New Energy, FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions
 

What is 'new energy' ?

How do new energy sources work ?

Why do many physicists believe new energy doesn't exist ?

Why go to all the effort if we have renewable energy such as solar, wind and hydrogen ?

How important is new energy ?

Will new energy be the solution to our problems ?

If it's real, why don't we have it? Where could we get it ?

What role can ordinary citizens play in helping new energy come about ?

If we knew about these possibilities, why didn't we start sooner ?

What is New Energy?

New energy is a class of clean and renewable sources of energy of practical use that has heretofore been unrecognized by mainstream science.

By this definition, existing solar, wind, biofuels, tides, hot fusion and most currently envisioned hydrogen combustion/fuel cell infrastructures are not new energy. Innovative technologies that could significantly enhance the economics and environmental friendliness of a given source could be considered new energy (e.g., cheap, efficient solar collectors and advanced hydrogen technologies).

So far, three basic new energy technologies have been carefully researched: (1) low energy nuclear reactions (cold fusion), (2) novel hydrogen chemistry (e.g., the Mills hydrogen gas cell), and (3) zero-point, or space energy. In all cases, the potential amount of clean energy coming from a small unit could be hundreds to thousands and perhaps millions of times greater than that generated by a similar investment in conventional sources.

Over history, several researchers have reported some of the phenomena of new energy: Michael Faraday noticed it in the 1830s in an electromagnetic motor he built. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Nikola Tesla built devices he offered to the world, but was rejected by his funders. Several other pioneers have developed promising new energy technologies throughout the 1900s.

But what few people realize is that many unsung Teslas are actively working nowadays to deepen the validity of new energy. Over the past decade, dozens of experimental proofs of the concepts of new energy have been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Within each of the three main areas of research, many different experimental concepts have been successfully demonstrated.

How Do New Energy Sources Work?

1. Low-energy nuclear reactions (cold fusion) were discovered in 1989 by two University of Utah electrochemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons. They discovered that hydrogen atoms within heavy water (deuterium), when placed in contact with a palladium cathode, could fuse into helium with the release of a great amount of useable thermal energy with no significant radioactivity. While the theory as to how these reactions could take place has not been developed, the basic concept has been openly replicated many times in many ways in laboratories throughout the world, for example, at the Los Alamos, Oak Ridge and U.S. Naval Weapons Research Laboratories, University of Illinois, Texas A & M University, the French Atomic Energy Agency, and Hokkaido University in Japan. Researchers have also used this technology to transmute high level radioactive waste to harmless substances.

2. Advanced hydrogen chemistry involve the contact of hydrogen atoms, for example in a plasma cell, with metal catalysts that result in the generation of thousands of times greater energy than the combustion of ordinary hydrogen. Evidently, hydrogen can be coaxed into large transitions to energy states lower than the "ground state", as shown by the research of Randell Mills of BlackLight Power, Inc. and others.

3. Space energy, vacuum energy, zero-point energy, the ether are terms showing the enormous potential energy field that pervades all of space-time. Some physicists have shown that this field is forced into existence by the laws of quantum mechanics and observed as "dark energy" by modern astrophysicists. Since the time of Michael Faraday in the 1830s, Tesla around 1900, and hundreds of experiments to follow, research devices have evidently been able to tap into this energy. Some theorists believe that the conditions for extracting this "free energy" include the acceleration of electromagnetic charges in the presence of the zero-point field, meaning the field still exists at temperatures of absolute zero. Rotating super-motors with super-magnets, plasma tubes and solid-state devices (specially conditioned magnets, coils and crystals, etc.) are examples of obtaining "over-unity" electrical power. In other words, more electricity can come out than goes into the device, as measured by traditional means. The potential energy available is vast.

Many physicists believe new energy doesn't exist, that various laws of the conservation of energy and thermodynamics would be broken.

Yes, many physicists have jumped to the conclusion that you can't have cold fusion or zero-point energy. But many other physicists believe that the laws of nature do allow for, and in fact, mandate the existence of new energy. There is a growing literature on both the experimental and theoretical efficacy of new energy, ignored by some mainstream scientists who object to principles which transcend their current understanding or might threaten their own activity.

For example, the journal Science published on March 8, 2002 an article reviewing successful experiments in the principle of acoustic cavitations for generating low energy nuclear reactions, over the objection of some nuclear physicists who actually do not understand the chemistry but have vested interests in hot nuclear fusion (billions have been spent on the Tokomak reactor in Princeton, N.J., with no positive results). Famed science writer Arthur C. Clarke declared attempts to refute cold fusion as "one of the greatest scandals in the history of science."

The scientific community has often proven to be the guardians to the gates of new ideas-- sometimes with wisdom and sometimes from ignorance. But what we have here seems to prove Bertrand Russell's dictum that "The resistance to a new idea increases as the square of its importance."

Even with objections among some mainstream scientists, surely venture capitalists, the Department of Energy, and industrial executives should be eager to be the first to bring on new energy.

You'd think so. But actually, there is no gold rush here because there may not be enough potential payoff for those whose interests lie with expensive and polluting fossil fuel and nuclear energy. These new technologies may end the energy companies as we now know them. During the twentieth century, there have been many documented cases of the active suppression of new energy technologies. For example, the Patent Office often rejects new energy applications and the U.S. Department of Defense confiscates devices that they claim might have military application. These activities have been amply documented.

One venture capitalist about to fund new energy research and development was advised by his marketing people not to make any investments until we can "tap into the river of optimized profits." In other words, capitalists hold back until they're ready to take off with a commercial product. In a better world, the government would be funding new energy research and development. Required would be some hundreds of millions of dollars towards an Apollo/ Manhattan type of effort to coordinate the research leading to the production of useable devices for the people. Public funding of R & D is one of the primary objectives of the New Energy Movement.

Why go to all the effort if we have renewable energy such as solar, wind and hydrogen?

It is true that we could go to solar or wind, and we would all be happy if these become the choice of the people. But these traditional sources are capital-intensive, diffuse and sometimes intermittent. Hydrogen infrastructures are expensive and consume more energy than they produce. The economy may not be able to support the large front-end costs.

New energy is the best hope to deliver cost-effective, efficient, and emissionless baseload electricity for all sectors of the energy economy, free of grid systems. Traditional renewables might be thought of as the dirigibles and balloons of our time. During the early days of aviation, it became quickly apparent that airplanes were the way to go.

How important is new energy?

Very important. We are talking about supplanting a multi-trillion-dollar energy effort relying on dwindling and polluting resources now supported by government and industry.

Many scientists believe we have only decades at most to survive pollution, war and climate change. The way in which we use energy is very important. We have to look at all options very carefully from many standpoints: environmental friendliness, cost, and safety.

As a people, we cannot stand by as new energy technology develops, as we believe it will. We do not want this to be solely a black project (it might be already). We would like to have a public say on policy choices before it becomes a forgone conclusion for vested industry and government.

We feel that new energy is so important, we need to keep the research as transparent as possible and beneficial to the human species and the Earth. So even if some concepts will not come to fruition, several are likely to do so. Only one is all that is needed. And that one could change the whole course of history.

But this is not a derby to corner the market, holding back on an economically or politically manipulated starting gate, followed by a competition controlled solely by the largest corporate players, with the potential for more suppression. We don't have time for all that. We need to know what we're dealing with so we can make intelligent decisions as a public project run by honest government.

Will new energy be the solution to our problems?

No. We believe new energy will go a long way in getting off our fossil fuel and nuclear addiction and to meet the 2020 goal, which is our first and most urgent priority. But we must also regenerate the Earth's biosphere. For that, we will need to reallocate much of our massive military resources towards forming an Earth Corps to preserve and restore water, topsoil, forests, oceans and agricultural produce.

These are physical problems demanding physical solutions which no amount of media, political or economic spin could undo. The economy must be reformulated to fit the new circumstances rather than be the driver of them.

The New Energy Movement supports the work of environmentalists and progressives to create a sustainable future, with clean energy as the starting showpiece.

If it's real, why don't we have it? Where could we get it?

Asking today's inventors to deliver the goods to you is like asking the Wright brothers to deliver passengers and mail just after their maiden flight in 1903. Asking them to publicly demonstrate their devices to you might require that you take a trip to see them. We must be realistic about our demands of scattered and under funded inventors.

Successful demonstrations are rare early on in the development of any breakthrough technology. How many times did Edison try before a successful demonstration? Thousands of times. But he knew of the basic concept and was able to succeed only after many trials.

Regarding new energy, we are in the research phase of a research and development cycle. In order to birth this (or any) significant technology, we need the help of aware people in the birthing process. History demonstrates that R & D is the thin edge of a wedge into the future. Today's modest blueprints could become tomorrow's multibillion dollar reality, for good or for harm.

Imagine if the Los Alamos Laboratories were to switch over from nuclear energy to new energy. We could be well on our way to having it within years. The sad fact is, new energy researchers are now divided and ruled by those who don't want them to succeed. They need our support to bring them together in a positive research environment.

We realize that dramatic public demonstrations of new energy technologies will become important. This is one of the highest priorities of the NEM. The concept of heavier-than-air flight had been a fantasy mocked by scientists and media alike until successful demonstrations opened its credibility years later. A reporter from the Wright brothers' hometown newspaper in Dayton, Ohio, was fired from his position when he submitted the story of the initial flights in Kitty Hawk. We must be patient and have understanding about the process of discovery and development.

Since the beginning of time, new paradigms have been suppressed. Our time is no exception and the most precious commodity we now have is energy. How we use energy will determine whether or not we will survive.

The New Energy Movement will be educating the public and decision-makers about the potential of new energy. We believe that, through publicly-funded R & D efforts and partnerships with private entities, we can have a zero-emission planet by 2020 if we move ahead forthrightly.

What role can ordinary citizens play in helping new energy come about?

The New Energy Movement is like any other populist movement such as civil rights, women's rights, peace, etc. It comes from a deep conviction among a growing number of people that humanity can no longer be secure with current energy policies and that the initial push must come from the public sector. It comes from an inner drive we have not to become extinct. We expect the movement to grow organically.

Large mainstream organizations ranging from churches to enlightened universities to corporations to governments to media to foundations will need to become involved. They need to know that new energy is in their best interest to move ahead. They need to know this is much more important in the long run than their bottom lines. They will need to find ways to minimize social and economic disruption caused by the greatest economic conversion in human history.

If we knew about these possibilities, why didn't we start sooner?

The situation is desperate, much moreso now than 10 or 20 years ago. The July 21 Time Magazine issue pointed to a history of empty promises and stillbirths in our public energy policy spanning seven successive American administrations, each one making empty promises that were unfulfilled. Yet Americans are more reliant on foreign oil than ever. We keep growing as the largest contributors to global climate change.

The greatest weapon of mass destruction, according John Houghton, former chief of the British Meteorogical Office, is the accelerating climate change attributable to our routine burning of fossil fuels. Like terrorism, we don't know when or where disaster will strike; we just know it will. This new situation demands an aggressive effort to redress the problem.

Those in control are subject to the same disasters as the rest of us. If the White House and Congress are astute enough to recognize a long-term threat from terrorism, making public statements about the problem and allocating many billions of dollars to address it, we need to address why don't they do the same for the threats from our current energy practices. Actually, the government investment could be much less (tens to hundreds of millions of dollars) to develop new energy before the commercial sector mass-produces the new devices.

Imagine having power packs producing clean electricity, supplanting centralized control, monthly bills, unsightly grid systems, and most of all, the emission of toxins and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. An impossible dream? We do not think so. We believe that new energy is a necessity which could come forward just in time to avoid biospheric collapse.