Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The energy scam


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1    UM-Bot

UM-Bot

    News, media and articles

  • 6,196 posts
  • Joined:21 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • Beep Boop

Posted 11 December 2008 - 10:31 AM


William B Stoecker: I have written elsewhere of the evidence that the elites have suppressed certain technologies, particularly in the fields of energy and medicine. There is at least some evidence that some inventors have figured out how to trap the so-called "free" or virtual energy that may be inexhaustible and all around us, and that others have invented, for example, more efficient carburetors. There is substantial evidence that "cold" fusion works and may prove economical...but little effort or funding is going into its development. However, there is absolute proof that many promising conventional sources of energy are not being developed because the elites essentially forbid it. And if they have a hidden agenda and are deliberately insuring that we will not produce enough energy in the US to be self sufficient, this makes it all the more likely that they are also suppressing promising technologies.
    
An example of an underdeveloped conventional technology is nuclear fission. Our rulers have made it almost impossible to build new reactors in the US, citing safety concerns and the problem of nuclear waste. Yet the French produce almost eighty percent of their electric power with fission reactors, and have an excellent safety record. It is true that the Ukranian reactor at Chernobyl suffered a meltdown, but this poorly maintained and operated reactor was of a type not used in the West, and the only deaths were among the workers at the plant; it did not produce the kind of global catastrophe prophecied by the fear mongers. The problem at the Three Mile Island reactor in Pennsylvania is often cited as evidence of the inherent dangers of nuclear power, but not one person died as a result of this incident; there was no spike in cancer or leukemia cases even directly downwind; no area was contaminated; and the design flaw that caused the problem was immediately corrected in all other US reactors. As for the nuclear storage problem, this has actually been caused, not prevented, by the "environmentalists." They have prevented the storage of waste in safe underground sites in desert areas, and, as a result, the wastes are kept on site near populated areas. In addition, reprocessing would both eliminate almost all of the waste and, at the same time, allow us to make more efficient use of the fuel...but the same "environmentalists" have forbidden reprocessing.
    
Uranium occurs in several isotopes, varieties having in each atom the same number of electrons and protons, and, hence, the same chemical characteristics, but varying numbers of neutrons in the nuclei. The most common is U238, with a tiny amount of U235, and miniscule quantities of other isotopes. Natural uranium, mostly U238, cannot sustain a rapid enough fission reaction to produce power efficiently, because, when U238 fissions, it does not release any neutrons to sustain the reaction. But a U235 atom, when it fissions, releases two neutrons and can sustain a fission chain reaction. So natural uranium is enriched, producing uranium with a higher proportion of U235, and depleted uranium with almost none (this is used in tank ammunition because of its density). The enriched uranium is used in reactors. The U235 fissions and releases enough neutrons to fission some of the U238 and convert some of it into plutonium (Pu239) which also can fission and release neutrons. Using this type of reactor, the US has enough proven uranium reserves to produce all of our electricity, if we so choose, for decades. In addition, little effort has gone into exploration for uranium ore, and it is likely that we have enough to last for centuries.
    
A breeder reactor is designed to produce even more plutonium from the U238, in essence creating more fuel than it "burns." Breeders could supply all of our power for centuries using proven reserves, or, probably, millenia if we got serious about prospecting. In addition, the element thorium, more common than uranium, can be used in breeder reactors using plutonium or enriched uranium to get the process started. The thorium absorbs neutrons and converts into U233, an isotope almost nonexistent in nature, that will sustain a fission chain reaction. A fast breeder reactor can be started with enriched uranium or plutonium and thereafter be replenished with nothing but natural or depleted uranium. A thermal reactor needs only thorium for replenishment, and an integral fast reactor (IFR) system allows reprocessing on the reactor site.
    
We also have substantial undeveloped oil and natural gas reserves, notably new discoveries in North Dakota and Montana, and the reserves in the ANWAR wildlife preserve in Alaska, and the huge reserves off our coasts, particularly the East Coast. But the phony environmentalists have prevented the ANWAR and offshore developments, claiming that caribou herds would be imperiled or that leaks would pollute the oceans. New technologies have made this next to impossible, and our oil development elsewhere on Alaska's North Slope has done no damage whatsoever to the caribou or other animals and plants. Recently, led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed, Congress passed a bill supposedly easing these insane restrictions, but, in reality, the bill was a trick to mollify the electorate, and its provisions are illusory. Basically, it allows drilling for oil everywhere except where there is oil.
    
The same elites have also placed so many restrictions on the construction of oil refineries that none have been built in America for many years, raising the price of gasoline and other distillates and costing American jobs...but pretty much everything the elites do costs jobs...just not their jobs.
    
And there is increasing evidence that we may have vastly more natural gas and petroleum than we have been led to believe. As mentioned, natural gas is mostly methane, a paraffin series hydrocarbon whose formula is CH4 (one carbon and four hydrogen atoms). Other hydrocarbons in this series include ethane (C2H6), propane (C3H8),  and butane (C4H10). Petroleum is made of heavier paraffin series hydrocarbons, like pentane, hexane, heptane, octane, and still heavier ones. The heaviest are tars, solid at room temperature. Gasoline is a mixture of the ones that are light enough to be volatile for easy ignition but heavy enough to be liquid at room temperature, like octane. Oil and natural gas are found in deposits that collect in porous rock with a cap of impervious rock above it, typically in salt domes or anticlines (upward folds of subsurface rock).
    
The conventional theory of fossil fuel formation is that oil and gas are formed by buried organic materials, mostly prehistoric plants, being subjected to heat and pressure deep within the earth. But as far back as the nineteen fifties some Soviet geologists proposed that much of the oil and gas are abiotic in origin, resulting from methane trapped in our planet's upper mantle and lower crust when it was formed by accretion. This idea was later popularized by the Austrian-born American astrophysicist Dr. Thomas Gold (5/22/20-6/22/2004) in his paper "The Deep Hot Biosphere," published in 1992. Organic compounds are undeniable present in petroleum, but he explained these as the result of bacterial action on the abiotic methane.  There is some evidence to support this, for exhausted petroleum and, even more so, methane deposits tend to refill over time, hinting that we have vastly more fossil fuel than had been believed. In addition, helium is found in some gas wells, and this inert element could not be the result of any organic process; it had to have been trapped when the Earth was formed...and if helium could be trapped, why not methane? Both helium and methane are found in volcanic gases, and methane and petroleum are found in deposits that appear to be lower than any sediments containing fossils or other organic compounds. That methane is produced naturally in space and can be trapped in planets is proven by the vast amounts discovered on Saturn's moon Titan.
    
Then there are the methane hydrates, found in Arctic permafrost and in sea floor sediments at depths greater than 300 meters. These are methane molecules trapped in a cage of water molecules, frozen into ice by cold and/or pressure. These deposits are so vast that the carbon alone  is estimated at double all the carbon in all the other known oil, coal, and gas deposits on Earth.

Conventional methane may be trapped beneath the hydrates. The hydrates in a small area directly off the coast of the Carolinas contains methane in an amount seventy times the entire 1989 gas consumption of the US. Obviously, if this resource could be tapped with reasonable economy and safety, it could provide most of our energy. In addition, the amounts are hard to explain by biological processes alone, and are yet more evidence for abiotic origin.
    
Citing the myth of "global warming," the elites are placing ever more restrictions on our use of coal. Space forbids a thorough discussion of the global warming lie. The US has more coal than anyother country, enough to provide all of our energy needs for many decades. There are technologies, such as fluidized bed combustion, that allow it to be burned with almost no hydrocarbon, sulfur, or fly ash emissions. The  only substantial emission is the dreaded Co2, which plants need for photosynthesis. We can even make oil and gasoline from coal, using the long-established Fischer-Tropsch process.
    
And then there are America's vast deposits of oil shales, which actually contain no oil. They contain a substance called kerogen, which can be converted into oil with heat and pressure. This (and the Fischer-Tropsch process) is not cheap, but may become competitive if oil prices rise, or if the technology improves (which our rulers will not allow). If we consider the political costs and dangers of our dependency on foreign oil, and the loss of American jobs, it may be economical now.
    
But our glorious elites assure us that we can produce all of our energy with "green" sources like wind and solar. Solar is good for space and water heating in some parts of our country, and wind power is becoming more competitive and is certainly present in sufficient quanitity. But, unless technology improves, solar power for most applications will continue to be prohibitively expensive. As for wind power, the wind does not always blow in the required range of wind speeds, so extra wind turbines need to be built, and some provision needs to be made for energy storage, which requires energy conversions with attendant waste...and, once more, present technologies are wholly inadequate. Wind, solar, and other "green" technologies will certainly have a role to play, but, particularly in the near future, we need nuclear and fossil fuels.
    
Had we been allowed to develop these domestic resources the terrorist states would have less wealth and power; our balance of trade would be better; and more Americans would have better jobs. And if, as seems likely, the same elites who have prevented this have also suppressed radical new energy technologies, they have done, and continue to do us much harm.

William B Stoecker

This is an official comment thread for a main site news story, article or video.
Please keep comments civil and on topic.
Thank you.

#2    jbondo

jbondo

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 756 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:behind you

Posted 11 December 2008 - 02:06 PM

Who Killed the Electric Car is one of the first widely distributed documentaries that prove suppression by powerful companies. Seems they shot themselves in the foot when the car buying market dried up and now who has to bail them out?

Not only is technology suppressed but our tax dollars support it. We could have been producing and using low cost energy alternatives long ago as well as health breakthroughs but we the people have no control and frankly, the majority of Americans are just too stupid to see what's happening under the surface. A current example of just how blind people are is this Governor of Illinois who was involved with the exact same people as our President Elect, shady, crooked people but while he ends up resigning and possibly going to jail the media continues to conveniently avoid investigating Obama's involvement with these same people. I'm not saying anything as I don't know anything for sure but now you can see how information is kept from the American public and they just go on their oblivious way.

I'm not one to believe a lot of conspiracy theories but I see mounting evidence of suppression. I also know that technology advances need to be introduced slowly so that the transition doesn't put people out of work or crash the economy (which is already crashed) but again, if we would have allowed some of this technology to advance years ago IMO it would have worked out fine. One example is radiation therapy. This barbaric practice has been around for a long time. Isn't it about time that advanced medical technology develop an alternative to eliminate the process of literally burning people from the inside? Is this really the best we can do in the 21st century?

Maybe I'm the crazy one......


#3    solomon azar

solomon azar

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 28 posts
  • Joined:14 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:bethlehem -pa.-USA

  • Time will tell

Posted 11 December 2008 - 02:48 PM

UM-Bot on Dec 11 2008, 10:31 AM, said:

linked-imageWilliam B Stoecker: I have written elsewhere of the evidence that the elites have suppressed certain technologies, particularly in the fields of energy and medicine. There is at least some evidence that some inventors have figured out how to trap the so-called "free" or virtual energy that may be inexhaustible and all around us, and that others have invented, for example, more efficient carburetors. There is substantial evidence that "cold" fusion works and may prove economical...but little effort or funding is going into its development. However, there is absolute proof that many promising conventional sources of energy are not being developed because the elites essentially forbid it. And if they have a hidden agenda and are deliberately insuring that we will not produce enough energy in the US to be self sufficient, this makes it all the more likely that they are also suppressing promising technologies.
    
An example of an underdeveloped conventional technology is nuclear fission. Our rulers have made it almost impossible to build new reactors in the US, citing safety concerns and the problem of nuclear waste. Yet the French produce almost eighty percent of their electric power with fission reactors, and have an excellent safety record. It is true that the Ukranian reactor at Chernobyl suffered a meltdown, but this poorly maintained and operated reactor was of a type not used in the West, and the only deaths were among the workers at the plant; it did not produce the kind of global catastrophe prophecied by the fear mongers. The problem at the Three Mile Island reactor in Pennsylvania is often cited as evidence of the inherent dangers of nuclear power, but not one person died as a result of this incident; there was no spike in cancer or leukemia cases even directly downwind; no area was contaminated; and the design flaw that caused the problem was immediately corrected in all other US reactors. As for the nuclear storage problem, this has actually been caused, not prevented, by the "environmentalists." They have prevented the storage of waste in safe underground sites in desert areas, and, as a result, the wastes are kept on site near populated areas. In addition, reprocessing would both eliminate almost all of the waste and, at the same time, allow us to make more efficient use of the fuel...but the same "environmentalists" have forbidden reprocessing.
    
Uranium occurs in several isotopes, varieties having in each atom the same number of electrons and protons, and, hence, the same chemical characteristics, but varying numbers of neutrons in the nuclei. The most common is U238, with a tiny amount of U235, and miniscule quantities of other isotopes. Natural uranium, mostly U238, cannot sustain a rapid enough fission reaction to produce power efficiently, because, when U238 fissions, it does not release any neutrons to sustain the reaction. But a U235 atom, when it fissions, releases two neutrons and can sustain a fission chain reaction. So natural uranium is enriched, producing uranium with a higher proportion of U235, and depleted uranium with almost none (this is used in tank ammunition because of its density). The enriched uranium is used in reactors. The U235 fissions and releases enough neutrons to fission some of the U238 and convert some of it into plutonium (Pu239) which also can fission and release neutrons. Using this type of reactor, the US has enough proven uranium reserves to produce all of our electricity, if we so choose, for decades. In addition, little effort has gone into exploration for uranium ore, and it is likely that we have enough to last for centuries.
    
A breeder reactor is designed to produce even more plutonium from the U238, in essence creating more fuel than it "burns." Breeders could supply all of our power for centuries using proven reserves, or, probably, millenia if we got serious about prospecting. In addition, the element thorium, more common than uranium, can be used in breeder reactors using plutonium or enriched uranium to get the process started. The thorium absorbs neutrons and converts into U233, an isotope almost nonexistent in nature, that will sustain a fission chain reaction. A fast breeder reactor can be started with enriched uranium or plutonium and thereafter be replenished with nothing but natural or depleted uranium. A thermal reactor needs only thorium for replenishment, and an integral fast reactor (IFR) system allows reprocessing on the reactor site.
    
We also have substantial undeveloped oil and natural gas reserves, notably new discoveries in North Dakota and Montana, and the reserves in the ANWAR wildlife preserve in Alaska, and the huge reserves off our coasts, particularly the East Coast. But the phony environmentalists have prevented the ANWAR and offshore developments, claiming that caribou herds would be imperiled or that leaks would pollute the oceans. New technologies have made this next to impossible, and our oil development elsewhere on Alaska's North Slope has done no damage whatsoever to the caribou or other animals and plants. Recently, led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed, Congress passed a bill supposedly easing these insane restrictions, but, in reality, the bill was a trick to mollify the electorate, and its provisions are illusory. Basically, it allows drilling for oil everywhere except where there is oil.
    
The same elites have also placed so many restrictions on the construction of oil refineries that none have been built in America for many years, raising the price of gasoline and other distillates and costing American jobs...but pretty much everything the elites do costs jobs...just not their jobs.
    
And there is increasing evidence that we may have vastly more natural gas and petroleum than we have been led to believe. As mentioned, natural gas is mostly methane, a paraffin series hydrocarbon whose formula is CH4 (one carbon and four hydrogen atoms). Other hydrocarbons in this series include ethane (C2H6), propane (C3H8),  and butane (C4H10). Petroleum is made of heavier paraffin series hydrocarbons, like pentane, hexane, heptane, octane, and still heavier ones. The heaviest are tars, solid at room temperature. Gasoline is a mixture of the ones that are light enough to be volatile for easy ignition but heavy enough to be liquid at room temperature, like octane. Oil and natural gas are found in deposits that collect in porous rock with a cap of impervious rock above it, typically in salt domes or anticlines (upward folds of subsurface rock).
    
The conventional theory of fossil fuel formation is that oil and gas are formed by buried organic materials, mostly prehistoric plants, being subjected to heat and pressure deep within the earth. But as far back as the nineteen fifties some Soviet geologists proposed that much of the oil and gas are abiotic in origin, resulting from methane trapped in our planet's upper mantle and lower crust when it was formed by accretion. This idea was later popularized by the Austrian-born American astrophysicist Dr. Thomas Gold (5/22/20-6/22/2004) in his paper "The Deep Hot Biosphere," published in 1992. Organic compounds are undeniable present in petroleum, but he explained these as the result of bacterial action on the abiotic methane.  There is some evidence to support this, for exhausted petroleum and, even more so, methane deposits tend to refill over time, hinting that we have vastly more fossil fuel than had been believed. In addition, helium is found in some gas wells, and this inert element could not be the result of any organic process; it had to have been trapped when the Earth was formed...and if helium could be trapped, why not methane? Both helium and methane are found in volcanic gases, and methane and petroleum are found in deposits that appear to be lower than any sediments containing fossils or other organic compounds. That methane is produced naturally in space and can be trapped in planets is proven by the vast amounts discovered on Saturn's moon Titan.
    
Then there are the methane hydrates, found in Arctic permafrost and in sea floor sediments at depths greater than 300 meters. These are methane molecules trapped in a cage of water molecules, frozen into ice by cold and/or pressure. These deposits are so vast that the carbon alone  is estimated at double all the carbon in all the other known oil, coal, and gas deposits on Earth.

Conventional methane may be trapped beneath the hydrates. The hydrates in a small area directly off the coast of the Carolinas contains methane in an amount seventy times the entire 1989 gas consumption of the US. Obviously, if this resource could be tapped with reasonable economy and safety, it could provide most of our energy. In addition, the amounts are hard to explain by biological processes alone, and are yet more evidence for abiotic origin.
    
Citing the myth of "global warming," the elites are placing ever more restrictions on our use of coal. Space forbids a thorough discussion of the global warming lie. The US has more coal than anyother country, enough to provide all of our energy needs for many decades. There are technologies, such as fluidized bed combustion, that allow it to be burned with almost no hydrocarbon, sulfur, or fly ash emissions. The  only substantial emission is the dreaded Co2, which plants need for photosynthesis. We can even make oil and gasoline from coal, using the long-established Fischer-Tropsch process.
    
And then there are America's vast deposits of oil shales, which actually contain no oil. They contain a substance called kerogen, which can be converted into oil with heat and pressure. This (and the Fischer-Tropsch process) is not cheap, but may become competitive if oil prices rise, or if the technology improves (which our rulers will not allow). If we consider the political costs and dangers of our dependency on foreign oil, and the loss of American jobs, it may be economical now.
    
But our glorious elites assure us that we can produce all of our energy with "green" sources like wind and solar. Solar is good for space and water heating in some parts of our country, and wind power is becoming more competitive and is certainly present in sufficient quanitity. But, unless technology improves, solar power for most applications will continue to be prohibitively expensive. As for wind power, the wind does not always blow in the required range of wind speeds, so extra wind turbines need to be built, and some provision needs to be made for energy storage, which requires energy conversions with attendant waste...and, once more, present technologies are wholly inadequate. Wind, solar, and other "green" technologies will certainly have a role to play, but, particularly in the near future, we need nuclear and fossil fuels.
    
Had we been allowed to develop these domestic resources the terrorist states would have less wealth and power; our balance of trade would be better; and more Americans would have better jobs. And if, as seems likely, the same elites who have prevented this have also suppressed radical new energy technologies, they have done, and continue to do us much harm.

William B Stoecker



#4    Leah G.

Leah G.

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,966 posts
  • Joined:03 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 11 December 2008 - 05:03 PM

Not only is technology suppressed but our tax dollars support it. We could have been producing and using low cost energy alternatives long ago as well as health breakthroughs but we the people have no control and frankly, the majority of Americans are just too stupid to see what's happening under the surface. A current example of just how blind people are is this Governor of Illinois who was involved with the exact same people as our President Elect, shady, crooked people but while he ends up resigning and possibly going to jail the media continues to conveniently avoid investigating Obama's involvement with these same people. I'm not saying anything as I don't know anything for sure but now you can see how information is kept from the American public and they just go on their oblivious way.

Generally speaking, Americans aren't stupid, uninformed, under educated, yes. Our government has our trust, they earned it years ago. Since the 1940's, maybe 30's they have made it a practice to lie to the people. It's shameful that they lie, yes, but what is worse is our media now is not doing their jobs. If they were doing their jobs our President Elect would never have gotten as far as he has. People can't go out and investigate everything, they have to work and then go home and take care of all the trouble that their children have gotten in to all day all thanks to everyone being told by the government how to best raise their children. People should take some responsiblity for this mess but not all. It's very disapointing to think about how the media has turned in to propaganda spreaders instead of doing the investigating and reporting the real news. If the media was doing their jobs correctly, we would know more about the alternatives and what happened to them, why they were not used.

I have a few question that you folks with better educations might be able to answer for me.

Isn't there a way to take a little electricity and turn it in to more? Isn't that what they do at power plants? Isn't there a way to do that on a much smaller scale for indivdual homes? Like an electric generator that runs on electric? Makes sense to me. If we were able to just plug in our electric generator and run the rest of our homes on that electricity, wouldn't that help? Granted, it would cut down on the profits for the energy companies but we could save so much in the long run. It so simple.

Is there any connection between earthquakes and untapped oil reserves? In the oil producing places, they have earthquakes but not as many as the non-producing places. Could they be helping the earth stability by draining the oil? Of course, I may be missinformed about this.

As for the global warming thing, Farmer's Almenac forcast global cooling. We have been in a warming phase and now we are cooling down. It makes sense in my little brain. Why haven't the media reported what they said? The Farmer's Almenac has been a trusted resource for many, many years. Are the media just being cows and following the herd? What happened to all the reporters that actually investigate instead of just repeating what they are told? Isn't there anyone out there with an original thought, have we all turned in to cows?


#5    jbondo

jbondo

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 756 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:behind you

Posted 11 December 2008 - 08:47 PM

Hatch on Dec 11 2008, 12:03 PM, said:

Not only is technology suppressed but our tax dollars support it. We could have been producing and using low cost energy alternatives long ago as well as health breakthroughs but we the people have no control and frankly, the majority of Americans are just too stupid to see what's happening under the surface. A current example of just how blind people are is this Governor of Illinois who was involved with the exact same people as our President Elect, shady, crooked people but while he ends up resigning and possibly going to jail the media continues to conveniently avoid investigating Obama's involvement with these same people. I'm not saying anything as I don't know anything for sure but now you can see how information is kept from the American public and they just go on their oblivious way.

Generally speaking, Americans aren't stupid, uninformed, under educated, yes. Our government has our trust, they earned it years ago. Since the 1940's, maybe 30's they have made it a practice to lie to the people. It's shameful that they lie, yes, but what is worse is our media now is not doing their jobs. If they were doing their jobs our President Elect would never have gotten as far as he has. People can't go out and investigate everything, they have to work and then go home and take care of all the trouble that their children have gotten in to all day all thanks to everyone being told by the government how to best raise their children. People should take some responsiblity for this mess but not all. It's very disapointing to think about how the media has turned in to propaganda spreaders instead of doing the investigating and reporting the real news. If the media was doing their jobs correctly, we would know more about the alternatives and what happened to them, why they were not used.

I have a few question that you folks with better educations might be able to answer for me.

Isn't there a way to take a little electricity and turn it in to more? Isn't that what they do at power plants? Isn't there a way to do that on a much smaller scale for indivdual homes? Like an electric generator that runs on electric? Makes sense to me. If we were able to just plug in our electric generator and run the rest of our homes on that electricity, wouldn't that help? Granted, it would cut down on the profits for the energy companies but we could save so much in the long run. It so simple.

Is there any connection between earthquakes and untapped oil reserves? In the oil producing places, they have earthquakes but not as many as the non-producing places. Could they be helping the earth stability by draining the oil? Of course, I may be missinformed about this.

As for the global warming thing, Farmer's Almenac forcast global cooling. We have been in a warming phase and now we are cooling down. It makes sense in my little brain. Why haven't the media reported what they said? The Farmer's Almenac has been a trusted resource for many, many years. Are the media just being cows and following the herd? What happened to all the reporters that actually investigate instead of just repeating what they are told? Isn't there anyone out there with an original thought, have we all turned in to cows?


I agree with a lot of what you say and maybe I was a bit harsh but people do tend to just follow en mass obliviously. Ever heard of Oprah? I don't want to argue with you over this though and certainly wasn't trying to offend anyone here.

What you propose is to use electric energy to generate more electric energy without any other source. You want an electricity amplifier which as far as I know is not possible. You may want to check into Photo-diode Amplifiers which turn light into electricity. However, IMO it would be more feasible to make home appliances, etc...as energy efficient as possible. Energy star is one example of this as well as LED technology and I'm sure things could be made so much more efficient in the future as well. One technology that's not to well known about is powering things without cords. The electricity literally travels thru the air to the appliance. The trick is to figure out a safe and effective way to do this on a large scale. Imagine not having things plugged in when not in use. This would stop electricity from just draining and save a fortune in the process. Plus you would never have to remember to pull plugs. I imagine geothermal setups could be made in sizes for individual homes but it would only help if you were too far away from a utility source.

As for earthquakes, typically they happen at and near fault lines via tectonic plates. Furthermore, once oil is removed it is usually replaced by ground water as far as I know. Hope this helps.


#6    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,015 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 11 December 2008 - 10:01 PM

UM-Bot on Dec 11 2008, 02:31 AM, said:

William B Stoecker: I have written elsewhere of the evidence that the elites have suppressed certain technologies, particularly in the fields of energy and medicine. There is at least some evidence that some inventors have figured out how to trap the so-called "free" or virtual energy that may be inexhaustible and all around us,


Nope, sorry. Not a single thread of evidence.

Quote

and that others have invented, for example, more efficient carburetors.


So, we also invent more and more efficient light bulbs.

Quote

There is substantial evidence that "cold" fusion works and may prove economical


Absolutely not. This is pure nonsense. Plain out wrong. In all the "cold fusion" experiments performed there is actually evidence that cold fusion did not happen, as the expected by-products are not present.

Quote

...but little effort or funding is going into its development.


Because there is no evidence whatsoever for that it works, rather the opposite.

Quote

However, there is absolute proof that many promising conventional sources of energy are not being developed because the elites essentially forbid it. And if they have a hidden agenda and are deliberately insuring that we will not produce enough energy in the US to be self sufficient, this makes it all the more likely that they are also suppressing promising technologies.


Good grief, what a pathetic conjecture with no sense of reality. And no evidence. Money rules, and new means for energy production would be a huge cash cow. That is the only rules that applies.

QUOTE
An example of an underdeveloped conventional technology is nuclear fission. Our rulers have made it almost impossible to build new reactors in the US, citing safety concerns and the problem of nuclear waste.


No, nuclear reactors are vastly more expensive than coal/oil power plants. And coal and oil has always been cheap in the US, compared to Europe.

QUOTE
Yet the French produce almost eighty percent of their electric power with fission reactors, and have an excellent safety record.


Yes. See above for prices.

QUOTE
It is true that the Ukranian reactor at Chernobyl suffered a meltdown, but this poorly maintained and operated reactor was of a type not used in the West, and the only deaths were among the workers at the plant; it did not produce the kind of global catastrophe prophecied by the fear mongers. The problem at the Three Mile Island reactor in Pennsylvania is often cited as evidence of the inherent dangers of nuclear power, but not one person died as a result of this incident; there was no spike in cancer or leukemia cases even directly downwind; no area was contaminated; and the design flaw that caused the problem was immediately corrected in all other US reactors. As for the nuclear storage problem, this has actually been caused, not prevented, by the "environmentalists." They have prevented the storage of waste in safe underground sites in desert areas, and, as a result, the wastes are kept on site near populated areas. In addition, reprocessing would both eliminate almost all of the waste and, at the same time, allow us to make more efficient use of the fuel...but the same "environmentalists" have forbidden reprocessing.


So?! Again, money rules. Period.

QUOTE
Uranium occurs in several isotopes, varieties having in each atom the same number of electrons and protons, and, hence, the same chemical characteristics, but varying numbers of neutrons in the nuclei. The most common is U238, with a tiny amount of U235, and miniscule quantities of other isotopes. Natural uranium, mostly U238, cannot sustain a rapid enough fission reaction to produce power efficiently, because, when U238 fissions, it does not release any neutrons to sustain the reaction. But a U235 atom, when it fissions, releases two neutrons and can sustain a fission chain reaction. So natural uranium is enriched, producing uranium with a higher proportion of U235, and depleted uranium with almost none (this is used in tank ammunition because of its density). The enriched uranium is used in reactors. The U235 fissions and releases enough neutrons to fission some of the U238 and convert some of it into plutonium (Pu239) which also can fission and release neutrons. Using this type of reactor, the US has enough proven uranium reserves to produce all of our electricity, if we so choose, for decades. In addition, little effort has gone into exploration for uranium ore, and it is likely that we have enough to last for centuries.


Yes. And?!

QUOTE
A breeder reactor is designed to produce even more plutonium from the U238, in essence creating more fuel than it "burns." Breeders could supply all of our power for centuries using proven reserves, or, probably, millenia if we got serious about prospecting. In addition, the element thorium, more common than uranium, can be used in breeder reactors using plutonium or enriched uranium to get the process started. The thorium absorbs neutrons and converts into U233, an isotope almost nonexistent in nature, that will sustain a fission chain reaction. A fast breeder reactor can be started with enriched uranium or plutonium and thereafter be replenished with nothing but natural or depleted uranium. A thermal reactor needs only thorium for replenishment, and an integral fast reactor (IFR) system allows reprocessing on the reactor site.


Again, and so what?!

Continued in the next post.

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

#7    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,015 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 11 December 2008 - 10:02 PM

Continued from previous post.

Quote

We also have substantial undeveloped oil and natural gas  reserves, notably new discoveries in North Dakota and Montana, and the  reserves in the ANWAR wildlife preserve in Alaska, and the huge  reserves off our coasts, particularly the East Coast. But the phony  environmentalists have prevented the ANWAR and offshore developments,  claiming that caribou herds would be imperiled or that leaks would  pollute the oceans. New technologies have made this next to impossible,  and our oil development elsewhere on Alaska's North Slope has done no  damage whatsoever to the caribou or other animals and plants. Recently,  led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed, Congress passed a bill supposedly  easing these insane restrictions, but, in reality, the bill was a trick  to mollify the electorate, and its provisions are illusory. Basically,  it allows drilling for oil everywhere except where there is oil.


OK. Relevance?!

Quote

The  same elites have also placed so many restrictions on the construction  of oil refineries that none have been built in America for many years,  raising the price of gasoline and other distillates and costing  American jobs...but pretty much everything the elites do costs  jobs...just not their jobs.


Good Lord. Do you ever do any research at all?!?! Lets see what is said about that (Link):

Quote

The  Bush administration and some members of Congress blame environmental  rules for causing strains on refining capacity, prompting shortages and  driving up prices. But in reality, it is uncompetitive actions by a  handful of companies with large control over our nation's gas markets  that is directly causing these high prices.

    Myth 1: Oil  refineries are not being built in the U.S. because environmental  regulations, particularly the Clean Air Act, are so bureaucratic and  burdensome that refiners cannot get permits.

    Fact: Environmental regulations are not preventing new refineries from being built in the U.S. From  1975 to 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received  only one permit request for a new refinery. And in March, EPA approved  Arizona Clean Fuels' application for an air permit for a proposed  refinery in Arizona.  In addition, oil companies are regularly applying  for and receiving permits to modify and expand their existing  refineries.



So, again, it is a cost benefit analysis that determines it, i.e. money again.




Quote

And  there is increasing evidence that we may have vastly more natural gas  and petroleum than we have been led to believe. As mentioned, natural  gas is mostly methane, a paraffin series hydrocarbon whose formula is  CH4 (one carbon and four hydrogen atoms). Other hydrocarbons in this  series include ethane (C2H6), propane (C3H8), and butane (C4H10).  Petroleum is made of heavier paraffin series hydrocarbons, like  pentane, hexane, heptane, octane, and still heavier ones. The heaviest  are tars, solid at room temperature. Gasoline is a mixture of the ones  that are light enough to be volatile for easy ignition but heavy enough  to be liquid at room temperature, like octane. Oil and natural gas are  found in deposits that collect in porous rock with a cap of impervious  rock above it, typically in salt domes or anticlines (upward folds of  subsurface rock).


     So?!

Quote

The  conventional theory of fossil fuel formation is that oil and gas are  formed by buried organic materials, mostly prehistoric plants, being  subjected to heat and pressure deep within the earth. But as far back  as the nineteen fifties some Soviet geologists proposed that much of  the oil and gas are abiotic in origin, resulting from methane trapped  in our planet's upper mantle and lower crust when it was formed by  accretion. This idea was later popularized by the Austrian-born  American astrophysicist Dr. Thomas Gold (5/22/20-6/22/2004) in his  paper "The Deep Hot Biosphere," published in 1992. Organic compounds  are undeniable present in petroleum, but he explained these as the  result of bacterial action on the abiotic methane. There is some  evidence to support this, for exhausted petroleum and, even more so,  methane deposits tend to refill over time, hinting that we have vastly  more fossil fuel than had been believed. In addition, helium is found  in some gas wells, and this inert element could not be the result of  any organic process; it had to have been trapped when the Earth was  formed...and if helium could be trapped, why not methane? Both helium  and methane are found in volcanic gases, and methane and petroleum are  found in deposits that appear to be lower than any sediments containing  fossils or other organic compounds. That methane is produced naturally  in space and can be trapped in planets is proven by the vast amounts  discovered on Saturn's moon Titan.


       Again, relevance?!

QUOTE
Then  there are the methane hydrates, found in Arctic permafrost and in sea  floor sediments at depths greater than 300 meters. These are methane  molecules trapped in a cage of water molecules, frozen into ice by cold  and/or pressure. These deposits are so vast that the carbon alone is  estimated at double all the carbon in all the other known oil, coal,  and gas deposits on Earth.

Conventional methane may be trapped  beneath the hydrates. The hydrates in a small area directly off the  coast of the Carolinas contains methane in an amount seventy times the  entire 1989 gas consumption of the US. Obviously, if this resource  could be tapped with reasonable economy and safety, it could provide  most of our energy. In addition, the amounts are hard to explain by  biological processes alone, and are yet more evidence for abiotic  origin.


Really?! You really need some substantiation.

QUOTE
Citing  the myth of "global warming," the elites are placing ever more  restrictions on our use of coal. Space forbids a thorough discussion of  the global warming lie. The US has more coal than anyother country,  enough to provide all of our energy needs for many decades. There are  technologies, such as fluidized bed combustion, that allow it to be  burned with almost no hydrocarbon, sulfur, or fly ash emissions. The  only substantial emission is the dreaded Co2, which plants need for  photosynthesis. We can even make oil and gasoline from coal, using the  long-established Fischer-Tropsch process.


Again, cost benefit.


QUOTE
And  then there are America's vast deposits of oil shales, which actually  contain no oil. They contain a substance called kerogen, which can be  converted into oil with heat and pressure. This (and the  Fischer-Tropsch process) is not cheap, but may become competitive if  oil prices rise, or if the technology improves (which our rulers will  not allow). If we consider the political costs and dangers of our  dependency on foreign oil, and the loss of American jobs, it may be  economical now.


You and your rulers. Money is the ruler. Period.

QUOTE
But  our glorious elites assure us that we can produce all of our energy  with "green" sources like wind and solar. Solar is good for space and  water heating in some parts of our country, and wind power is becoming  more competitive and is certainly present in sufficient quanitity. But,  unless technology improves, solar power for most applications will  continue to be prohibitively expensive. As for wind power, the wind  does not always blow in the required range of wind speeds, so extra  wind turbines need to be built, and some provision needs to be made for  energy storage, which requires energy conversions with attendant  waste...and, once more, present technologies are wholly inadequate.  Wind, solar, and other "green" technologies will certainly have a role  to play, but, particularly in the near future, we need nuclear and  fossil fuels.


Yes, we need nuclear and fossil fuels. Is there any news in that?!

QUOTE
Had  we been allowed to develop these domestic resources the terrorist  states would have less wealth and power; our balance of trade would be  better; and more Americans would have better jobs. And if, as seems  likely, the same elites who have prevented this have also suppressed  radical new energy technologies, they have done, and continue to do us  much harm.


Allowed to develop?! wacko.gif  They were not developed because oil and coal were cheap fuel sources.  Only when the price on oil and coal increased significantly did the  energy supply companies start a serious, coordinated effort of making  it energy efficient.

You start out with a premises that is not  only unfounded, but also completely wrong, do not know the energy  regulations governing the area and thus end up with a plain wrong  conclusion. If any of my students presented such shoddy work, they  would be in serious trouble.

wacko.gif

Cheers,
Badeskov

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

#8    Graylady

Graylady

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 906 posts
  • Joined:27 Jul 2004
  • Location:North Carolina

Posted 11 December 2008 - 10:07 PM

Elite Controls GOD...Period...

Why US will not get AIR CAR? ITS FREE...

Of course FIRST the Billion of Dollars MUST be spend on FAKE WARS and HIGH TECH WEAPONS..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm8RCww3cUY


No Country in this world wants to F*(K with US because it has always been their way first...

---

Why ROCKEFELLER didn't accept HENRY FORD's Made with HEMP Car???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIRWs0Ep2-o

---


Aaaaah the famous line "WHO GIVES A ****"...

Edited by Graylady, 11 December 2008 - 10:12 PM.

.....Three Possible Events in 2009.....

1. NASA Whistle Blowers 2. Israel Attack Iran 3. Dollar Collapse
  


#9    Leah G.

Leah G.

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,966 posts
  • Joined:03 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 11 December 2008 - 10:09 PM

That helps a great deal, thank you.

I'm not an engineer but the way I understand a gas powered generator is the gas causes combustion creating energy. Now if you took and electrical source to generate friction as in a motor with rotors and stators couldn't that be turned in to bigger energy? Maybe I'm just not understanding why it won't work and I can't find a reason it won't work on the internet and I can't find where anyone has done it. Just like I can't understand why solar power and wind power can't be designed to work together. If the fan isn't turning but the sun is out, why can't they generate power from either in a single set up with a automatic cut off switch, completely automated.

Didn't Tesler try to build a generator like that, the Tesler beam? I probably didn't spell his name right, sorry. That sounds scary but so does nuclear power.

Thank you for your kind words of wisdom.

BTW, you didn't offend me, I don't consider myself stupid or a cow, just not as educated as most of the people on this fourm.


#10    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,015 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 11 December 2008 - 10:40 PM

Graylady on Dec 11 2008, 03:07 PM, said:

Elite Controls GOD...Period...


Eh, ok.

Quote

Why US will not get AIR CAR? ITS FREE...


Because it doesn't exists. The energy density in air is simply too small to propel a car unless you put a huge sail on it.

Quote

Of course FIRST the Billion of Dollars MUST be spend on FAKE WARS and HIGH TECH WEAPONS..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm8RCww3cUY


Of course rolleyes.gif

Quote

No Country in this world wants to F*(K with US because it has always been their way first...


The US is a superpower. Maybe that's why.

Quote

Why ROCKEFELLER didn't accept HENRY FORD's Made with HEMP Car???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIRWs0Ep2-o


So?!

Cheers,
Badeskov

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

#11    SQLserver

SQLserver

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,199 posts
  • Joined:18 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity"

Posted 11 December 2008 - 10:57 PM

Quote

William B Stoecker: I have written elsewhere of the evidence that the elites have suppressed certain technologies, particularly in the fields of energy and medicine.

Ah yes! It is all part of the Elitist conspiracy!

Quote

There is at least some evidence that some inventors have figured out how to trap the so-called "free" or virtual energy that may be inexhaustible and all around us, and that others have invented, for example, more efficient carburetors. There is substantial evidence that "cold" fusion works and may prove economical...but little effort or funding is going into its development.

Huh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#History
http://www.ncas.org/erab/
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/ColdFusion/index.html
http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/USNavy.htm
http://web.pdx.edu/~pdx00210/

Research has been done in Cold Fusion. The fact of the matter is, Scientists just don't believe it to be a reachable goal within the next few decades.

Quote

An example of an underdeveloped conventional technology is nuclear fission.

Possibly because nuclear plants create hazardous waste, and are prone to enormous accidents?

Quote

They have prevented the storage of waste in safe underground sites in desert areas, and, as a result, the wastes are kept on site near populated areas.

If the energy crisis should have taught you anything, it is that the world has expendable land and resources. You can only keep hiding stuff for so long.


Quote

We also have substantial undeveloped oil and natural gas reserves, notably new discoveries in North Dakota and Montana, and the reserves in the ANWAR wildlife preserve in Alaska, and the huge reserves off our coasts, particularly the East Coast. But the phony environmentalists have prevented the ANWAR and offshore developments, claiming that caribou herds would be imperiled or that leaks would pollute the oceans.

NEWS FLASH: PROLONGING THE PROBLEM WILL NOT FIX IT.

QUOTE
Citing the myth of "global warming," the elites are placing ever more restrictions on our use of coal.

LOL, this guy's a nut.


QUOTE
But our glorious elites assure us that we can produce all of our energy with "green" sources like wind and solar. Solar is good for space and water heating in some parts of our country, and wind power is becoming more competitive and is certainly present in sufficient quanitity. But, unless technology improves, solar power for most applications will continue to be prohibitively expensive.


Important:
The bolded sentence is this guy's entire motive and argument.
He doesn't want to loose his precious money. He wants to take the quick and easy way out.
Another news flash:
If the government dedicated 1/100 of the money that has gone into the Iraq war, we would be able to setup enough solar, wind, and water plants to power all of America.

It is that simple. However, our government continues to not get its priorities straight.

Cheers,
SQLserver


#12    Oen Anderson

Oen Anderson

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Montana

  • We are all individuals and we are all special in our own unique way which really makes us quite ordinary!

Posted 12 December 2008 - 04:41 AM

Enough wind blows through Montana every day to power every house in America twice.  Yet when a company wanted to build a 400 turbine wind farm near Glassco it was shut down by environmentalists of all things for Gods sake.  I thought the environmentalists liked wind power!  No, it would uglyfi the area they said.  Have they seen the area for real.  It is a barren wind swept prarrie!  Supression-yes.  
As for Fischer-Tropsch, the Governor of Montana had a company ready to build a huge plant in Montana to make fuel from coal on the cheap, (about a buck a gallon for deisel) but the Federal Government wants to put a stupid carbon tax (thanks to that stupid **** Al Gore who owns the carbon tax credit companies) so the plant was never built.  Two examples I am keenly aware of that cost good paying jobs and keeps us less energy efficient.  Suppression-yes I see it.
Nuclear power is subsidized by the Federal Government or they couldn't make energy to compete with anything.  If the Government put the same effort into wind power alone it could fix the problem in one year.  The car companies that are in trouble should retool to make wind turbins.  No lost jobs and they could turn a fine profit.


#13    Lt_Ripley

Lt_Ripley

    Forum Divinity

  • Banned
  • 20,036 posts
  • Joined:09 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female

Posted 12 December 2008 - 01:01 PM

QUOTE (UM-Bot @ Dec 11 2008, 02:31 AM) *
William B Stoecker: I have written elsewhere of the evidence that the elites have suppressed certain technologies, particularly in the fields of energy and medicine. There is at least some evidence that some inventors have figured out how to trap the so-called "free" or virtual energy that may be inexhaustible and all around us,


Nope, sorry. Not a single thread of evidence.


____________

actually when under Carter when alternative energy policies  were introduced into Congress big oil ran a stink and republicans voted it down. Carter put a solar panel on the WH and as soon as Reagan was president he had it removed.

so it isn't impossible , but more probable that the  elite wealthy captains of industry that make their money off oil don't want the boat rocked . In 2004 when Bush was running again he came to Michigan. Alternative fuel and energy was top of the list here so he congratulated research being done here on it not realizing he had cut funding for it . It was reinstated the next day.

ps - clean coal does not burn clean.

Edited by Lt_Ripley, 12 December 2008 - 01:02 PM.


#14    Lt_Ripley

Lt_Ripley

    Forum Divinity

  • Banned
  • 20,036 posts
  • Joined:09 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female

Posted 12 December 2008 - 01:18 PM

Oen Anderson on Dec 11 2008, 11:41 PM, said:

Enough wind blows through Montana every day to power every house in America twice.  Yet when a company wanted to build a 400 turbine wind farm near Glassco it was shut down by environmentalists of all things for Gods sake.  I thought the environmentalists liked wind power!  No, it would uglyfi the area they said.  Have they seen the area for real.  It is a barren wind swept prarrie!  Supression-yes.  
As for Fischer-Tropsch, the Governor of Montana had a company ready to build a huge plant in Montana to make fuel from coal on the cheap, (about a buck a gallon for deisel) but the Federal Government wants to put a stupid carbon tax (thanks to that stupid **** Al Gore who owns the carbon tax credit companies) so the plant was never built.  Two examples I am keenly aware of that cost good paying jobs and keeps us less energy efficient.  Suppression-yes I see it.
Nuclear power is subsidized by the Federal Government or they couldn't make energy to compete with anything.  If the Government put the same effort into wind power alone it could fix the problem in one year.  The car companies that are in trouble should retool to make wind turbins.  No lost jobs and they could turn a fine profit.



it was a 500 mega watt farm with 400 foot towers on 20,000 acres, costing a half billion on government controlled  land . now it's down to 50 mega watts on private and state land and a 60 million dollar project.

coal never burns clean. ever. it's just giving up one pollutant for another cheaper one. but what do we care right ? who cares what shape we leave things in for our kids and grandkids ? so long as we get cheap fuel.

Nuclear power ? sure . McCain wants them built too. I think all those who want them should be made to live next door to them too.

Car companies should be making electric cars. period. phase out oil driven . Invest in better public transportation.




#15    AntoniCanada

AntoniCanada

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 50 posts
  • Joined:29 Jul 2006

Posted 12 December 2008 - 02:38 PM

The elite supression bothered me for years, shame on them-how dare they, and shame on  us for worshipping them!
We should divorce the Banks citing cruel and unusual abuse including forced sodomy.

No means NO more!!!  ;0





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users