Free Energy vs. Environmentalism, or is New Energy the Common Ground.

In a recent debate between Sterling Allan, a free energy advocate, and Joel Carlinski, an environmentalist  (See http://pesn.com/2010/08/09/9501683_Why_Liberal_Environmentalists_Dont_Flock_to_Free_Energy/ ), I was surprised to find an argument between ‘green’ advocates, both of whom I am sure would agree that the New World Order and their version of Common Ground, is not the solution.

Allan questioned Carlinski’s scepticism of the ability of abundant, clean energy to solve environmental problems. Allan clearly believes that free energy will reduce pollution and raise living standards. Carlinski says free energy buffs are chasing a pipe-dream that will not solve environmental problems, because, he says, many problems are not related to how energy is obtained.

It seems that the disagreement between these representatives of the free energy movement and the environmental movement, comes down to definition, and Carlinski exposes this in the opening sentence of his essay ‘Free Energy As A Political Ideology’, when he says: “There is an extensive subculture of people who think it is possible to build a device that produces more energy than it needs to run itself.” He shows his scepticism of this idea of ‘overunity’ by saying that it would revolutionise modern physics. His view is well-founded because to date no one has revolutionised physics by proving overunity or perpetual motion.

It is true that so-called free energy does seem to be free, like air, but, in keeping with the first law of thermodynamics, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, we can rationalise that the energy used to drive these free energy devices must come from somewhere, and must be used up in the process. Perhaps overunity is indeed a myth and cannot be achieved, and so-called free energy devices actually do cost and do use up the potential energy or latent energy of the system, and is therefore not free at all.

If free energy buffs realised this subtle difference, and took into account the environmental cost of production and maintenance of their devices, and environmentalists realised that it is new technologies, used responsibly, that will give us a greater ability to solve environmental problems, we will have more common ground between everyone. If free energy buffs did not pretend that their devices “produce more energy than they need to run themselves”, then we could come to some agreement about the subject.  Clearly the energy used to drive the device must have been supplied by something in order to create the magnetism, or field, or momentum, or potential, in the first place. Even if it is immeasurably small, and immediately re-supplied by ‘Universal Energy’, it is logical to agree that the first law of thermodynamics holds, and to agree that however small it is, there is some cost to the environment from which the energy is taken.

I think that we could resolve this argument once and for all, and realise that we are all on the same side, if free energy buffs took note of the environmental maxim that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and started calling themselves new energy buffs instead. Let’s drop our arguments and work together on getting this revolutionary information out there so we can start devising ways in which we can use it to heal our planet from the scourge of corporations, governments and the New World Order.

The concept of abundant, cheap energy is indeed a double-edged sword, bringing with it a responsibility of custodianship to all those animate and inanimate beings without access to such energy, including Earth. With the ability to produce things cheaply, we could quickly inundate the planet with garbage. There is, however, a good chance that New Energy will be used responsibly because, since everyone will have equal access to abundant energy, and we will all be able to produce anything we want, so our wants will decrease, especially since we cannot sell stuff to people who can produce what ever they want themselves. Knowing that we can, we may no longer feel the need to exploit, and we all might start to develop a more nurturing ethic instead.

I trust that a New Energy revolution will be concurrent with a consciousness revolution.

 

2 Responses to Free Energy vs. Environmentalism, or is New Energy the Common Ground.

  • christoph says:

    Hey Rod,

    I came to your blog through your fb post…

    this is a very cool article…. I’ve recently checked a lot of sites and posts about the topic of free energy… and to me it always seems to have similar “hick-up’s”…
    I feel… and there can’t be a proof to feeling…. that we are visualizing/designing/planing …. whatever one wants to call it a future way of “powering” devices with our present day state of mind/ consciousness.
    To me this can’t work. One has to free him/her-self from what we have been taught and allow for the universal/divine consciousness to guide humanity to where we are going. Faith instead of Physics.
    Love and Light
    c

  • Rod says:

    Hi Charles
    Sure thing, the more people know about these things the better. I just wish I was more prolific and didnt have to work for a living, then I would be able to spend more time on the mysteries, conspiracies and the prophesies…
    All the best
    Rod