The effects of free energy
Posted on Wednesday, 5 May, 2010 | 10 comments
Columnist: William B Stoecker
There is increasing evidence that, as a nation, we are far from poor in energy resources, and that our dependence on foreign oil is dangerous and unnecessary. There is also increasing evidence that our ruling elites have deliberately prevented us from developing our own resources, and have underfunded or even actively suppressed promising alternative technologies. Citing false claims of supposed environmental harm, they have prevented the development of nuclear fission, a clean energy source that would have allowed us to produce all of our electricity without any foreign oil or gas, using domestic reserves of uranium and thorium. The elites have poured countless billions of our tax dollars into the colossal boondoggle of “hot” fusion while ignoring the promising alternative of “cold” fusion. They have refused to allow drilling for oil in ANWAR , off the Florida coast, and elsewhere, and have ignored increasing evidence that most oil and gas may be abiotic in origin and superabundant. They have refused to develop our oil shale resources and are attempting to prevent our use of coal, which we have in abundance. They are making no effort to develop technologies for harvesting the methyl hydrates lying on the sea floor in many areas. It is possible to make diesel fuel, jet fuel, and gasoline from coal using the Fischer-Tropsch process, which, given the increasing cost of oil, is becoming economically feasible, and some researchers claim to have developed more efficient and less costly variants of this technology, but nothing ever seems to come of it. Other researchers have recently claimed to have developed an economical process for converting waste biomass into oil. Likewise, there have been recent claims of the development of thin film photovoltaic arrays, using cheaper amorphous silicon or more efficient combinations of amorphous and crystalline silicon; if these claims are anything more than hype by inventors eager for capital, cheap solar power (which the elites claim to support) might become a reality. But, for whatever reason, nothing substantial ever comes of the claims.
Then there are the repeated claims by truly unconventional researchers of “free” energy devices that might, at a very low price, tap the inexhaustible etheric or virtual energy which even some mainstream physicists believe in. There are claims that Tesla succeeded in this, and Henry Moray, Moray King, Joe Newman, and John Hutchinson. One supporter of this technology, Eugene Mallove, was murdered. And then there is Tom Bearden and his “motionless electromagnetic generator” and Ed Gray and his “cold electricity.” Are all of these people crackpots and charlatans? Or is the government elite actively suppressing very real breakthroughs? Mallove’s murder, supposedly by ordinary robbers, is highly suspicious, and, given the elite’s record in preventing the development of nuclear power and domestic oil reserves, we need to take this possibility seriously. But what would be the motive? Why would the government and the powerful people who control it want to starve us of energy? To attempt to answer this question, we need first of all to consider the effects on our society and our economy of “free” or extremely cheap energy.
For an average citizen, it is obvious that cheaper home heating, air conditioning, lighting, and so on would be a great boon. If the citizen was then able to drive his car for a fraction of the present expense, so much the better. And other modes of travel, like flying, that are sensitive to high fuel costs, would become cheaper. So the average person would obviously and immediately enjoy a higher standard of living and greater economic security. But there is far more to it than that.
Everything we consume requires energy to produce, including all of the structural materials we need. If energy prices were drastically lowered, high grade electric steel would become cheap. Aluminum ore (bauxite) is mixed with a mineral known as cryolite, melted, and then separated out by electrolysis. Both the melting and the electrolysis require a great deal of energy, so cheaper energy means cheaper aluminum. If it became cheap enough, everyone could afford aluminum siding and roofing, fire resistant and invulnerable to termites and dry rot. Magnesium is made from sea water, and, although abundant, also requires a great deal of energy to produce. One of the main components of concrete is limestone, also abundant, and, again, a great deal of energy is needed to produce the finished product. The same holds true for glass and for bricks and ceramics; in each case the raw materials are abundant and can be found almost everywhere, and vastly cheaper energy would lower costs dramatically.
Production of anything in factories requires energy, usually electricity, so “free” energy would lower the costs of virtually all manufactured goods. Shipping raw materials to the factory and finished goods to the consumers also uses energy. Referring back to the example of aluminum siding, mining the ore (the machines use energy) would be cheaper; producing the metal would be cheaper; shipping it to factories, manufacturing the siding, and then shipping it to the consumers would be cheaper.
Water in dry regions like much of the American West is scarce and costs money. It can be produced by desalination of sea water, a process that is expensive due in large part to the high amounts of energy needed. So imagine cheap fresh water from the sea, pumped at low cost, carried in cheap pipes of aluminum, concrete, or ceramic to where it is needed. It would become economical also to pump water from wet regions like Canada, the Pacific Northwest, or much of the eastern United States to dry regions like the western Great Plains, California, and Arizona.
And this brings us to the subject of food. Not only would extremely cheap energy allow the irrigation of vastly more farmland, but fertilizer, which also requires energy to produce, would become cheaper. The farmers’ tractors and combine harvesters could be operated at a lower cost, and the trucks carrying produce or livestock to slaughterhouses and processing plants. Crops might even be grown in heated and lighted greenhouses in mid winter in cold, or even Arctic regions. Barns might be heated. The processing plants would be cheaper to operate; refrigeration and freezing of meat and produce would become inexpensive; and transporting food to supermarkets would cost less. Even at the supermarket, lighting, heating and air conditioning, and refrigeration and freezing would all cost far less than now.
So food would become cheap and super abundant. The average citizen would live in a house costing less, pay lower utility and grocery bills, lower fuel bills for his car, lower air fare, and a lower cost for almost every manufactured item. But even that may not be all. If “free” energy devices can be made small in size and sold to individual companies, cities and towns, and even individuals, everyone would become more independent. Power production could be decentralized and less vulnerable to disruption. Individuals and small communities could become at least partly self sufficient and less beholden to the powers that be.
Apparently, the powers that be don’t care much for that idea. The events of the last century clearly show a steady decrease in individual freedom and an increase in the power of governments. The elites have also, in their less guarded moments, repeatedly called for a drastic reduction in the human population, something that could easily be brought about today with engineered famines. But with individuals, families, and small communities largely self sufficient, they would be immune to this and difficult to control. And for the elites, control is everything.Article Copyright© William B Stoecker - reproduced with permission.