“Outside-the-Box” Technologies, Their Critical
Role Concerning Environmental Trends, and the Unnecessary Energy Crisis
A
Compilation of
Briefing Papers Prepared
For:
The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Background:
The
briefing was requested by Senator Smith (R-NH and Chair of the EPW) and Mr.
David Conover (Chief of Staff-EPW) because of the need to look at energy and
technology issues over times scales of
5-20 years. The briefing was organized
by Dr. Theodore Loder and was held on Oct. 18, 2000 in the Senate Dirksen
Building, Washington, DC.
Further information may be
obtained from:
Dr. Theodore C. Loder III
Institute for the Study of
Earth, Oceans, and Space
University of new Hampshire
Durham, NH
03824
ted.loder@unh.edu
603-862-3151
Background to the Briefing
The Issues:
Our present methods for solving current environmental
problems are only partially working, because they attempt to solve the result
of a problem and not get to the root causes of why a particular problem has
occurred. Most of our problems stem
from energy issues and our tremendous dependence upon fossil fuels, especially
in the transportation and power generation sectors. In addition, increasing populations worldwide and the desires of
second and third world countries to obtain what we in the US take for granted
spells increasing worldwide environmental problems coupled with significantly
increased oil/gas prices. In
summary, the risks associated with our present course are ever-increased
environmental degradation coupled with a significant long lasting economic
downturn, recession or depression.
As a world community, we must realize that we will need the
last remaining decades of fossil fuels to create and integrate new energy
sources without losing the momentum of our developing world society. In 10-20 years from now, we have to be at
a point in our global development where we are no longer dependant on fossil
fuels for our energy generation and we want to arrive there by a route that
does not create global environmental and economic chaos.
The purpose of this
briefing was to show that:
1. We have
growing environmental problems that will have major economic impacts.
2. There are
technologies, presently being repressed, that are real and could replace the
present fossil fuel usage with the appropriate investment in research necessary
to bring them on line.
3. There are
scientists ready to testify at a Senate hearing on the realities of these
issues.
4. The need to
move ahead is very urgent because the time necessary to implement the use of
these technologies may take the better part of this decade and neither the
environment nor the economics of fossil fuels can wait any longer.
The goal is not to push any specific type of technology that
will “save the world”, but to convince those attending that there is a whole
set of new technologies that are waiting in the wings which will change the way
we live on this planet for the better.
The Briefing
presenters and topics covered included the following:
Dr. Theodore Loder, Convener and
overview of the issues and urgency
Dr.
Steven Greer, Implications of the implementation of non-polluting free-energy
devices
Mr. Thomas Valone, Present energy
issues, energy devices and patent office issues
Dr. Paul LaViolette, Physics
reassessment and anti-gravity research
Dr. Scott Chubb, Cold fusion,
scientific responsibility
Dr. Eugene Mallove, Cold fusion,
scientific response and patent office issues
Dr.
Thomas Bearden, Physics reassessment, the world energy crisis, and “free energy
device” technology
Table of
Contents
The Briefing
Papers:
“Comparative Risk Issues”
Regarding Present and Future Environmental Trends –
Why We Need to
be Looking Ahead Now! by Dr. T. Loder *
………..……… 3
New Energy Solutions and Implications for the
National Security and the Environment:
A Brief Overview for
the US Senate by Dr. S.
Greer……………………….… 8
The Right Time to Develop Future Energy
Technologies
by Dr. T. Valone …………………………………………..…………….…...… 12
Future Energy Technologies
by Dr. T. Valone ……………………………………………………………..… 17
Moving Beyond the First Law and Advanced Field
Propulsion Technologies
by P. LaViolette ………………………………………………………………… 24
Accountability and Risk in the Information Era: Lessons Drawn from the
“Cold Fusion” "Furor" by Dr. S. Chubb ………………….………….…..… 29
The Strange Birth of the Water
Fuel Age: the Cold Fusion “miracle” was
no Mistake
By Dr. E. Mallove ………………………………………………………… 31
by Dr. T.
Bearden, LTC, U.S. Army (Retired)……………………………….…. 32
* A short
biography for each author follows each paper.
“Comparative
Risk Issues” Regarding Present and Future
Environmental
Trends –
Why We Need to
be Looking Ahead Now!
Prepared for:
Senator Bob Smith and Aby Mohseni, Senate Committee on the Environment
and Public Works, revised 10/6/00
Prepared by: Dr.
Theodore Loder, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space, UNH, Durham, NH 03824 ted.loder@unh.edu 603-862-3151
Introduction:
Fundamentally, our present methods for solving current
environmental problems are only partially working, because for the most part
they attempt to solve the result of a problem and not get to the root causes of
why we have a particular problem in the first place. It is somewhat akin to mopping the floor to fix a leaky
roof. Most of our problems stem from
energy issues and our tremendous dependence upon fossil fuels, especially in
the transportation and power generation sectors. For example, the acid rain problem, unhealthy urban atmospheres,
and global warming all arise from this fossil fuel dependence. The present MTBE crisis affecting our water
supplies is the result of a well-intentioned attempt to reduce air pollution in
gasoline engines. Each of these issues
will continue to have a greater and greater economic impact on our country
through increased cleanup and health costs.
Why our present course is inadequate –An
example from the
automotive sector
A simple analysis of numbers from the automotive sector
tells us why we will continue to have problems (both in the US and world wide)
and why small percentage increases in fuel efficiency will have little real
effect in the long run. Increasing
populations worldwide and the desires of second and third world countries to
have what we in the US take for granted spells continuously increasing
environmental problems. For example, by
the late 1990’s there were about 500 million cars world wide with an annual
production of a little less than 40 million.
At the present rate of growth, there will be about 1 billion vehicles
worldwide by the year 2025. Presently
there is about one car per 12 people on a global basis and about 1 car per 1.3
people in the US. Why is this a
long-range problem?
As the result of increased global wealth and desire for
automobiles world wide, no matter what we do to improve efficiency, increases
in carbon dioxide from this source will continue with its attendant global
warming (1), etc. Hybrid automobiles
could help, but we must look at a second set of numbers from the US to
understand impacts. There are over 200
million automobiles in the US and we manufacture approximately 20 million per
year. Because of the “replacement lag,”
it would take 10-15 years to replace existing cars, especially since some
production goes towards increasing the pool.
Furthermore, there is a phase–in period for any new technology, the time
needed to go from development to manufacturing to sales. This will add years to the replacement
cycle. Thus even if we start today,
implementation of a totally non-polluting technology useful for transportation
would take the US circa 15 years to replace our present fleet. It could occur faster in third world
countries because of the technology leapfrog phenomenon.
We have similar problems with power generation in the
US. We have dammed most easily dammable
rivers and there is even a movement to remove some of the dams. Furthermore, it is presently nearly
impossible to build more nuclear power plants and we are starting to shut some
of them down. Changing any of this
infrastructure could take one to two decades as well.
In a world where our petroleum supplies will become scarcer
and more expensive within a few decades or less, we need to start our planning
and acting now.
Where
we are heading and the risks of our present course.
Under our present direction we are increasing fossil fuel
consumption and commensurate carbon dioxide release at an ever increasing
rate. The risks associated with our
present course are both environmental and economic. There will be seriously increased degradation of our environment
including increased loss of plant and animal species, increased habitat loss
such as rainforests and coral reefs, increased human suffering through disease
and lowering of life quality, increased global warming (1) causing major
problems through climate pattern changes and sea level rise with commensurate
loss of high valued coastal real estate.
The trends for all these changes can observed today and all have varying
degrees of economic impact. However, a
more direct economic impact, which will be felt by everyone, is the ultimate
decline of “cheap oil.”
Gregg Esterbrook, in a recent article (2) discusses the
world’s estimated oil reserves. Based
on industry estimates, he suggests that there are estimated “proven reserves”
of 1,000 billion barrels of oil which only represents a 25 year supply at our
present rate of consumption with its 2% annual increase. He states, “Whatever number is correct, the
world has decades of oil ahead. What it
may not have is decades of cheap oil.
Once the production peak comes and reserve levels begin to dwindle, the
supply/demand equation may shift quickly toward higher prices. The debate, then, centers on how soon the
peak will be reached.” Estimates are
that the peak will be reached by 2010.
At present, the global oil trade depends on OPEC for about 42% of its
oil consumption which could hit 50% by 2009.
If OPEC’s reserves turn out to be inflated as some in the industry
believe, then the world oil production peak may occur much sooner with a
subsequent sharp hike in prices. This
is just barely within our time framework for introducing new technologies if we
start now.
Finally, Esterbrook states, “ … America has two basic
choices: Begin investing in new energy forms, staying a step ahead of OPEC and
smoothing the likely transition, or wait till the next crunch hits and accept
another oil-induced recession.”
It should be obvious that an essentially permanent hike in
oil prices will have a major economic impact on our country, a country where
98% of food is based on fossil fuels and the average food travels 1700 miles to
the consumer. The slight rise in fuel
costs last winter and the problems truckers had with fuel costs and homeowners
had with heating oil costs are just a glimpse at the issues leading to a major
economic turn down. The “gas crisis” in
Europe this summer is also an indicator that these problems are not limited to
the US.
One can describe our present situation as if the environment
and the world’s population were in a barrel on the river heading towards
Niagara Falls. We are starting to hear
the roar, but have no idea when we will get to the edge. With some major rescue efforts we can be
saved, but there will be a point of no return and no one can tell us when that
will be.
In summary, the risks
associated with our present course are ever-increased environmental degradation
coupled with a significant long lasting economic downturn, recession or
depression.
As the old Chinese proverb states, “ if we do not change
direction, we will likely end up where we are heading.” A simple look at the numbers story tells us
that we must change direction dramatically, with vision and conviction.
As a world community, we must realize that we will need the
last remaining decades of fossil fuels to create and integrate new energy
sources without losing the momentum of our developing world society. Because the US is a major user of energy per
capita and we affect environmental issues by both example and laws, we must
lead on these issues.
Where
do we want to be in 20-30 years from now as a country and a world?
We want to be at a point in our global development where
we are no longer dependant on fossil fuels for our energy generation and we
want to arrive there by a route that does not create global environmental and
economic chaos.
How
do we get there from here?
Because of the long development, manufacturing and
replacement times needed to replace our present infrastructure we need to start
now. A leading energy intelligence
analyst, retired Army Lt. Col. Tom Bearden wrote me stating that there will be
a “point of no return” by about 2003-2005, after which there will be world
economic collapse five years later when the escalating oil prices have gone
through the roof. He is suggesting that
we must have replacement technologies on line on a very short time scale.
Proposed Step One.
Hold a Senate hearing to get the ball rolling. This will show us that there is a major problem looming on the
near horizon and the witnesses we have will testify to the fact that there are
presently a set of technologies that can help resolve them on a relatively
short time scale.
Proposed Step Two.
Once the hearing is held then we move to an action step. As stated by Lt. Col. Bearden on this
subject: In short the solution to the energy crisis is solvable, permanently,
in a rather straightforward fashion. We
need a fine scientific team and a set of laboratories, working on it in a
Manhattan style project, and in three years the systems will be ready to roll
of the mass assembly lines. This may
need a Presidential Decision Directive and a National Emergency so the project
can utilize whatever is available for quick development. He may or may not be overly optimistic at
this point.
What if we do not act now?
Again Lt. Col. Bearden’s comments: “Make no mistake. This is the most deadly and certain strategic
threat to the U.S. and the rest of the world, in all my experience. If we do not solve this energy problem, and
deploy it very, very quickly with a massive effort, then we will overrun the
2003 "point of no return" and, just as an airplane does when it overruns
the point of no return on the runway, this nation will be heading for a total
crash, as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow. Yet everywhere one looks, one sees "business as
usual," "trust us, we know
best". . . . . .
Footnotes
1. A Rocky Mountain Institute
report published on their Website at http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid124.asp) states:
Depending on which study you
read, 1999 was either the fifth or the sixth warmest on record globally (1998
was the all-time warmest). Seven of the ten warmest years since record-keeping
began were in the 1990s, and analysis of tree rings, ice cores, and so on
suggests that the decade was the warmest of the millennium. A January 2000 National Academy of Sciences
study concluded that "the warming trend in global-surface temperature
observations during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real and is substantially
greater than the average rate of warming during the 20th century."
2. Esterbrook, Gregg. Hooray for Expensive oil! Opportunity cost.
New Republic (May 15, 2000), p. 21-25.
The Author
Dr. Theodore Loder is a Professor of Earth
Sciences and a member of the Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and
Space at the University of New Hampshire where he has taught since 1972. His research is in the area of oceanography
and environmental changes dealing with estuarine and coastal issues and has
worked in New England, England, Australia, Jamaica, Norway, Sweden, and off the
coast of South America. He has published
over 40 scientific papers and reports in these areas. His recent research involves the application of new technologies
to solve environmental problems and arising future economic problems due to our
overuse of and over dependence on fossil fuel technologies.
New Energy Solutions And Implications For
The National Security
And The Environment: A Brief Overview for
the US Senate
Steven
M. Greer MD
The ultimate national security issue is
intimately linked to the pressing environmental crisis facing the world today:
The question of whether humanity can continue as a technologically advanced
civilization.
Fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine
are non-sustainable both environmentally and economically - and a replacement
for both already exists. The question
is not whether we will transition to a new post-fossil fuel economy, but when
and how. The environmental, economic, geopolitical, national security and
military issues related to this matter are profound and inextricably linked to
one another.
The disclosure of such new energy technologies
will have far-reaching implications for every aspect of human society and the
time has come to prepare for such an event. For if such technologies were
announced today, it would take at least 10-20 years for their widespread
application to be effected. This is
approximately how much time we have before global economic chaos begins due to
demand far exceeding the supply of oil and environmental decay becomes
exponential and catastrophic.
We have found that the technologies to replace
fossil fuel usage already exist and need to be exploited and applied
immediately to avert a serious global economic, geopolitical and environmental
crisis in the not-so-distant future.
In summary, these technologies fall into the
following broad categories:
·
Quantum vacuum/ zero point field energy access
systems and related advances in electromagnetic theory and applications
·
Electrogravitic and magnetogravitic energy and
propulsion
·
Room temperature nuclear effects
·
Electrochemical and related advances to internal
combustion systems which achieve near zero emissions and very high efficiency
A number of practical applications using such
technologies have been developed over the past several decades, but such
breakthroughs have been either ignored due to their unconventional nature - or
have been classified and suppressed due to national security, military
interests and ‘special’ interests.
Let us be clear: the question is not whether
such systems exist and can be viable replacements for fossil fuels. The
question is whether we have the courage to allow such a transformation in world
society to occur.
Such technologies - especially those which
bypass the need to use an external fuel source such as oil or coal - would have
obvious and beneficial effects for humanity.
Since these technologies do not require an expensive source of fuel but
instead use existing quantum space energy, a revolution in the world’s economic
and social order would result. These
implications include:
·
The removal of all sources of air pollution
related to energy generation, including electric power plants, cars, trucks,
aircraft and manufacturing;
·
The ability to ‘scrub’ to near zero effluent all
manufacturing processes since the energy per se required for same would have no
cost related to fuel consumption. This would allow the full application of
technologies which remove effluent from smokestacks, solid waste and waterways
since current applications are generally restricted by their energy costs and
the fact that such energy consumption - being fossil fuel based - soon reaches
the point of diminishing returns environmentally.
·
The practical achievement of an environmentally
near-zero impact yet high tech civilization on earth, thus assuring the
long-term sustainability of human civilization.
·
Trillions of dollars now spent on electric power
generation, gas, oil, coal and nuclear power would be freed to be spent on more
productive and environmentally neutral endeavors by both individuals and
society as a whole.
>Underdeveloped regions of the earth would be
lifted out of poverty and into a high technology world in about a generation -
but without the associated infrastructure costs and environmental impact
related to traditional energy generation and propulsion. Since these new
systems generate energy from the ambient quantum energy state, trillion dollar
infrastructure investments in centralized power generation and distribution
would be eliminated. Remote villages
and towns would have the ability to generate energy for manufacturing,
electrification, water purification, etc. without purchasing fuels or building
massive transmission lines and central power grids.
>Near total recycling of resources and
materials would be possible since the energy costs for doing so - now the main
obstacle - would be brought down to a trivial level.
·
The vast disparity between rich and poor nations
would quickly disappear - and with it much of the zero-sum-game mentality which
is at the root of so much social, political and international unrest. In a world of abundant and inexpensive
energy, many of the pressures, which have led to a cycle of poverty,
exploitation, resentment and violence would be removed from the social dynamic.
While ideological, cultural and religious differences would persist, the raw
economic disparity and struggle would be removed from the equation fairly
quickly.
>Surface roads- and therefore most road
building - will be unnecessary as Electrogravitic/ antigravity energy and
propulsion systems replace current surface transportation systems.
·
The world economy would expand dramatically and
those advanced economies such as in the US and Europe would benefit
tremendously as global trade, development and high technology energy and
propulsion devices are demanded around the world. Such a global energy
revolution would create an expanding world economy which would make the current
computer and Internet economy look like a rounding error. This really would be
the tide which would lift all ships.
·
Long term, society would evolve to a psychology
of abundance, which would redound to the benefit of humanity as a whole, a
peaceful civilization and a society focused increasingly on creative pursuits
rather than destructive and violent endeavors.
Lest all of this sound like a pipe-dream, keep
in mind that such technological advances are not only possible, but they
already exist. What is lacking is the
collective will, creativity and courage to see that they are applied wisely.
And therein lies the problem.
As an emergency and trauma doctor, I know that
everything can be used for good or for ill. A knife can butter your bread - or
cut your throat. Every technology can have beneficial as well as harmful
applications.
The latter partially explains the serious
national security and military concerns with such technologies. For many
decades, these advances in energy and propulsion technologies have been
acquired, suppressed and classified by certain interests who have viewed them
as a threat to our security from both an economic and military perspective. In the short term, these concerns have been
well-founded: Why rock the global economic boat by allowing technologies out
which would, effectively, terminate the multi-trillion dollar oil, gas, coal,
internal combustion engine and related transportation sectors of the economy?
And which could also unleash such technologies on an unstable and dangerous
world where the weapons applications for such technological breakthroughs would
be a certainty? In the light of this,
the status quo looks good.
But only for the short term. In fact, such national security and military
policies - fed by huge special interests in obvious industries and nations -
have exacerbated global geopolitical tensions by impoverishing much of the
world, worsening the zero-sum-game mind set of the rich vs. poor nations and
brought us to a world energy emergency and a pending environmental crisis. And now we have very little time to fix the
situation. Such thinking must be relegated to the past.
For what can be a greater threat to the national
security than the specter of a collapse of our entire civilization from a lack
of energy and global chaos as every nation fights for its share of a limited
resource? Due to the long lead time needed to transform the current industrial
infrastructure away from fossil fuels, we are facing a national security
emergency which almost nobody is talking about. This is dangerous.
It has also created a serious constitutional
crisis in the US and other countries where non-representative entities and
super-secret projects within compartmented military and corporate areas have
begun to set national and international policy on this and related matters -
all outside the arena of public debate, and mostly without informed consent
from Congress or the President.
Indeed this crisis is undermining democracy in
the US and elsewhere. I have had the unenviable task of personally briefing
senior political, military, and intelligence officials in the US and Europe on
this and related matters. These
officials have been denied access to information compartmented within certain
projects, which are, frankly, unacknowledged areas (so-called ‘black’
projects). Such officials include
members of the House and Senate, President Clinton’s first Director of Central
Intelligence, the head of the DIA, senior Joint Staff officials and
others. Usually, the officials have
little to no information on such projects and technologies - and are told
either nothing or that they do not have a ‘need to know’ if they specifically
inquire.
This presents then another problem: these
technologies will not be suppressed forever. For example, our group is planning
a near term disclosure of such technologies and we will not be silenced. At the time of such a disclosure, will the
US government be prepared? It would
behoove the US government and others to be informed and have a plan for
transitioning our society from fossil fuels to these new energy and propulsion
systems.
Indeed, the great danger is ignorance by our
leaders of these scientific breakthroughs - and ignorance of how to manage
their disclosure. The advanced
countries of the world must be prepared to put systems in place to assure the
exclusive peaceful use of such energy and propulsion advances. Economic and industrial interests should be
prepared so that those aspects of our economy which will be adversely affected
(commodities, oil, gas, coal, public utilities, engine manufacturing, etc) can
be cushioned from sudden reversals and be economically ‘hedged’ by investing in
and supporting the new energy infrastructure.
A creative view of the future - not fear and
suppression of such technologies - is required. And it is needed immediately.
If we wait 10-20 more years, it will be too late to make the needed changes
before world oil shortages, exorbitant costs and geopolitical competition for
resources causes a melt-down in the world’s economy and political structures.
All systems tend towards homeostasis. The status
quo is comfortable and secure. Change is frightening. But in this case, the
most dangerous course for the national security is inaction. We must be
prepared for the coming convulsions related to energy shortages, spiraling
costs and economic disruption. The best preparation would be a replacement for
oil and related fossil fuels. And we have it. But disclosing these new energy
systems carries its own set of benefits, risks and challenges. The US
government and the Congress must be prepared to wisely manage this great
challenge.
Recommendations for Congress:
·
Thoroughly investigate these new technologies
both from current civilian sources as well as compartmented projects within
military, intelligence and corporate contracting areas;
·
Authorize the declassification and release of
information held within compartmented projects related to this subject;
·
Specifically prohibit the seizing or suppression
of such technologies
·
Authorize substantial funding for basic research
and development by civilian scientists and technologists into these areas;
·
Develop plans for dealing with disclosing such
technologies and for the transition to a non-fossil fuel economy. These plans
should include: military and national
security planning; strategic economic planning and preparation; private sector
support and cooperation; geopolitical planning, especially as it pertains to
OPEC countries and regions whose economies are very dependent on oil exports
and the price of oil; international cooperation and security; among others.
I personally stand ready to assist the Congress
in any way possible to facilitate our use of these new energy sources. Having dealt with this and related sensitive
matters for over 10 years, I can recommend a number of individuals who can be
subpoenaed to provide testimony on such technologies, as well as people who
have information on unacknowledged special access projects within covert
government operations which are already dealing with these issues.
If we face these challenges with courage and
with wisdom together, we can secure for our children a new and sustainable
world, free of poverty and environmental destruction. We will be up to this
challenge, because we must be.
October 16, 2000
Steven
M. Greer MD
President
and CEO Quantum Energy
Albemarle County, Virginia
The Author
Dr. Steven Greer is an emergency physician
and former chairman of the Department of Emergency Medicine at Caldwell
Memorial Hospital. He is a lifetime member of Alpha Omega Alpha, the nation's
most prestigious medical honor society.
Inspired, in part, by his uncle who helped design the original lunar
module, Dr. Greer has spent years researching exotic energy and propulsion
systems. He has been examining what
systems have been developed and how the implementation of those systems would
affect the environment and society as a whole.
He has met with and provided briefings for senior members of government,
military and intelligence operations in the United States and around the world,
including senior CIA officials, Joint Chiefs of Staff, White House staff,
senior members of Congress and congressional committees, senior United Nations
leadership and diplomats, senior military officials in the United Kingdom and
Europe and cabinet-level staff members of the Japanese government, among
others. Dr. Greer has addressed tens of
thousands of people live at conferences and lectures around the world including
the international convention for MENSA, The Institute of Noetic Sciences Board
of Directors, and the Sierra Club.
The
Right Time to Develop Future Energy Technologies
Prepared for: Senator Bob Smith, Senate Committee on the
Environment and Public Works
Prepared by: Thomas Valone, MA, PE, Integrity Research
Institute, 1220 L St. NW #100-232, Washington, DC 20005 http://www.integrity-research.org iri@erols.com
202-452-7674, 800-295-7674
Introduction to
Compelling Evidence about the Coming Climate Change
In 1900, Nikola Tesla, the father of AC electricity, warned
against using fuel for energy.
Current man-made Greenhouse Forcing of the atmosphere has been measured to be
2.4 – 4.3 W/m2 by the Global Warming International Center (GWIC). “A
change of 7.5 to 10 W/m2 will completely alter seasonal
characteristics, e.g. from winter to spring. Thus, 2.4 – 4.3 W/m2
of Greenhouse Forcing is quite a significant alteration of energy balance.”
This is a measure of the watts (energy) per meter squared (area) that is
being radiated into the atmosphere from our excessive carbon–based emissions.
Note carefully that in 1997, the Institute for Policy Studies released a report
that declared the World Bank was solely responsible for DOUBLING the world’s
output of carbon by its overseas fossil fuel investments through the life of
the investment. This simple
comparison of two different studies suggests that the DOUBLING of our
Greenhouse Forcing into a range of 4.8 – 8.6 W/m2 may be anticipated
in the next couple of decades.
The GWIC 1999 News
Flash went on to further conclude:
“The man-made alteration of energy
balance in the General Circulation system determines how chaotic our
atmospheric and oceanic systems will be...simple thermodynamics predicts an
OSCILLATORY NATURE of the change in climate in any one ecological zone due to
global warming. Global warming causes ‘extreme events’ and bad weather in the
near term. In the long term it may cause the earth to transition to another
equilibrium state through many ‘oscillations in climatic patterns.’ The
magnitude of these oscillations could easily ‘exceed’ the difference between
the end points.”
From chaos theory, the end points
are where we start and where we end up. In other words, as the earth climate
seeks a new equilibrium point, with the forcing function of increased energy
input, it may get much hotter AND much colder with a vengeance as the climate
goes haywire for an undetermined amount of time.
Make no mistake about it, the
earth has now surpassed 300 ppb
(parts per billion) of CO2 (a potent greenhouse
gas) for the first time in 400,000 years, according to ice core analysis by Tom
Wigley from the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He also stated on a
recent NOVA program that we need to cut fossil fuel use by 50% or more to
stabilize CO2 because of increased energy demand that is predicted
to be 60% more by 2020. Worse than that is the projected level of CO2
by 2050: an astounding 600 ppb! At the same time, Oxygen Inventory Depletion (OID) is occurring: worldwide levels of
oxygen have decreased by 50-70 ppm since 1958 when the measurements were first
taken.
Need we mention that right now the
Arctic ice is melting at a rapid rate?
In 1999, scientists reported that 46 years of data documenting the declining extent
of the Arctic sea ice yield a 98% probability that it is due to man-made
causes.
The average annual temperatures in Alaska and Siberia have climbed as much as
seven (7) degrees F in the past two decades reducing sea ice thickness by about
40% of what it was in 1980.
Why is the loss of this natural heat sink important? The Arctic sea ice covers
an area the size of the United States. Without this natural reflector of solar
energy, the same area of exposed ocean water will absorb as much as 100
times more solar energy than ice. This new energy influx will, of course,
simply ADD to the already accelerating global warming due to greenhouse gases.
To summarize, “experts believe
human activities could be ending the period of relative climatic stability that
has endured over the last 10,000 years, and that permitted the rise of
agricultural and industrial society.”
Is Global Warming Harmful to Health?
In a word: YES!
“Computer models have predicted
that global warming would produce several changes in the highlands: summit
glaciers (like North Pole sea ice) would begin to melt, and plants, mosquitoes
and mosquito-borne diseases would migrate upward into regions formerly too cold
for them. All these predictions are coming true.”
Dr. Epstein, Associate Director at
the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School,
further reports that the West Nile virus, spread by mosquitoes, broke out for
the first time in N. America just last year. Washington residents know that it
has already spread to Maryland in October, 2000. “Malaria and dengue fever are
another two of the mosquito-borne diseases most likely to spread dramatically
as global temperatures head upward.” Regarding these diseases, it is important
to note that NO VACCINE is available and the causative parasites are becoming
resistant to standard drugs. El Ninos are expected to become more common and
severe—which means that the diseases they produce could become more prevalent
as well (such as waterborne diseases like cholera). He concludes that, “Cleaner
energy sources must be put to use QUICKLY AND BROADLY, both in the
energy-guzzling industrial world and in developing nations, which cannot be
expected to cut back on their energy use...The world’s leaders, if they are
wise, will make it their business to find a way to pay for these solutions.”
How Much will it take to Correct the Climate Problem?
“The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, established by the United Nations, calculates that halting the
ongoing rise in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will require a
whopping 60% to 70% reduction in emissions.”
They are not the only agency
arriving at that conclusion. The Worldwatch Institute concurs, stating that
“stabilizing atmospheric CO2 at safe levels will require a 60-80%
cut in carbon emissions from current levels.”
Can Oil Production keep up if we Ignore the Climate Change?
In a word: NO! If we just continue
as we do today with the selfish, business-as-usual attitude and clamor for more
oil, do we stand a chance of enjoying a reasonable lifestyle for the next
twenty years? Seeing that approximately 80% of the oil produced today comes
from fields discovered before 1973, most of which are in decline, we must
hesitate before coming to an optimistic conclusion. If we realize that the
TOTAL world production of oil has increased less than 10% in the past two
decades, then we might start to get concerned.
If we think about the fact that the U.S. energy demand grows at a rate of 1.1%
per year, from 95 to 121 quadrillion Btus (quads) by 2020, we must ask where
will the EXTRA 27% come from?
Transportation is rated by the U.S. Department of Energy to be the most rapidly
growing sector. However, as domestic crude oil production is projected to DECLINE from 6.3 to 5.3 million barrels
per day by 2020, we gas-guzzling Americans naively believe that we can demand
FROM SOMEWHERE a 30% increase from
2.90 million barrels of oil per day to 3.81 million barrels of oil per day by
2020!
Instead, the OPEC nations, where
50% of our imported oil comes from, have a different story in mind for us.
World production of oil is expected to peak
by 2010 and then begin to decline, which will forcibly reduce production.
Knowing this fact, give or take a few years, the OPEC nations decided instead
to decrease their output of oil NOW by only 1.2% in 1999 which drove prices up dramatically, causing a lot
of oil-addicted nations to complain bitterly in protest. The protests had no
effect on the producers. “OPEC Blames Taxes for High Oil Prices” read the
headlines in the Washington Post
(9-29-00, p. A22) which went on to say:
“Saudi Arabia is the only OPEC nation with the capability to boost oil
production significantly, a move that would harm the finances of other member
nations...”
The conclusion is obvious:
It is nearly impossible, even with the “hard-line approach” advocated by G.W.
Bush, to continually increase our imports of and addiction to oil even over the
next ten years while OPEC is already beginning THE SQUEEZE. In September, 2000,
the first OPEC summit in 25 years was held. As the U. S. and European Union
called on OPEC to increase production, OPEC simply agreed to “provide adequate,
timely and secure supplies of oil to consumers at fair and stable prices.” Of
course that’s what any dominant dealer with 2/3 of the market will do! With
Iraq selling the U.S. more oil than Kuwait is today, do we go to war over oil
again?
Solving the Oil Consumption and Global Warming Problem Simultaneously
The clear answer to both dilemmas
portrayed above is to begin a forced weaning process aimed at creating a
government-mandated 1% reduction (based on Y2K usage) per year in oil
consumption and/or oil imports every year for the next twenty years, with the
second decade adding 1% to each year’s reduction. Phase I amounts to a mandatory reduction, on the average, of 200,000
barrels of oil per year, for the next ten years, yielding a 10% total reduction
by 2010. Phase II, in 2010, would increase the reduction by 1% each subsequent
year (2%, 3%, 4%, etc.) yielding a 55% + 10% = 65% total reduction by 2020.
At first, a gradual reduction in oil imports by a fraction of 1% could be
mandated with that fraction made up by domestic hybrid cars sales that have a
tax incentive. The last few years of the decade program would have reductions
greater than 1% mandated. This should be called the “The U. S. Energy Independence Initiative” or something like
that. As a vital part of this process, a ten-year
U.S. Energy Manhattan Project
with emergency funds allocated to emerging energy developments (many of which
are already invented) is required for successful replacement of current
technology with carbon-free, fuel-less
energy technologies.
A public education process needs to begin immediately as well to prepare all
industrial, transportation, and housing sectors for the transition.
The reason for an average of 1%
reduction in oil usage per year is that within ten years, a total of 10% (based
on Y2K usage) reduction will be achieved. By then, fuel-less, carbon-free energy
generators will be commercially available. That starts Phase II where an
increasing amount of oil will be taken away from the market each year, before
the OPEC nations force the issue.
End the Present Suppression of Emerging Energy Technologies
From my experience, the present
management of the U.S. Energy Department, State Department, and Commerce
Department has engaged in an outright and successful attempt to prevent viable
emerging energy technologies from reaching the market and the public. They have
rescinded legitimate grants that had already been awarded, prevented allowed
patents from being issued, blocked approved conferences from taking place, and
distorted accurate news before it is reported. Furthermore, certain non-profit
organizations, most notably the American Physical Society, have abused their
non-profit status by heavily lobbying government agencies and the media to
encourage such suppression.
For example, the Public Affairs
Coordinator for the American Physical Society, Dr. Robert Park, has further
used his position of power to unduly influence the government and the media to
target certain individuals and inventions, even to the extent of defaming their
character, mine included, and depriving of their livelihood to suit his unscrupulous
desires for scientific dominance. The Patent Office, State Department, and the
Commerce Department, have been found on numerous occasions to obey his
suggestions/demands on a particular issue. Examples and a chronology of such
abuses have been cataloged. Both the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the
U.S. Patent Office have, for example, made public statements that clearly
discriminate against cold fusion, a viable new physics discovery celebrating
its tenth anniversary last year. Their practices of rescinding nuclear energy
research grants or recalling a patent that already has been issued a patent
number and posted in the Official Gazette, shows to what extent they will go to
prevent anything resembling cold fusion from gaining recognition. One explanation
seems to be stemming from the $249 million dollars that the hot fusion research
program (Tokamak and laser confinement) are already receiving in FY 2000.
However, these ongoing programs still do not have viable overunity output
results even after decades of Federal DOE expenditures and will not for at
least another two decades, according to the U.S. DOE! The suppression practices
referred to above must stop in order to allow emerging energy technologies to
reach the market.
Conclusion
In the short term, the development
of a retrofit carburetor device for all cars, that reclaims or transmutes the
carbon from the exhaust, can drastically reduce the emissions of CO2
from transportation vehicles. (The transportation sector presently contributes
to 33% of the carbon emissions.)
Preliminary results from this type of device shows a dramatic improvement in
mileage as well, making it attractive for consumers.
As the new fuel-less, carbon-free
energy sources are brought to market, the reduction in oil demands will become
easier and more acceptable. If the U.S. Government establishes a time-table to
meet the 65% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020, ostensibly
targeting the importation of oil, the earth can reverse its beginning of
climatic oscillations with the present Greenhouse Forcing. I pray that our
lawmakers will have the wisdom to adopt some of the above-mentioned measures to
ensure our future.
The Author
See information following T.
Valone’s second paper.
Future Energy
Technologies
Thomas Valone
M.A., P.E.
Integrity Research Institute, 1220 L St. NW
#100-232, Washington, DC 20005
http://www.integrity-research.org
202-452-7674, 800-295-7674,
Fax: 301-513-5728, email: iri@erols.com
Abstract
Today 85% of our
country’s energy comes from the combustion of dead fossils, a dirty fuel that
is forcing the world’s atmosphere to overheat. However, new 21st
century energy sources that produce no carbon emissions and do not contribute
to global warming are now emerging. Beyond the realm of fuel cells and hydrogen
is the non-conventional world of “future energy.” Some of the best examples are
new and exciting generators that release trapped potential energy from nature
in ways never dreamed of before. Others innovatively apply clean fuels in
conventional systems that are surprisingly simple and yet very efficient. Still
others qualify as promising theoretical technologies that are a focus of
attention for NASA and the USDOE. Most of them have one thing in common: they
are very scientific but are relatively unknown to the general public. This
presentation summarizes the latest breakthroughs in future energy. With
scientific explanations of the input energy and output energy, the overunity
efficiencies can be understood by average audience members. Included in the
quantitative article are the inventions of Brown, Graneau, Jefimenko, Miley,
Shoulders, Wallman, and others. The energy revolution is now beginning. It is
time to understand the clean alternatives to dead, poisonous fuel.
Keywords: future energy, overunity, betavoltaic, biomass, COFE
Introduction
In 1998, the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE)
issued its Comprehensive National Energy
Strategy (CNES)[1] that included as one of its five goals, the following
aspiration:
Goal IV: Expand future energy choices – pursuing
continued progress in science and technology to provide future generations with a robust portfolio of clean and
reasonably priced energy sources.
Objective
1. Maintain
a strong national knowledge base as the foundation for informed energy
decisions, new energy systems, and
enabling technologies of the future.
Objective
2. Expand long-term energy options.
However, the DOE has not engaged in
developing, much less maintaining a robust knowledge base of future energy
choices, nor expanded research into new energy systems or long-term energy
options, mainly due to upper management decisions. In a study performed by
Integrity Research Institute on the progress of the CNES two years later, it is
surprising that instead the DOE has worked to actively suppress enabling
technologies of the future. Furthermore, concern for global warming and the
expected increase in carbon emissions by the American society clearly do not
enter the present DOE policies. The DOE instead recently: (1) endorsed natural
gas use for future generations, (2) rescinded a Nuclear Energy Research
Initiative (NERI) grant awarded to a prominent professor for transmuting
radioactive waste, and (3) reversed an initial offer to host a Conference on
Future Energy (COFE). Therefore, it is clear by these and many other DOE
practices that it is up to the private sector to conduct scientific research
into new energy systems and enabling technologies of the future in order to
replace carbon-emitting fuel systems.
As a guideline, it is generally agreed
that emerging energy technologies that qualify as true future energy must not
produce carbon emissions nor contribute to global warming if we are to have a
future planet earth. The reason for this is as Worldwatch Institute notes:
“Stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentrations at safe levels will
require a 60-80 percent cut in carbon emissions from current levels, according
to the best estimates of scientists.”[2]
Future Energy
Overunity
To understand emerging energy principles, it is
helpful to examine the operation of a heat pump, which converts environmental
free energy into useful work. The standard heat pump is a good example of an
“overunity” system (energy out > energy in) releasing potential energy from
the environment where the heat energy output is always in the range of 2 up to
7 times the input electrical energy. This so-called “coefficient of
performance” represents an overunity efficiency, that does not violate any
physics laws, if one considers, as the consumer does, how much energy
must he put in to get the predicted energy output. Thus, the concept of
“overunity,” as also the concept of “free energy” has evolved from the
consumer’s point of view. What does it cost him to receive his heat, air
conditioning, cleaning, or propulsion outputs? The closer it gets to “free,”
the more desirable it is for the consumer and, we might add, to third world
countries who cannot afford to build the thousands of miles of high voltage
wires (infrastructure) to support a centralized energy system. Locally
installed, modular heat and electricity generators will replace present
utility-based service in the future. Then, large area blackouts will be a thing
of the past. Energy will be for the most part, a one-time investment, included
in the house, car, or spaceplane of one’s choice. However, much needs to be
done for these systems to supplant the established energy businesses that are
the nation’s major polluters. A commitment to a carbon-free energy economy,
with financial backing, is required for such large changes to take place.
Cold Fog Discovery
Many other systems exist today, in a research,
development, or theoretical stage, which also convert potential energy into
useful work. The first example is the “Cold Fog” invention of Dr. Peter Graneau
from Northeastern University that converts chemical bond energy into kinetic
energy. Intermolecular bond energy in water is an available amount of energy
estimated at 2.3 kJ/g. When injected with a high voltage capacitor discharge of
39.8 Joules, normal rainwater is accelerated into a cold fog that loses about
31.2 Joules of low-grade heat and a comparable amount (29.2 Joules) in fog
kinetic energy output. As reported in the Journal
of Plasma Physics,[3] the output energy thus exceeds the input energy by
about 100% creating a 2-to-1 overunity condition favorable for reduction to a
motorized conversion system.
