Why Free Energy Is Suppressed

[klamathpro]

I'll give you the simplest example that affects us all.  Just look at the cost of one single 165W solar panel.  Why the frak does it still cost $800 to manufacture and sell one single 165w solar cell, technology that has been around for decades? It costs over $30,000 to get your home off the grid. By the time you recoup that in savings, you'll be replacing parts, spending more money. If the government wanted us to harness free energy like the sun, they would mandate lower costs to produce these free energy items.  The solar tax credit is a joke, not even covering the cost of the batteries, why not allow a 100% solar tax credit for saving the planet?  States mandate that all lottery ticket profits go to the schools.  If they have that kind of power to decide where a company spends it's profits, why doesn't the government use it's power to give us something back? 

Because you can't tax the sun.
You can't tax the wind.
You can't tax the vacuum.

If it can't be taxed, the government wants nothing to do with it.

[shruggedatlas]

If the government wanted us to harness free energy like the sun, they would mandate lower costs to produce these free energy items.

New to economics?  Price controls do not work.

[JackH]

Hello linda933,

Well here I go.    Yes I have been treatened around 21 times on the phone.   As far as NY and as close as my home town.   I have been told that to stop on the motor or I would be killed.  Also the last two times I was called it was on my cell phone,  I dont now how they got my cell phone number.   The last two times I was to stop on the motor or my shop would be burnt.

I have placed 5 camerias around the shop to watch it, I have a camera on my drive way to watch out for how comes up my drive way.    Yes I am very carefull when I go to the shop, I take a 357  magnum with me, I keep the door locked and I allways look at the cameras before answering the door.

I viseted the shareffs office and the phone numbers were un-traceable,  All they could tell me was where they come from.

Later,,,,,,,JackH

[mapsrg]

Free energy is a threat to the status quo.....it is a direct threat to the whole economic system we have, a system that is all about control and manipulation.Free energy is freedom...it is the frontier with so much promise......

[Freedomfuel]

For the purposes of this discussion ?free energy? means lightning energy from the upper atmosphere.  This could be regarded as a form of solar energy which would makes it another renewable.

Shruggedatlas has pointed out that there are many ?free energy? technologies that are not suppressed, if by ?free energy? you mean things that take energy out of the environment.  As he/she says wind, water and solar energy have the potential to threaten the dominance of fossil fuels in the energy market if they can lower costs or achieve economies of scale, yet there is no government policy of discouraging them let alone attempting to keep advances in these technologies secret.  It is true that the oil lobby has attempted to have subsidies for nuclear and renewables removed in order to create a level playing field, but that hardly counts as suppression.

Shruggedatlas also makes the point that there is no precedent for a new technology being kept secret in order to protect existing industries.  Aero planes were not classified secret in order to protect the transatlantic liner industry.  Automobiles were not classified in order to protect the horse drawn buggy industry.  Transistors were not classified secret order to protect the thermionic valve industry.  What happened was that thermionic valve manufactures simply switched to manufacturing transistors.  Surely the same thing would happen with free energy.  Rather than seeing it as a threat the oil companies would see an opportunity to get into the highly profitable business of manufacturing and leasing free energy devices.  Already some of the more progressive oil companies have defined their role as suppliers of energy whatever the source and at least one of the oil majors has planed for peak oil by anticipating that renewables eventually will make up most of their business.

I don?t agree with Elvis Oswald who makes a distinction between other renewables and true free energy based on the cost of investment in the equipment.  Even the true free energy device would require some investment to manufacture, so it would not be entirely free.  Hans Von Lieven is probably right in that we would not be allowed to supply all our energy needs for the rest of our life for just the cost of a microwave oven.  That would be too disruptive so I expect we would have to lease the devices.

The problem that has challenged governments for the last sixty years is the fact that the free energy device can do more than just make inexpensive electricity.  If it was solely a generator then we would have had the technology in the 1950s and no-one would be using fuel today.  However, the free energy device is like the PC in that it is a universal machine with a various functions some of which are benign while others are weird, scary and dangerous.  It is because of these other functions that governments cannot trust the public with this technology.  This is a tremendous dilemma for them because they know that UFO technology is the solution to problems that have defeated mainstream science.  Global warming could be put into reverse, cancer cured, and faster than light space travel would be possible.  This would clearly be a great boon to mankind, but the possibility that a lone nut could use free energy to blow up the neighborhood provokes such dread that they cannot bring themselves to make a UFO disclosure. When free energy was first discovered by government scientists sixty years ago there was an agreement among the governments of the world to keep the discovery secret until the world?s conflicts were resolved, thus minimizing the chance that it could be used as a weapon. Now there is probably a majority of scientists and national security officials privy to the UFO secret who wants to bring the technology out, but the fear that it may be used as a weapon means that they cannot find the resolve to make this step.  This is illogical when you think about it, because even if the Iraqis used the technology to wreak havoc the lives lost would be less than lives saved by a cancer cure, along with the lives of Chinese coal miners and those killed by extreme weather caused by global warming.  There must be a deeper cause for their inhibition.  Could it be that the technology is just too powerful to give to the public and if the public possessed it this would undermine the authority of the state?  The status quo today requires that governments have the most powerful technology.  What would happen to the status quo when everyone has the means to blow up the neighborhood and travel in aircraft capable of 30,000 mph?  Anarchy?  The end of civilization as we know it?