at the border seems to have help stop the mules. In 2025, the DEA seized over 47 million fentanyl-laced pills and nearly 10,000 pounds of fentanyl powder, some made in the US, some brought in, cross-border.

An other positive change is increased screening of small packages, of value under $800. They previously entered the US, tariff free, at reduced postage rates. Chinese companies could send 2 oz packages to customers here for 70¢, cheaper than Americans could ship cross town. The DEA reports that most of the precursor chemicals enter the US in packages from China. More checking, and help from China, means fewer of these chemicals get in.

Before we compliment ourselves, our drug numbers are still vastly too high, about 70,000 overdose deaths in 2025, a vastly higher rate than in Europe or Japan, see chart below. The reason is, in my opinion, that we are over-diagnosed and over-medicated. We see ads for drugs on TV, magazines telling us to ask for a pill for any pain or discomfort. They’re all addictive. Doctors are happy to comply, and when the prescription stops, or stops being effective, you’re a hooked customer for heroin or fentanyl.

Addiction has become a middle-aged problem affecting mostly those 25 to 45. It’s made US lifespan significantly shorter. Doctors are curing the pain and killing us patients. Magazines, TV, and drug companies, too. Europe has stricter regulations on pills with fewer prescriptions allowed, no drug ads, and no automatic refills. Does everyone over 50 need blood pressure meds, for example.

Robert Buxbaum, January 26, 2026

Will a cut-off in oil to China spark war?

Leave a reply

China is likely the largest economy in the world, 11% lager than the US calculated here based on food purchasing parity They also have a larger army and navy, 754 ships vs 440, with military ambitions for Taiwan and new, man-made islands in the China sea. They continue to add aircraft carriers and submarines (we’re still ahead there), but China fuels all this with oil. They use some 17 million barrels per day: 11.3 million imported by ship, and put another million bb//day per into reserve in case there is a shutoff.

A problem for China is that their internal production, 4.5million bbl/day, is far below their consumption, a big vulnerability. One of their main suppliers, Venezuela, just went off line, sending 800,000 bbl/day of oil to the US that would have gone to China. Two other of their major, sanctioned suppliers, Iran and Russia have had delivery issues too; a disruption in oil could cause a revolt in China. Perhaps this fear will drive China to war with us, similar to the way that a cut off in oil caused Japan went to go to war with us in WWII, see table below. Japan had the choice of war or shutting down their economy and ambitions. Perhaps China may choose the same if Iran and/or Russia goes off-line. That was my worry, I’m no longer that concerned.

This shows how dependent Japan was on foreign oil, before and during WWII. The cut off of imports sues them to attack Pearl Harbor, source = Sarah Paine, military historian

Currently, China buys most of its imported oil from four countries: Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq; two of these are under sanction. China used to get another 0.8 million barrels per day from Venezuela, another country under sanction, but that route was closed by Trump last week. Buying from sanctioned countries saves them significantly, and supports the BRICS alliance, an alliance specifically against the US (NAFTA?) and the EU. The money they pay to Russia and Iran supports the war against Ukraine, plus ISIS’, war against us, and the mullahs oppression in Iran.

Oil production worldwide, 2024. How much China buys from each varies month to month.

China was buying, from Russia, some 2.2 million barrels of oil and refined products, plus natural gas and coal (China is a big coal user). The rest of Russia’s output goes to India, Turkey, and the EU. The EU buys more than half of eastern Russia’s natural gas output, shamefully it has likely kept Germany from collapsing. The problem for China is that Russian production is under attack from Ukraine. Ukraine sank or disabled several Russian tankers, and we took some more; they’ve blown up pumping stations, including three on the Caspian Sea, set fire, to a large liquid natural gas terminal and damaged the major off-load platform for Kazakh oil. According to the Foundation for Democracy report, here, by October 2025, China was down to getting only 800,000 bbl/day from Russia, a major blow, and Ukraine’s attacks continue.

Some dark fleet ships captured by the US navy off of Venezuela, on their way to China with sanctioned oil.

Iran is another major supplier under attack. Up until recently they provided nearly 2 million barrels of oil per day, 90% of Iran’s seaborne export. Much of that went indirectly, going to Indonesia, turkey, Iraq, and Kuwait where it was relabeled, blended or refined to avoid sanction penalties. Everyone makes a profit here, but Iran is in the midst of a revolution. Last week, Trump imposed an across-the board 25% additional tariff on counties that help Iran avoid the sanctions. My guess is that this tariff will be effective and that it will last until the revolution is over. His tariffs have been effective and profitable, it seems.

China has non-sanctioned suppliers. They buy some 1.6 million barrels per day from Saudi Arabia, about 1.2 million bbl/day, from Iraq, about 1.3 million bbl per day from Malaysia, about 700,000/ day from Brazil, and about 900,000/day from the USA. In principle, they could make up any losses by buying more here, but the price would be higher. Worse yet, Trump could cut China off. That would be devastating; it’s the reason China built up a reserve of 2.2 billion barrels amounting to 6 months of current use. Japan did something similar in 1941, building up a year’s worth. They then used all of it in the first year of the war, while conquering Indonesia, a new supplier. For all I know, Trump’s activities in Venezuela and Iran are meant to force a war decision on China before they are strong enough to defeat us. It seems to have been FDR’s logic.

China’s main way to address a possible oil disruption, as best I can tell, has been to push EVs development. They’ve financed some 500 new EV companies who now (late 2025) provide about 50% of new Chinese automobiles. Another 19% are hybrids. In the US, only 8% of new cars are EVs, and 16% hybrids. Large-scale use of EVs lessens the pressure on Chinese leaders to find oil sources, some 40% of oil imports can be assumed to go to fuel automobiles; if China were to go 80% EV, it would save 5.5 million barrels/day, more than it gets from Russia and Iran combined. For now, though, China has a big need for gasoline, and has a big excess in EV manufacturing. It has turned to Canada both as a customer for EVs and as a supplier for oil.

Last week, Canadian PM, Mark Carney visited China and announced a “Strategic Partnership” on Agriculture, energy, finance, and Global governance.” There’s no specific mention of oil, but it’s implied. China gets most favored nation status sending goods, including EVs to Canada at rates lower than on US goods. China will export some 50,000 EVs in 2026, rising to 70,000 by 2030 with tariffs set to 6.1%. US-made cars are tariffed at 25%. Canadians will get visa-free, tourist visits), plus a loan of $1B to be used buying Chinese ships. In Davos last week, “We are in the midst of a Rupture” away from the US. He urged the EU and other “middle powers” to band together. He talks like China is a good, reliable friend to Canada, and like the US isn’t. I would worry more about his comments and the “global governance” phrase, if the EU seemed to be going along, but it is not. Nor do I see a real move in China for war. I see positive effects of increased EV sales for China, Canada, and the world. Even if the quality isn’t great, Go Canada, go peace.

Robert Buxbaum, January 25, 2026. *The plan to attack Pearl Harbor was made in December 1940, a year before it happened and 9 months before we cut off oil shipments. We cut off oil shipments in September, following Japan’s invasion of Indonesia, done to take the oil there. While oil was not Japan’s only aim in WWII, it was an aim and a big participant at every step.

Tariffs raise $30 billion per month, but haven’t affected inflation

2 Replies

Economic experts claimed the tariffs would raise no signifiant money, would bring in no jobs, and would be so inflationary that the damage would far exceed any benefit. President Trump instituted them anyway, claiming they would benefit workers, raising wages, returning manufacturing to the US, and serving as a tool of diplomacy. Based on data so far, it appears the experts were completely wrong, and that Trump was right on all counts.

As an average, for the last nine months, our tariff rate has been about 17%, as shown in the chart above, bringing in about $30 billion per month. That tariff rate is as high as it’s been since the 1940s, but far lower than it was in the early 20th century. Chinese products are taxed more, at 47.5% on average, while goods from Mexico and Canada are taxed less, about 5%. High or low the tariffs generate complaints all around. Strangely, those complaining, in the US and out, see nothing amiss with the tariffs that our trading partners have placed on US products. The money from these tariffs came in handy, for example during the recent government shutdown, when we could not borrow money. This tariff money allowed us to pay the military and has helped reduce the annual deficit.

Despite the dire inflation prediction, there has been no noticeable uptick. Inflation has held constant for the last year, at about 2.7%. This is the same as during the last months under Biden, see chart, and is far lower than the 4-8% we saw for most of the Biden term. Basic commodities, in particular, remain cheap, with the price of gasoline and beer lower than in 2024, and luxury imports somewhat more expensive. Lower and middle income Americans don’t seem to mind since most of us don’t buy these goods. This year of inflation data supports Milton Friedman’s claim that taxes are inflation neutral, and that the cause of inflation is government overspending, as he says here. Liberal experts disagree, but the data says otherwise. I suspect the experts are blinded by overly simple theory, of Keynes, that they refuse to abandon. Alternately, they may be willfully lying to promote the agenda of university heads and all others who fund them. I noticed this pattern with global warming experts too. They don’t change their models and dire predictions though it’s way past 2014, and the arctic isn’t ice free.

There has been some job growth, but less than hoped for. There was a decrease in the tech sector and in government employment, but an uptick in services and healthcare. Unemployment has changed little, remaining at 4.4%. Several foreign businesses have moved manufacturing to the US. These include BASF, Volkswagen, LG, and Hanwha to name a few. Hanwha just completed its purchase of the Philadelphia shipyard, and committed $5B to its modernization. I consider this very important. It provides jobs, but beyond this, improved shipbuilding will help us commercially and militarily.

The reason that employment has not gone up as much as hoped seems to be that we’re still buying the same amount from abroad as before, containerized are the same as in the pre-COVID years, see chart below. There’s been some switching of sources, with more coming from Mexico, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and less from Canada and India. Import volumes from China have hardly changed though, since last year, nor have the prices that Americans pay risen. This suggests that China is “eating the tariffs”. I suspect they’ve undervalued their currency to make this happen. We’re selling a little more too, causing the trade imbalance to narrow, but the sales increase are largely precious metals (gold) to China, about 1000 tons in 2025. I’m not sure what China achieves by this; they’ve raised the price of gold to $4,675/oz currently, about double in 1.5 years, and kept the price of Chinese currency low. Perhaps that’s the intent — to keep their currency devalued relative to the dollar. Maybe they have some other idea, like to switch to a gold-backed currency? Who knows? Their purchases increase the value of our gold in Ft. Knox.

Trump’s other justification for the tariffs was as a tool of diplomacy. Trump is using tariffs somewhat this way, as a non-military stick to encourage friendly nations to do what he wants. He got Mexico to stop immigrants and drugs, encouraged the same from Canada and Columbia. He got the EU to spend more in their defense, and got them deal a little less with Russia. They’re still the biggest buyer of Russian natural gas. He also used tariffs to nudge for peace in the Middle East, and between Cambodia and Thailand. Recently, he’s using them to support the Iranian rebels by threatening countries that buy from Iran, or that help the mullahs launder their money and oil. All in all, the tariffs seem to be working for us. The experts are not impressed.

Robert Buxbaum, January 19, 2026

EDDS chelation for electroless coating, solar cells and soil remediation

Leave a reply

Among the products our company sells is a non-toxic chelating agent, EDDS (ethylenediamine-disuccinic acid), typically sold as a purified salt in ammonia solution, see here. The main use of EDDS is to stabilize heavy metal ions in solution. We use it, for example, as an aide in electroless Palladium coating, to stabilize palladium ions, helping us produce a smaller grain, more continuous coat. The structure, shown below, is similar to that of EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid), and the behavior is similar too. EDDS is more stabilizing in the presence of the other ions and we like that it is non-toxic.

Structure of EDDS, it binds metals by way of four OH groups. While each binding is weak, the total is strong.

The popular literature use for chelating agents like this is as a treatment for heavy metal poisoning by lead, arsenic, cadmium, nickel or copper. The TV series “House” featured patients with all these metal-poisoning problems, problems. Chelation treatment was important in Flint Michigan, 2015 when thousands got low-level lead poisoning and legionaries disease after the water department put insufficient phosphate and hypochlorite into the water and lead leached from pipes. Typically, EDTA is used for humans here, while EDDS is used by farmers and ranchers to treat animals. EDDS is less toxic, and removes fewer essential light minerals: magnesium, calcium, and zinc, so I’d think it would be better for humans too.

Effect of 300ppm SX-E in DI water, compared to standard DI water and acid wash. The biggest difference is with copper.

Our EDDS has been used to make cleaning solutions for silicon wafers, Sunsonix SXE, for example. Sunsonix SXE behaves as a soap, removing Fe, Cr, Ni, and Cu from solar cells, see reproduced figures at right. These metals will diffuse into surface of a silicon wafer, forming defects that absorb light and decrease solar cell performance by an average of 0.28%, see below.

Solar cell efficiency improvement with EDDS washing from a baseline of 16%. Occasionally 1.65% improvement was seen, but 0.28% on average

This is, based on a baseline efficiency of 16%. For more details see “Surface Contamination Removal from Si PV Substrates Using a Biodegradable Chelating Agent and Detection of Cleaning Endpoints Using UV/VIS Spectroscopy” ECS Transactions, 41 (5) 295-302 (2011). See also this article in Wikipedia.

This is the normal treatment regime for solar cells

At a different pH, EDDS and EDTH are used in remediation of metal-contaminated soils, see here. This can be done ex-situ, with the soil taken out to an external site and then washed. Alternately, for less contaminated soils, remediation can be done in-situ with the chelating wash applied to the soil. Plants, like vetiver grass (Chrysopogon zizanioides) then extract the heavy metals, concentrating them in their leaves. EDDS is more suitable for this as it is biodegradable and shows a high extraction efficiency in mineral rich soils, see here for comparison to EDTA.

Moving to another area of extraction. It seems that EDDS or EDTA solutions can be used to profitably extract rare earth metals, perhaps sending them to plants before final concentration. A standard methods of rare earth extraction uses chlorine and high temperatures. Alternate methods use ion-exchange extraction of liquid-liquid extraction. I suspect that chelation treatment might turn out to be more effective and cheaper. The price of rare earths has risen in recent years as China restricts sales so that the need for a new source has become a national priority.

Robert Buxbaum, January 13, 2026

Trump’s battleships, right size, perhaps too late

1 Reply

Donald Trump has announced his intent to build at least two battleships, the first built for our navy since the USS Missouri, 1944. The press has been largely negative on this, claiming that these ships are obsolete already, and will be more-so when they are completed — assuming they are completed. My sense is these are useful, overdue really, and I’d like to explain why.

The George Washington Carrier with nine surface support ships.

The centerpiece of America’s military power lies in our aircraft carrier groups, currently. We have 11 carriers in service: two modern, Ford class, and nine older, Nimitz class. Each of these weighs 100,000 tons, is 1100 feet long, and carries some 6000 men and women, 3200 navy crew, another 2500 in the air wing, and perhaps 300 support staff of doctors, nurses, and marines. Because they are vulnerable, each carrier travels in a group with six to ten other ships carrying an additional 3000 people, see photo. Without the support ships a carrier is deemed to be too vulnerable for use. Even with the support ships, Swedish and French submarines successfully “sank” U.S. carriers during exercises in 2005 and 2015. 

The support ships are typically slower than the carrier and difficult to maintain. Many are old with relatively short range. Our carriers can go around the world, 30000 miles, traveling at 30+ knots, but the main support ships, Arleigh Burke destroyers, 9000 tons, 350 crew, have a range of only 4,400 nmi  at a slower, 20 knots. They require regular refuelings for any major mission, like patrolling the Caribbean. Still, they’re “cheap,” about $2.5B each, capable, and work relatively well. We have some 75 in service, built since 1991, with more on order.

We also have nuclear missile submarines, but these are blunt instruments of policy, not suited to most navy missions, like keeping open shipping lanes in the Red Sea or stopping ISIS, or for blockading Venezuela. The mostly hold weapons of last resort.

The navy has recognized the need for a larger support ship for better carrier protection and more flexible roles, a cruiser likely, with good range and weapons, and with enough speed to keep up with a carrier crossing the Pacific. We’ve built many cruisers over the years, but these are old. Our latest are the Ticonderoga class  guided-missile cruisers built from 1980 onward. They have good speed, 32.5kn, and good range, 6000nm, but are well past their retirement date, and break down a lot. Only 7 are still in service.

The USS Zumwalt at sea. Trump said it was “Ugly as F.”

The supposed replacement, was a cruiser-size, stealth ship, the Zumwalt destroyer, 17,000 tons and 600 feet long. It is reasonably fast, 33.5kn, and carries a small crew, <100. We’ve managed to build three of these since 2008, but have cancelled the project due to operational problems and costs that rose to $8B per ship. Zumwalts have inward-sloped sides that deflect radar, but they become unstable in turns. Its main weapons are expensive, too: Aegis missiles and CPS hypersonics costing $28-$50 million each. That’s uneconomical compared to French Aster missiles, Mach 3, 80 mile range, $1.1 million. Originally, Zumwalt destroyers carried a rail gun, but it required so much power that you could not move the ship and fire at the same time. The rail guns were eventually replaced by conventional 5″ cannon with a 24 mile range. The three Zumwalts we have are hardly used today, and no more are on order. Something cheaper was needed at least for support, and that was supposed to be the Constellation Frigate, approved by Trump in 2017.

A frigate is smaller than a cruiser, in this case about half the weight. The Constellation was a proven Italian design, 492 feet long and only 7,291 tons. It had good speed, 26 kn, good range, 6000 nm at 16kn, and cost only $950 million, at least when built in Europe. The contract was awarded to Fincantieri Marinette Marine (FMM) of Marinette Wisconsin, the US division of the Italian company. What could go wrong? The problem was that the navy kept adding capabilities and weight. As of November 2025, eight years on, the weight had increased by 700 tons, the cost to $9 B for two, and no design has been finalized. The first Constellation frigate is only 12% built! Trump has not quite cancelled the program, but has reduced the order to two from the original eight.

Trump-class battleship, as envisioned, with a rail-gun, lasers and two, conventional 5″ cannon.

And that brings us to the current, Trump class battleship, shown above. It’s long, 840-880 feet, and heavy, 39,000 tons, or 2.5 times the weight of the cruiser-sized, Zumwalt. As was intended for the Zumwalt, the offensive weapons are missiles and a rail gun, 32 MJ, but now there is enough power run the ship and fire the weapon. Japanese versions of the rail gun have launched cheap shells at hypersonic speeds, ~5000 mph (hypersonic) at a distance of over 100 miles and a fire-rate of ~one per second. The shells cost only $85,000 each, a bargain compared to hypersonic missiles.

For defense, these battleships are to carry two, 300kW, Helios lasers, similar to Israel’s “Iron beam,” but 3 times as powerful. They are augmented by smaller lasers, by four, 30 mm chain guns (Gatling guns), and two, 5″ conventional navy guns of 24 mile range. Engines are estimated to be two gas turbines, perhaps 50MW each of for acceleration and to power the weapons, plus ~100 MW in diesel power for cruising at good speed and mpg. I thus estimate a total of ~200 MW, about as much as on a carrier. There is plentiful space for missiles and fuel, so it should provide some resupply of support ships. The crew size is bigger than on the Ticonderoga, 600 to 800, but far less than on a carrier, and the look is impressive. A Trump goal is that it should be an attractive, command ship. Still, there are objections.

A main complaint is vulnerability as discussed here, the claim is these ships are “bomb magnets,” not stealthy, nor as heavily armored as the Iowas. Detractors claim that lasers and chain guns are insufficient for defense from drone swarm attacks. They note that the Bismarck, Yamamoto, and Arizona have been sunk, typically by air attack. What the detractors don’t mention is that it took a lot of bombs and torpedos to sink these battleships nor that these battleships will travel with support ships, while the Bismarck travelled alone.

Detractors also question the rail gun. Can it shoot down an airplane? can it sink a ship? The tests I’ve seen suggest that the rail gun can take out an airplane, but that it can not sink a ship, at least not with one shot. That still needs a missile, but the battleship does have missiles. The gun seems appropriate for shore bombardment too, even against hardened targets, and for dissuading actions by a Chinese navy that is already bigger than ours. As for the defense against drones, the battleship is to have high-powered lasers that have been shown to stop drones and cruise missiles at a cost of only ~$10 per shot. That’s nothing compared to a harpoon missile ($1.4 million each) or Aegis ($28 million). These are great weapons, and I don’t see a smaller ship being able to power them. Also it’s nice to have extra room for expansion — like adding a nuclear reactor.

The time-line is what worries me most. These will take ten years at least. Until then, we will have to rely on our short-range Arleigh Burkes that did not have the firepower to bombard the Houthis effectively on land, nor effectively defend US shipping in the Red Sea. Those ships had to use million-dollar missiles to shoot down $20,000 drones. I expect us to really need the battleships, even if it takes us ten years to get one.

Robert Buxbaum, January 5, 2026. As a totally side issue: some claim this isn’t a battleship. It carries only one gun, admittedly a powerful gun. I half agree, you need at least two big guns to be a battleship, IMHO.

Is China really a smaller economy than the US, but twice as efficient

1 Reply
The Economist has run this burger-metric of currency valuation for 40 years or so. I find it instructive.

One can buy a new electric car in China for US $20,000, roughly half of what it would cost in the US. Similarly, a good phone is cheaper in China, or clothes, or a Big Mac. A McDonald’s Big Mac in China costs, effectively $3.55, 59% of what it costs in the US, slightly less than 3/5 the US price. The Chinese explanation is that China is nearly twice as efficient as the US at most every type of manufacturing. I don’t believe this explanation, though there is some truth to it: Their electricity is cheaper, in part because they burn mostly coal for electric power. Meanwhile we have shut-down our coal plants, and have hardly built nuclear since the 1970s.

Another source of efficiency is that China arranges its manufacturing into dedicated cities for different products, one city for toys, another for luggage, others for cars, planes, hair driers… This helps efficiency but I’m not sure how much, and I don’t see these advantages applying to McDonald’s. There is no way I believe their workers are 5/3 as efficient as US workers when it comes to making burgers. It’s not like they ship the burgers from a central factory, and they buy gain and meat from us. My sense, then, is that it’s not efficiency that keeps prices low, but that the Chinese currency, the yuan is undervalued.

It’s hard to estimate how much their currency is undervalued, but I will use the burger-metric, above and say the yuan selling for about 3/5 its true value, and that this explains most of why Chinese shoes, cars, and clothes are so cheap. The rest of the price difference is efficiency, I’d guess. China isn’t the only country with an under-valued currency; Japan’s currency seems even more undervalued. Similarly India, Taiwan… The China is a bigger economy, though, and correcting the Chinese GDP by 5/3, I find their economy is yet bigger, about 111% as big as ours. By a similar correction, European economies appear smaller than they are given credit for.

Chinese electricity is cheap, in part because they burn coal. Also, their currency is undervalued; ditto for India, Indonesia, Turkey.

China’s undervalued currency helps propel its growth, I think, and provides us with cheap goods, but our industry suffers. Also troubling, China will likely surpass us militarily in 3-5 years. One way of slowing this is through tariffs. Trump’s tariff formula, as I understand it, was designed to preserve some China trade, allowing US consumers to benefit, but also taxing the exchange. I think this is a good idea.

Another proposal is to lower the US interest rates. Currently our prime interest rate is 6.5% while China’s is 3%. This provides an incentive for the Chinese industry to invest in the US, maintaining its undervalued currency. The benefit isn’t quite as large as it might seem since we have a 2.7% inflation rate and China has a 0.7% inflation rate. Correcting for this, our bonds return an effective 3.8% and Chinese bonds return 2.3%. The difference is about 3/5 similar to the mismatch in our currencies. Trump has been pushing the Federal Reserve to lower our interest rates, and The Fed has grudgingly agreed, slowly. A lower interest rate would also spike US industry and inflation, and help reduce the government deficit. Trump has also proposed new ships for the navy. Too little, too late, I think. Things should get dicy in the next decade between the US and China.

Robert Buxbaum, December 30, 2025. I started this post not knowing where it would lead. As I research and write, I learn. Perhaps you will too,

Drying hydrogen with polymeric membranes

Leave a reply

Generally, when you make hydrogen, you make wet hydrogen, hydrogen contaminated with water. Usually you want to dry the hydrogen before you use it or compress it. if you compress the hydrogen for transport or storage without drying it, the water will condense and perhaps freeze, clogging valves and fittings.

Water contamination of hydrogen is also a problem for brazing. Hydrogen is a good, cover gas for brazing because of its high heat transfer properties and its reducing chemistry. When the hydrogen is contaminated with water vapor it is unstable for use with stainless steel and similar metals as it will cause oxidation of the surface, resulting in a grey-green surface, and preventing good brazing. Some other contaminates can be problems, e.g. CO2 but water is the main problem in brazing environments.

One more example where drying hydrogen is important, is for its use in high altitude balloons. At high altitudes, water can condense, changing the lift characteristics, and perhaps freezing and puncturing the balloon. For all these applications, I suggest use of a silicone polymeric membrane operated as dryers, using a counter current flow as shown below. We sell these at REB Research, see here. These membranes also remove CO2, silanes, and H2S.

The dryer shown in the figure above has two extraction modules in series. for small flows, one module will suffice. As shown, wet hydrogen enters at left, typically at a slightly elevated pressure, 2-4 atm. The bleed stream must be at lower pressure. One atm will work for the bleed stream, but for efficient removal of the water and CO2, you will want mild vacuum, perhaps 1/3 atm. A small amount of dry hydrogen should be directed into the sweep stream as shown for efficient impurity removal. The amount directed to the bleed flow is large determined by the ratio of pressures and by the selectivity of the membrane. At a pressure ratio of ten, for example, you can show that you need at least a leaving bleed flow of 10% of the H2 to remove all the water in the hydrogen, leaving it perfectly dry. In practice, you’ll want a larger exit bleed flow, perhaps 15%, suggesting that you want a recycle stream of ~5% of the dry hydrogen. This will be joined by 10% more hydrogen that comes through the membrane modules. The membranes are 30x more selective to water than to hydrogen.

A silicone module of 0.1m2

Our silicone membranes remove CO2 too, but not with as high a selectivity. For mobile use, you might want to power the vacuum pump by a fuel cell that runs on the waste, wet hydrogen of the bleed stream.

For many applications you need to remove all the impurities, including all the nitrogen and CO2. This is true for diamond making, semiconductors, and nuclear fusion. For this, you want a metallic membrane, e.g. palladium-silver. We sell hydrogen purifiers based on palladium-silver membranes for these applications. Palladium-silver membranes remove all impurities, see why here. You still need a bleed flow, but it can be much lower than the pressure ratio because, with metallic membranes, the hydrogen goes through the membrane, and the impurities stay behind. Of course, palladium costs more than plastics. See our products at www.rebresearch.com.

Robert Buxbaum, December 19, 2025

Banned books, promoted books, basically no oversight

Leave a reply

For better or worse, the folks who run for library board and school board are a bizarre lot of political weirdos. It takes a lot of work and time and money to run for these boards, and you have to endure endless insults. For what? If you win, there’s no pay, and you get to sit through long, boring meetings. Because of this, almost everyone, who choses to run for these positions is a weirdo with a bering desire to either ban some book or idea, or to promote them. The rest are little better: developers who want to expand buildings and grounds. I don’t think this problem is unique to the US, or new. That’s just the way it is, and has always been. Noah Webster complained about this in the early 1800s. The net result is large schools – larger than they have to be – and many banned books, plus a preponderance of really perverted books.

In terms of teaching, I find myself on the side of classic books that are fairly non-sexual. That’s because I read them. Many people find them dull. I suspect that the students would prefer more modern and racier fare, or no books at all, but what do I know. In terms of library purchase, I like variety, but virtually no library works that way, either the board are a band of perverts pushing weird sex on under-age kids, or they are blue-noses who want to keep Shakespeare from the shelves. I also claim to prefer a diversity of opinions both in the classroom and in the library, but I suspect that, I’m likely to favor my own opinions over others. Below is the selection of banned books that the “don’t censor” organization wants on all shelves, all gay or transgender, as best I can tell. .

These books are banned in some counties K-12 public schools all are gay or transgender. While I’m not a fan of banning, I’m doubt these are the books to push. Pecksniffs on every side.

Sometimes very good books get banned, for no reason, or modified. This was done with Bowdlerized Shakespeare, for example. Once banned, it’s a lot harder to un-ban a book than it is to ban it. You’d have to get an unbanning committee together, almost impossible, and get them to read all the books. They’d have to make a coherent argument for their merits, and then have some vote. It would help to have balanced boards, but I fear that’s not likely/ possible. If nothing else, I’d like a time limit to banning: any banned book stays banned for only 12 years, or so.

I ran for school-board one year, by the way, and lost. I campaigned on math and science education, and less money for ever larger buildings and grounds. Against AI teaching of math and reading, claiming that math education suffers,. I also like cursive handwriting, something I consider an art form. I lost. You can find my Ballotopedia page if you’re interested.

Robert E. Buxbaum, November 28, 2025