Why Free Energy Is Suppressed

[ben8807]

Energy is a synonym for power and control.

Maybe "no energy" instead of "free energy"
would cause less trouble.

"free energy" is the most evil thing on earth.
(if you sell weapons or/and are a part of the oil
industry). Forget terrorism.

Sorry but the argument is BS. Water used to be the valuable commodity, but now almost everywhere on the planet it is cheap and abundant. Same with food for the most part. If energy were free, products would still not be. If suddenly the world no longer needed petroleum for power we would still need it for most of the products we enjoy. It's like the argument that the oil companies are squashing bio fuels. If bio-fuels are really a cheaper alternative to oil then the oil companies are going to be the first to pioneer the use on a large scale. Whats cheaper, spending time drilling and exploring with a high chance of finding nothing, or growing algae in huge tanks? When the answer is algae the oil companies will hop on board because it is better for their profits.

Also, who is going to refine these new bio fuels? Who is going to provide the technology?

Free energy is not a threat to big auto or big oil, quite the oposite it could cause their profits to go up greatly.

[fritz]

Sorry but the argument is BS. Water used to be the valuable commodity, but now almost everywhere on the planet it is cheap and abundant.

Depends on where you live.
I think thereÂÃ,´s a major problem with water - especially in combination with
excessive agriculture. The water level in such regions steadily drops.
And we dont want to talk here about the Sahara.
There are people who expect the next wars on water instead of oil.

Same with food for the most part. If energy were free, products would still not be.

Maybe not that high impact on food -
But with unlimited supply of energy - you can synthetisize almost everything
from widely available commodities.
That means that the importance of "expensive" commodities will drop either.

If suddenly the world no longer needed petroleum for power we would still need it for most of the products we enjoy.

No, there are lots of alternatives, especially if the energy is free.

It's like the argument that the oil companies are squashing bio fuels. If bio-fuels are really a cheaper alternative to oil then the oil companies are going to be the first to pioneer the use on a large scale.

There is no need for squashing bio fuels - maybe it was initially - but the space you need
to grow is huge - the soil gets exhausted (....)
A global change to bio fuel would only make sense if the consumption would drop by
10 or even hundred.

Whats cheaper, spending time drilling and exploring with a high chance of finding nothing, or growing algae in huge tanks? When the answer is algae the oil companies will hop on board because it is better for their profits.

Thats the reason why free energy is important.
Otherwise the people would fuck up the world (is cheaper) as long as nothing remains.

Also, who is going to refine these new bio fuels? Who is going to provide the technology?

On the long run I think the bio fuels will have no impact.

Free energy is not a threat to big auto or big oil, quite the oposite it could cause their profits to go up greatly.

If they can participate in the change to alternative energy ressources - I agree.
And they want to control this change very tightly - to be in the game.
Additional, they want to protect their investments.
This is a reason why it is within their vital interest to visit any researcher claiming
free energy.
On the long run - they will make their money with "free energy" - and by some laws
the production of your own "energy" would be prohibited. (too dangerous)

If you look what happens in the countries with lots of fossile ressources - you see
that they invest now every petro dollar into education, science and other alternative
income. Thats my proof that free energy exists.

Anyway - we experience the change from a commodity based society to a technological based
society - and everyone tries to protect its interests and/or  investments.

thats it. money. No MIB, just "agents" which helps you on the right way ;-)))

[cyclopz]

If electromagnetic generators become widely available and affordable to the average consumer (which I hope they will be in the near future), the world is going to go through a huge shift. No more electric companies, no more nuclear power plants, no more oil drilling, no more gas price increases...

Okay basically it boils down to this... (I heard this on a radio show and I agree) For the past 5,000 years or so we've been a world based on a war-driven economy. We use up resources until they're all gone, then we go plunder a neighboring country and take over their resources, use them til they're gone, then go plunder another country, etc. As evolved as we are with our computers and medicine and spacecraft... we are STILL essentially a war-driven economy. Look at the war in Iraq if you need proof of that. The problem is we've out-grown our caveman technology... It's no longer horses and spears. We have bombs that could destroy basically all life on earth. We can no longer function on a war-based economy. And we certainly can't suppress clean energy technology any longer if we intend to make any progress as a species. I think the release of free-energy technology will be THEE turning point in history, from a world economy based on warfare, to a world economy based on unity and progress. So, do you support a war-based economy or do you support a progress-based economy? You can't have both. There's only one option: progress. War-driven politics is going to inevitably lead us to our doom as a species.

[tsl]

Why is free energy supressed?
See here

[Elvis Oswald]

This is going on a tangent... but consider it reference.

The military industrial complex that Ike warned us about... the same one born out of the plot by certain families to overthrow the Republic and replace it with fascism... got JFK because of all the things he planned to do.
The Marylin thing was probably that same cabal using her to compromise John... I bet they thought they could blackmail him - he was Joe's boy... shooting him wouldn't have been the first attempt at stopping him.
The rumors of an affair... his brother involved with the same girl... and finally, she turns up dead... at the least, it would be thought, they drove her to it.
All meant to discourage John.  I guess it didn't.