"I still, from time to time, look for alternative and free energy. There is much evidence of suppressing inventions that can reduce dangers to our
planet or create/conserve energy."
I haven't seen any evidence of suppressing
technology; indeed, I have first-hand experience of how the oil companies do their best to
it (although for their own benefit, of course)
In the late '80s, when I was working for Motorola, I applied for and got a job working for the Systems Engineering Group at Solavolt International, a
photovoltaics (PV) engineering and manufacturing house in Phoenix. Solavolt was a joint venture between Motorola (which had the electronics process
engineers) and Shell Oil
(which had deep pockets).
Shell didn't know if PV were to be a viable energy source or not, but it knew that it wanted to be in the energy business in the 21st century
regardless of how they made energy, so they sunk a boatload of money into Solavolt. If you're familiar with alternate energy, you'll probably
remember that two other big players in the PV market back then were Mobil Solar and Arco Solar.
Again, the same reason -- the oil companies knew they couldn't surpress a new technology, so they tried to deal themselves in!
Now as it turned out, the PV boom of the '70s and '80's was based on three bogus facts
PV production cost per watt was high, but with the breakthroughs we knew were coming, would soon below $1/watt.
Gas prices were low now (1985) but by 1990 or 1995, they'd be at $3-4/gallon.
the Federal tax credits generated by PURPA would last forever
Well, the cost of PV didn't
go down, the price of gas didn't didn't
rise that fast, and the tax credits went away
. As a
result, the energy companies realized that PV was throwing good money after bad, and they all pulled out, taking a big loss, but cutting a bigger one.
It was a sound business decision on their part.
And PV, although I love the technology dearly, is still
a cost effective solution for large-scale generation of electricity.
But my point is that the oil companies simply don't have the power you might think they do. Brazil, China, Japan, and India have to import almost
all their oil, and they all have brilliant scientists, engineers, and technologists. You don't think that, if there really were an alternative to
the hydrocarbon economy, one of those countries wouldn't have developed a cost-effective replacement by now?
"First, a very extensive writing from a man who almost made history, but corporate greed stood in the way. Amoung the best writings I've read in
a while: www.ahealedplanet.net... First, a very extensive writing from a man who almost made history, but corporate greed stood in the
way. Amoung the best writings I've read in a while: www.ahealedplanet.net..."
I read the site and didn't see any evidence for workable alternative energy at all. Would you care to point us to a particular technology?
"Second, some pretty nice experiments and project with real photographs. Some of the items found here I am going to try.
I didn't see anything there that was a workable and cost-effective alternative energy source. The very first page, the author bemoans the fact that
he doesn't have enough money to do any sort of research and development; but if his designs or concepts are workable and cost-effective, why aren't
all the Third World and non-oil-producing countries jumping on the bandwagon?
"Many might say that free energy is not possible. I'm sorry, but I think there is something that works. I just hope I can find one that 1) works
and can be built by anyone..."
Maybe there is something that works, but I haven't seen any evidence for it, and neither has anyone else I've spoken with.
"...and 2) won't get me killed."
It probably won't get you killed unless you short out a high-current circuit.
"Many might doubt that these are really happening, but why have we not seen the 200 MPG carburetor on our vehicles still to this day?"
Because it doesn't exist, and never did. Besides, we don't use carburetors any more; the latest thing is computer-controlled common-rail diesel
fuel injection, coupled with NiMH batteries and electric motors.
Godservant, I certainly share your frustration with the state of energy technology today. We are poisoning ourselves -- and quite possibly the Earth
itself -- by burning hydrocarbons, and the money that we pay those thugs for oil is funnelled to the hands of islamofacist terrorists and other thugs,
which drives up our defense costs, and ruins our economy and standing in the world.
And we should be looking at all possible sources of alternatives to burning hydrocarbons, whether it's nuclear power, PV, hydro, wind turbines, tidal
bore turbines, or even stirling-cycle engines working off the temperature delta in the ocean.
Just as importantly, we should be embarking on a Manhattan- Projet-scale effort to conserve our existing stocke and maximize the effectiveness of
domestic oil production.
But looking for conspiracies where none exist, and talking about energy sources for which there is no evidence, is detracting us from the very real
task of developing and sustaining a common-sense energy strategy for the future of our planet.