 |
There are currently, 136 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Which New Energy Initiative would you support?
| Bush proposal |    21.95% (18) | | Reid/Clinton new DOE agency | 23.17% (19) | | Something else (comment pls.) | 54.88% (45) |
Total Votes: 82
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls ] |
|
| "Which New Energy Initiative would you support?" | Login/Create an Account | 6 comments |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Which New Energy Initiative would you support? (Score: 1)
by mojo on Friday, February 03, 2006 @ 13:33:22 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | | We need a Manhattn style project involving all the national laboratories. They should investigate and experiment on any promising overunity technologies as well as anti-gravitic technologies.
Instead of all that money going to high energy particle physics, a significant amount should be invested in the aforementioned places.
mojo |
|
|
Re: Which New Energy Initiative would you support? (Score: 1)
by Sigma on Saturday, February 04, 2006 @ 17:05:22 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | | Where is the 'all of the above' button? Hehe. |
|
|
Re: Which New Energy Initiative would you support? (Score: 1)
by ElectroDynaCat on Monday, February 13, 2006 @ 15:12:23 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Whew! For a minute I thought we would actually be naive to think that government can actually solve problems in this area. It looks like at least 40 % are hooked up into the real world.
The best way to have a continuing energy crisis is to let government "solve" it. |
|
|
Re: Which New Energy Initiative would you support? (Score: 1)
by Crayden on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 @ 00:00:58 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | In agreement with mojo, I'd say a Manhattan-type project is needed. If resources were steered intensively into one arena like they did when developing the atomic bomb, I can't see why it should take more than a maximum of five years to solve our energy problem. And by "our" I do of course mean the world's energy problem. And as opposed to the Manhattan project, this one would be far less demanding, more along the lines of sewing ready-made parts together, given the vast amount of experimental and theoretical research done by individuals all over the world the past 100 years.
Coupled with simultaneous information campaigns to entrain people in more considerate and responsible use of their avaliable energy, and other projects like, say, mandatory switching from fossil diesel to biodiesel for all avaliable fuel stations, less taxing of environmentally demanding and non-renewable solutions and higher taxing of the opposite, the problem would "solve itself" once these things were ingrained as habit and the technology was proven and allowed to flourish.
In an ideal world, that is. We all (I hope) know the reaction of the plethora of power factions in the face of a potentially truly free population, which is why things like these probably won't happen, at least not from government initiative.
And that's why the idea of Bush aiming at solving this problem is beyond hilarious. It's just plain sad. For one, he's a president, and that in itself gives it a bittersweet taste of irony and distrust. Another tidbit of everyday insanity is to see the man who pushed a superpower into war based on complete and downright lies, a war aimed at oil and economic/power interests, come out and say "We need to break our dependency on oil", and initiate a project to solve the energy problem he and his family have been willing participants in creating.
If this project leads to anything at all, it will probably be systems that can be owned, taxed, patented beyond recognition and made proprietary so that it'll be illegal for regular citizens to make their own home solutions in the same arena. Another vampiric system that implicitly steers the economic flux through the pockets and back yards of an elect few.
The research seems to focus on the same old trawl, wind, gas,
solar. Sure enough, these work, but readers of this site especially
must know there are far better and more powerful alternatives avaliable. Yet another reason to be skeptical, because I have serious doubts that nobody has yet tried informing the Bush adminstration of at least one of these technologies, or that the people involved aren't at least marginally aware of it themselves. Yet, there seems to be absolutely no mention of it. One would think any honest leader and his staff would at least look into something as potentially rewarding as this if they were setting out to solve the energy crisis.
It might as well be a good thing that free energy systems are not developed by this, as it's not in the nature of any government to give it's citicens the complete freedom that a free and unlimited supply of energy would create. I can imagine zero-point and vacuum energy converters with installed limiters and parts that deliberately wear out for "national security reasons", or just simply smacked into powerplants where they would charge as usual.
So, which new energy initiative would I support?
Free free energy. Information should be free, so should energy, and then also of course information about free energy. When Stalin did his research he found that revolutions practically always started out in the countryside. In analogy, I think the energy revolution will start not in the big offices and high seats, but in back yards, garages, open-source type websites -- the global countryside of social evolution, and in the spirit of freedom itself, people putting behind themselves the notions of absolute ownerships, rights to charge each other for what nature has freely given us, and instead sharing knowledge openly and fearlessly with each other.
No matter how you look at it and no matter exactly what makes the historical landmark in this development, in the end things will have to result in this form of freedom, or our world, our way of living, will collapse under it's own weight.
To me, that's the most realistic solution there is, and that's what I'll support first and foremost: Sites like this one and PesWiki, people like Peter Lindemann, Tom Bearden, Thomas Valone, Moray B. King, Nick Cook, etc. who share great amounts of valuable information openly and quite freely, and the idea that we should share ideas, technology and other resources as freely among each other as Nature has cared to freely sustain our entire existence.
|
|
|
Re: Which New Energy Initiative would you support? (Score: 1)
by Breizh_Free on Sunday, August 20, 2006 @ 10:38:31 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Hello ,
As a Frenchman I think that G.W Bush or other politics lie.
Theses guys you vote for , cannot promise you free energy and at the same
time make war in the world.
If the secret of Free Energy hold by the Military or D.O.E was disclosed why
do the humankind makes the war only for oil ???????????
A small group of humans hold the true ,and want to keep their own priviledges.
Thanks for giving me an answer.
Regards .
Breizh_Free.
|
|
|
Re: Which New Energy Initiative would you support? (Score: 1)
by sfx on Monday, February 05, 2007 @ 05:28:20 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Experience dictates:-
All & sundry, that are polar opposite to GWB's proposal...! |
|
|
|
|
