We need a miracle

I'm glad I watched your video, Jason, and read the postings. You brought together a lot of good ideas and viewpoints. pattyj's posting on RET was of particular interest to me. I wish I could have seen her video. I submitted an essay to Planet Forward on the electrolysis of water and hydrogen capture, but it also was not posted. I think that hydrogen will play a major role in alleviating our energy and environmental concerns in the not too distant future. With regard to dook's comments, it seem to me that population growth is a good reason not to divert funds from the NASA space exploration program. Thanks for pointing me to Ted.com.

You are among the few, Jason, that are talking reason on the subject of energy solutions. Something big is certainly needed. This might be it!

I have been following the development work of Ronny Bar-Gadda (going into his seventh year) of a new technology to crack water vapor into hydrogen and oxygen. The process is called RET (Radiant Energy Transfer). It is NOT electrolysis. 100C geothermal heat generates steam to turn a turbine. This produces enough energy to run the RET plus provides the water vapor in the form of waste steam for the process. There are no toxic by products, runs at room temperature and is carbon-free. The production of hydrogen is abundant and continuous. The water can be waste water or sea water.

We believe this is a viable solution to replacing fossil fuels. The patent was awarded last June. It is now a proven technology. The website carries a demonstration video of a balloon filling experiment and technical papers. A future video is planned to show the scale-up of the technology with a larger floating balloon. Once this video is produced, a press release is planned.

I submitted a video animation of the process to Planet Forward, but it has not been posted. Ronny Bar-Gadda has also submitted an essay about this breakthrough technology. We think this is the "game-changer" that people are hoping for. I hope this will be the subject of some lively discussion. www.genesys-hydrogen.com

For 47 years, since I was nine years old, I've been railing about the need for Nikola Tesla's primary energy device - the MEG, or motionless electromagnetic generator. We are this close to energy self-sufficiency and abundance for all.

According to this article, Tesla was poisoned before he was to meet with Franklin Roosevelt to discuss the intellectual dishonesty that sidelined his simple energy solution. Minutes later, the FBI stole all of his files. Years later, our government gave back to his family some of those documents, but kept the really great things, including the MEG. The article explains how and why Maxwell's theories were mutilated and Tesla was erased from history, giving us today's rotary generators that throw away what the author calls "a trillion times" the energy made available to power a load.

Properly configured, a version of this technology can be constructed that will provide any designation of clean electricity. Because turning a shaft isn't necessary, the power is free because it uses no fuel. This is the way Tesla devised to produce another invention, alternating current. It was invented circa 1890.

Today the MEG is classified, and you can't see Tesla's notes. The military uses it to drive the most powerful weapons ever made. Trillions of our tax dollars have been secretly spent on its development, and the government will let the world economy fail and all life on the planet die before they'll give up this ill-gotten prize. If we survive, the MEG will be the big news story of the next 10,000 years. Regrettably, it won't find its way into the public domain, where it belongs, unless forcibly extracted from some of the worst people who ever lived.

dook's comment is right on target. ONLY ONLY when we limit the global population to less than the carrying capacity of the earth will we have solved the problem. Short of that, it is down hill - no matter how much energy from all sources is obtained or how much other conservation is obtained.

Sure there will be a few "ups" along the way but overall it is down hill.

We will use that energy to extract and use up finite nonrenewable resources faster. And even renewable resources so fast they will not have time to grow to maturity - which does us no good. Technology will delay the inevitable temporarily but it also helps us deplete those resources faster.

We are already probably several billion people beyond the earth's carrying capacity which means that the global standard of living will decrease even more and fewer generations will survive at a sustainable standard of living. Sure the fight to be on the greedy end of the distribution curve will continue for awhile but eventually everyone will suffer. Nature does not discriminate!

dook's comment is right on target. ONLY ONLY when we limit the global population to less than the carrying capacity of the earth will we have solved the problem. Short of that, it is down hill - no matter how much energy from all sources is obtained or how much other conservation is obtained.

Sure there will be a few "ups" along the way but overall it is down hill.

We will use that energy to extract and use up finite nonrenewable resources faster. And even renewable resources so fast they will not have time to grow to maturity - which does us no good. Technology will delay the inevitable temporarily but it also helps us deplete those resources faster.

We are already probably several billion people beyond the earth's carrying capacity which means that the global standard of living will decrease even more and fewer generations will survive at a sustainable standard of living. Sure the fight to be on the greedy end of the distribution curve will continue for awhile but eventually everyone will suffer. Nature does not discriminate!

google Integral Fast Reactor. These nuclear reactors are 100-300 times as fuel efficient, and could even use existing energy in nuclear waste as fuel. And, most importantly, we have the technology NOW!

Everyone is talking about producing more energy, conserving energy, weaning ourselves off fossil fuels, etc....But no one is talking about the first step necessary to reduce carbon emissions...and that step is population control. This planet of finite resources simply cannot continue to support an ever burgeoning population. It cannot satisfy the demands of a population that senselessly continues to expand.

..and your breakthrough is here!!

ready?

Light, Smart and Efficient, that's it.

Now think about it, all off are car's, and most of our appliances, and our industry are what? BIG - DUMB - MACHINES

Operated by people, vary inefficiently that wold rather be talking on a phone or texting anyway.

So here it is, make cars vary light, automatons and supper efficient..

...make them draft and ride on rails at speed, get rid of traffic lights, jams and tickets.
...let's start now, with a Google map's style interface to your car dash board

just Google your destination, relax and have a beer, and arrive at your destination, that's it.

SMART - LIGHT - SUPPER EFFICIENT

Don't count on surplus energy from nuclear fusion. They will, if they have not already, create nuclear fusion. The problem is that - if the stars are any indicator - it takes a tremendous amount of energy input to maintain the reaction. The stars create this energy by their huge mass plus the force of gravity. There is no logical reason to believe that a fusion reaction is a self sustaining reaction - with out a whole lot of continuous energy input.

The only reason we can get energy from fission reactions - at a cost & risk to countless generations from the waste - is that the atoms we are splitting are already like animated, semi-out of control, 'set mousetraps'. Put enough of them in close proximity, and when one releases energy it supplies the energy to keep things going. [A terribly crude analogy, I know.]

New technology needs to be developed for storing electric charge generated by solar/wind generators at a high energy density. This technology may be on the way in the form of supercapacitors (EESTOR and other companies providing their products materialize), which unlike batteries can be charged and discharged extensively without degrading the properties of the storage device. Some buses already run on supercaps [http://nanobus.org/dotnetnuke/SimilarSchemes/SupercapacitorBuses/tabid/78/Default.aspx]. Concentrated solar power is the technology that needs to be applied[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy]. Concentrate the sun's energy as heat to generate electricity. Apparently, "about 1% of the surface of the Sahara Desert would be sufficient to satisfy the entire world's electricity demand", depending on who you would like to believe [http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:jWP7fu9JfuAJ:www.solel.com/faq/+concentrated+solar+thermal+sahara&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca. Searching for other technological solutions distracts from applying proven, simple and cost effective solutions already available. Lacking is the ear and will of governments whose primary revenues are generated through the extraction, sale, and consumption of fossil fuels. I wonder who does have the governments ear-who earned a record 45.2 billion in profit for 2008 (could it be Exxon mobile?). Interestingly, an investment of 50 billion pounds over the next ten years would make solar thermal in the Sahara a viable solution for powering Europe [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5887597.ece]-unfortunately the Times confuses photovoltaics with concentrated solar thermal power. Hmmm, does North America have any deserts? Perhaps, the U.S. gov. could divert some money out of its war chest towards achieving energy independence. Or maybe the U.S. gov. could throw a couple of trillion for bailing out the environment rather than bailing out the rich. Or what about simply building houses that are superinsulated[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superinsulation]? No new technology required, just will. Geoengineering is a waste of time. Reflect the sun's light away from the planet-you've got to be kidding. What would the net effect be...reduced sunlight, reduced plant growth, reduced food supply, increases in famines, reduced carbon capture, increased heat. Further, reduce the input of solar energy to the earth and you reduce the capacity to generate electricity from the sun[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090311124022.htm]. Wonder who came up with that idea and if their research was funded by an oil company. Almost as brilliant as the idea of putting solar panels up into space so that we can transfer the energy to the earth as microwaves which would be converted back to electricity [http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=farming-solar-energy-in-space]. Could you imagine what a repair bill would be? Plus, the more conversions the lower the efficiency of the process. Importantly, energy in equals energy out-eventually that extra input of energy onto the earth turns back into heat, contributing to the problem attempting to be addressed. In conclusion, viable solutions for creating a fossil fuel independent future exist today, but wrestling control of the government from the hands of lobbyists is the greatest challenge in achieving such a goal. Perhaps you are right, we do need a miracle.