Pamphlet for a New Energy Policy


Keynote presentation of this page


"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

                                                                    Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

1) The necessity of a new energy policy

The modern energy question is one of great importance. The survival of mankind is at stake. We cannot, as we clearly see at the beginning of the 21th century, continue using fossil fuels. We need to switch over to sustainable energy sources, partly because of the fact that the resources of oil, gas and other fossil fuels are getting depleted, but also because of the administrative and military conflicts thereabout that are associated with the striving for a new world order.

A third factor is formed by the ecosystem which also seems to reach the limit of what mother earth may bear. We so realize that the global warming of our climate about 2007 is an indisputable fact, but also that for the past 50 years the power of the sunlight e.g., as measured by the so-called pan-evaporation which is a kind of meteorological evaporation index, has decreased with about 15%, probably because of soot particles and other chemical substances in the higher layers of the atmosphere around the earth. One discusses causes and consequences (see e.g. the documentary of the british television producer Martin Durkin). The CO2 level on earth also seems to be associated with the number of spots on the sun. But whether we have more CO2 because of the heat or more heat because of the CO2 (the greenhouse theory) is not that clear at all. Whether we owe it cent percent to our own actions, cannot be said that easily thus. The warming and the cooling of the earth as a consequence of global dimming cancel each other out to a reasonble degree as yet, and hopefully they will also vanish as gradually as they appeared with the development of a new energy policy, so that we are not confronted with unexpected surprises in changes of temperature and other weather conditions on earth.

Evidently must with a lot of influential factors be counted when we want to switch over to another way of producing energy and at the same time want to maintain the natural and cultural order on our planet. What e.g. is also associated with the problem of the climate and the energy question are the desertification, a possibly with natural disasters accompanied shifting of the poles of the earth under the influence of changing gravitational fields on a galactic and solar level, the world food problem, water management, the extinction of marine and land life and the melting of the polar caps and the permafrost in Siberia with which huge amounts of methane gas are released that extra contribute to the greenhouse effect. Every angle has, with the measures one takes with them, its own consequences for the ecosystem and the culture. An emission neutral, sustainable policy implies e.g. that one maintains the equilibrium between the greenhouse effect and the dimming of the earth, but with only the prescription of soot filters developing bio-ethanol and other non-emission-free, less sustainable technologies, may have far-reaching consequences for the energy- and food policy and for the natural balance of the therewith associated climate. Temperatures may, with such an unequal course of purifying the atmosphere, in a couple of years rise with as much as 5 degrees Celsius and make the ice melt of the south pole with catastrophic consequences for all the lower coastal areas in the world.
   So also could next to that, in the search for alternative energy resources, a renewed interest for nuclear energy be observed, which essentially constitutes no sustainable source of energy because of the fossil nuclear materials that are needed. And there is also a serious objection, as is generally known, against the nuclear waste and the danger of this method. An alternative technology for nuclear energy production would be the technology of
nuclear fusion. As yet is the most favorable technique for controlling the immense heat needed for the nuclear fusion the floating and spinning of the fusion plasma in a strong magnetic field in a so-called tokamak. This technology though delivers no degree of overunity in 2007: one never achieves more energy out of the process than one has put in. The entire project of nuclear fusion without a fusion-efficient form of fuel just might turn out to be a terribly expensive illusion. Helium-3, a helium atom missing a neutron, would be a candidate to have a more efficient output with less input of energy in the fusion process. The element itself is radioactive neutral so that less problematic radiation is released with the nuclear fusion. It offers a cleaner fusion process, be it that one also with the He-3 cannot reach an entirely radiation-free production of energy. The element which on itself is stable in a crystalline form and with its special properties extensively is researched by the physicist E.R. Dobbs, is rare on earth but abundantly available on the moon as a form of precipitated solar wind. Even though He-3 can be artificially created from Tritium-decay and also is known as a byproduct of nuclear weapons, must it, to supply the entire world efficiently with energy, be mined on the moon. An enthused adherent of the method may, via a handy website selling options on lunar territory, in advance reserve a place there. One supposedly could find there enough energy in the form of Helium-3 for the entire earth for many centuries. But such a policy of winning energy will with the moon bases and space-shuttles required, be such an economically, culturally and scientifically extensive operation that, not even considering that the supply of He-3 at the moon is also finite - it is a very luxurious type of fossil fuel thus -, also this option must be discarded as being too uncertain in an economic sense, too dangerous in a geopolitical sense and as technologically too laborious. Nuclear fusion in other ways, like the so-called aneutronic fusion process which is not in need of any He-3, has itself as yet not unequivocally proven as being efficient, or even as a feasible practice. Nuclear fusion seems to be a beautiful scientific challenge, but whether it is ever going to be a realistic alternative source of energy free from ecological, political and economic objections, is thus most uncertain, despite of the enormous scientific efforts and financial expenses in the previous decennia.

More in line with a mechanically easy to control and economically effective approach in this respect is the so-called 'cold fusion', also called the low energy nuclear reaction (LENR), which was first in 1989 developed by the chemists B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann of the University of Utah in de U.S.A. They proved how one with just two electrodes (an anode of platinum, and a cathode of palladium) in heavy water (deuterium-oxide) with an overunity of 1:20 can generate heat in a way which can only be explained from a nuclear process. The process which produces no harmful radiation, was not directly that well understood or controlled, but the fact that one up to two days and longer managed to maintain this effect with just a small tank of (heavy) water, went against all existing scientific models. Thus was cold fusion received with skepticism. At the time of 1990 though confirmed Michael McKubre, the director of the Energy Research Center of Stanford Research International, Richard A. Oriani of the University of Minnesota, Robert A. Huggins of Stanford University and Y. Arata of the University of Osaka in Japan their findings. In 50% of the trials they found the same results of extra heat and other experimental effects. In 1993 conducted a couple of U.S. marine researchers of the China Lake Naval Weapons Center in California, led by the chemist Melvin Miles, an investigation into the bubbles that were appearing in the device and concluded they from the mass spectral measurements that Helium-4 was present, by which, despite of the fact that the amounts discovered didn't add up with the existing theories, they indeed proved that a kind of atomic fusion at room temperature had taken place and that from that result also the heat production could be explained. In case of fusion do two heavy H2 atoms melt together into Helium four with the production of energy. In the hot fusion process one needs millions of degrees for that result, but how can such a thing take place at room temperature as well? Even though we evidently are dealing with protoscience here, a science still in its infancy, speaks one, with al the standard doubting about each other's research designs, still often about cold fusion as being a pseudoscience, or of a form of selfdeception or bewilderment based on faulty methods. But it were not the methods that were faulty considering all the sincere scientific efforts, it was the ruling paradigm that was defective. And for understanding the label of speudo being attached to cold fusion, for such a faulty denomination of this all-important research outcome, are we in need of the services of the sciences of psychology, of philosophy and other scientific disciplines, because with the enigmatic research findings is one reaching beyond the framework of the established, classical model of physics. Natural science is not that easily won of course with paradoxical results that refer to unknown processes; a specific group of scientists like this which is narrowly bound to conventions can on itself of course not directly control all the supporting sciences either which also play a part in such a big shift in the mind of science.
    Despite of the great number of published investigations that found an anomalous heat production, concluded the
United States Department of Energy that in 1989 formed a research panel to investigate the case, that no sufficient proof had been delivered for the reality of this cold fusion process and that for that reason no research funds needed to be provided for further development. Also a second panel in 2004 arrived at a likewise conclusion, be it that the argument against had been watered down. The report of 2004 in fact constituted a turning point because from its conclusions the more reputed scientists and more important commercial magazines (Time, Scientific American) now dared to pay some more attention to the subject. But nevertheless is one in 2007 in the U.S.A. investing many billions of research grants for new energy technologies rather in the much more doubtful hot fusion process which thus never delivered more energy - and thus certainly also not more money - than was put in. In the U.S.A. remains cold fusion a taboo, while one in Asia e.g. is more inclined to reward patents in this field. Also with science can in formal politics a narrow-minded village mentality be prominent that, based on ulterior motives and with surpassing reason, rejects everything which the establishment of the confided ego of exercising authority, the usual teachings and the associated wages earned that way would endanger.
   For if there would be a formal recognition, the world would be turned upside down, because we in that case would have a revolution: all societal and economic relations would change and also would all textbooks have to be rewritten and the educational system be reformed. And who would stand and sign for that? Ultimately is progress an egoless process in which each and everyone has played his part. Now at the beginning of the 21st century are there with that process already commercial signs observable, for also money runs where it cannot go:
Energy Technologies in Israel, D2Fusion in California, JET Thermal Products in Massachuchets, Mitsubishi motors and The Mastrrr Company in Texas are the corporations that 2007 are engaged in harnessing the process of cold fusion for the sake of different purposes like the purification of water, mechanical propulsion, and the supply of energy. What thereto for the acceptance of the greater public still is needed is the entire account of the paradigm associated with the cultural change involved. In this pamphlet will the complete of the paradigmatic question with everything belonging thereto be discussed at length. In this study will, based on the latest experimental and theoretical findings in this field of free energy as also on the rest of the testimonies of witnesses associated with the question of energy, be attempted to contribute to the further development of this new paradigm for the 21st century now emerging in postmodern times. We are on the way of a renewed scientific thought model with which we may speak of a new World Order. It then is about, so it now appears, an order which is not just based on the, with of without military means, preaching of 'democracy' with blotting out of state borders in a mondial clime in which a form of free enterprise is allowed to rule that isn't directly of service to the social and biological climate of the planet either. The cards are shuffled differently thus. A better ecological policy is necessary, we after all have to survive ourselves too with each his individual freedom of defending his material interests.
    It is all about a broader and more responsible concept of world order, a concept which also reaches beyond the three pillars of internet communication, hydrogen storage and the two-way distribution of energy which as being the essence of a third industrial revolution lately 2007 was suggested by the american economist
Jeremy Rifkin. His still most expensive solution of 850 billion for an intelligent energy network to feed back self produced energy into the grid is a new energy policy all right but is still based on the old paradigm of science. In the new model emerging now under the influence of cold fusion and the other free energy technologies we will discus later, draws everybody at every moment of the day as much 'new energy' as he needs with the new technology, and that can privately be done as good as by means of a central power plant, we're after all talking about a truly free market. Storage is then not needed anymore, and that is an extra advantage for everyone on the planet. What Rifkin is defending so nicely up to date is seen in this light again already outdated. The progress at this front is very fast. The hydrogen obsession of storing energy is not applicable any longer with the direct, according the need won energy of e.g. cars that run on cold fusion generators (see also: Basics; peswiki-article, Cold fusion 18 years and heating up; Eugene Mallove; News; ISCMNS (society); Naudin project; FAQ; Conferenties).

Culturally and psychically we have to fear for conflicts if we do not have a clear notion of the inevitable question of another policy of winning energy. Winning energy we are dealing with nature, nature that gave us our form, nature that educated us, that conditioned our genes, that conditioned all of our behavior, and our culture somehow will have to reflect that properly. Pragmatically thinking in favor of a quick result and economic success this is easily forgotten. Nature operates upon our genes and we switch with those genes responding to her with adapting ourselves to her dynamics. Our genes constitute the material with which we people, also in our cultural activities, find ourselves in an evolution which cannot be stopped at will or be obstructed. There is as well a cultural as a natural authority ruling our lives. Ultimately it is about the question, as we very well know politically, who the boss would be, who is leading us, what in our decision making would come first. It must be clear in our minds eye whether, and to what degree, we are formed by pragmatical and economical dictates, which are also known as an endless struggle for power over whatever political grip or whatever advantage would have the - temporary - right of way. Or else we admit, like it was proclaimed with the French Revolution in the beginning, that we have our footing in nature and find therein our primary order and harmony (see especially the works of the philosopher J.J. Rousseau, (1712-1778). When we psychically want to get rid of the cultural uncertainty and personal misery which is the consequence of a conflict between the material interests of the culture and those of nature, must deeds be done, deeds which have consequences for the policies of winning energy and caring for the environment. Caught between the two fires of the material, idle, short-sighted profit mind and the mind in favor of the spirit of the preservation of nature which demands more conscience and effort, may we speak of a conflict situation in which we psychically are burdened with a tormenting uncertainty about the question in what exactly we can find our true certainty and direction, our control and our confidence. In that area of tension we keep on searching for harmony and balance without us, in our from attachments born indecision, ever finding a collective solution or enduring form of world peace and collective righteousness of living.

A definitive choice has to be made, the indecision has to be given up before we are forced to decisions by the occurrence of cultural or natural disasters. With putting an end to this nature-culture conflict the way it for instance lately is happening with the more environmental friendly and sustainable Cradle to Craddle philosophy of William McDonough and Michael Braungart in the field of corporate interests, may the democracy then be more a reflection of the order we find in nature in stead of being a reflection of an everlasting, power-uncertain, political struggle which is in fact a neurosis of culture and destructive. The struggle based upon the inability to act directly from nature and to agree about it amongst ourselves, must come to a stop. That era we have to close. Also in the sense of our scientific thinking. The question first of all is thus: in what ways can we relate to nature when it is about sustainable energy policies? Next the question rises what the scientific consequences would be and how we exactly as normal people in our educational systems and in what we personally teach our children have to consider with the methods and technologies found. How would such a world order look like which is based upon the natural order of the wheelwork of nature, upon the wheelwork of the clock formed by the sun, the moon and the stars and not so much anymore is based upon a division in territories and other concepts of false oneness from the interest of which we have to fight each other's ego's? Is such a thing possible? (see also the article Sun, Moon and the new World Order)






back to science-main                 

copying only for ptivate and research purposes.







website metrics