Thread: New member wants to revive suppressed energy technology, is anyone interested?

One of the most prevalent of conundrums in today's society is the suppression of energy technology. Just look around to see a world where we can accurately measure the size of a molecule, we can detect structural flaws using resonance, we have computer networks capable of monitoring and advertising directly to billions of people, etc... Yet when it comes to producing energy, we may as well be rubbing sticks together. There really is no excuse for our destructive dependency on the burning of fossil fuels. This dependency is is driven by another dependency, our dependency on money. What very likely may be the most powerful industry on planet earth is the combined fossil fuel energy companies. How industry has been able to shut down so many clean and economical energy solutions is mind boggling. Science should not be so heavily controlled by industry, but it is! For example in the 1970s and early 1980s hydrogen technology developments were growing to the point where there were articles in scientific magazines nearly every week. It seemed inevitable at the time that the conversion to clean economical hydrogen was in the near future, but somewhere between the late 1980s and 1990s it all went away. Somehow, someway all of these great inventions and processes just seemed to vaporize. It's time to prove that the scientific community cannot be purchased or frightened out of progress in the fields the world needs most. Is there anybody else with the courage to take the chance and develop new energy technologies to share with everyone so it can't be targeted by industry?

Please show, conclusively, that energy technology is being, or has been, suppressed.

How industry has been able to shut down so many clean and economical energy solutions is mind boggling

Examples please.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Please show, conclusively, that energy technology is being, or has been, suppressed.

How industry has been able to shut down so many clean and economical energy solutions is mind boggling

Examples please.

Patent encumbrance of large automotive NiMH batteries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oops, double post. Delete me please. Thank you.

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Please show, conclusively, that energy technology is being, or has been, suppressed.

How industry has been able to shut down so many clean and economical energy solutions is mind boggling

Examples please.

Patent encumbrance of large automotive NiMH batteries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From your own link:
"it's possible that Cobasys (Chevron) is squelching all access to large NiMH batteries through its control of patent licenses in order to remove a competitor to gasoline. Or it's possible that Cobasys simply wants the market for itself and is waiting for a major automaker to start producing plug-in hybrids or electric vehicles."
So for a start we have two differing explanations.
And THEN we have:
because Li-Ion technology, while functionally superior due to its higher specific energy and specific power, is prohibitively expensive, relatively untested with regards to its long-term reliability, and can be subject to dangerous overheating and fire if cells are controlled incorrectly or damaged.
Same link.
I.e. even IF we take the worst interpretation - that the technology is "shut down" - we still have the fact that it's not exactly the wonder source we're looking for any way.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

From your own link:
"it's possible that Cobasys (Chevron) is squelching all access to large NiMH batteries through its control of patent licenses in order to remove a competitor to gasoline. Or it's possible that Cobasys simply wants the market for itself and is waiting for a major automaker to start producing plug-in hybrids or electric vehicles."
So for a start we have two differing explanations.

True, but there is evidence to support the first assertion.
From The Wiki;
Critics also argue that historical evidence demonstrates the willingness of the oil industry to engage in such anti-competitive behavior. In 1949, the U.S. Supreme Court found Chevron (then known asStandard Oil of California) guilty of conspiring to buy and dismantle the Los Angeles electric street car system, in what became known as the Great American streetcar scandal.^[16] In an effort to prevent the passage of California's zero emission mandates in late 1993 and early 1994, oil companies also funded a series of advertisements that questioned the viability of electric vehicles.^[4]
Cobasys' problems with other potential customers also raised questions about the company's sales policies. In October 2007, International Acquisitions Services, Inc. and Innovative Transportation Systems AG filed suit against Cobasys and its parents for refusing to fill a large, previously agreed-upon, order for large-format NiMH batteries to be used in the Innovan electric vehicle.^[12] In August 2008, Mercedes-Benz sued Cobasys for again refusing to fill a large, previously agreed-upon order for NiMH batteries.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

because Li-Ion technology, while functionally superior due to its higher specific energy and specific power, is prohibitively expensive, relatively untested with regards to its long-term reliability, and can be subject to dangerous overheating and fire if cells are controlled incorrectly or damaged.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Same link.
I.e. even IF we take the worst interpretation - that the technology is "shut down" - we still have the fact that it's not exactly the wonder source we're looking for any way.

But it's the NiMH batteries, not the Li-Ion batteries with the encumbered patent. The NiMH batteries may not be the most efficient, but they are the cheaper safer choice. Hence the better choice for consumer applications.
From The Wiki; The EV1 program was shut down by GM before the new NiMH battery could be commercialized, despite field tests that indicated the Ovonics battery extended the EV1's range to over 150 miles.

And, of course, batteries are not a source of energy, just a means of storing it.

Also we know about these potential attempts by Cobasys to "suppress" / exploit it so it doesn't really fit the idea of a secret conspiracy.

Originally Posted by markgrime

For example in the 1970s and early 1980s hydrogen technology developments were growing to the point where there were articles in scientific magazines nearly every week.

This tells me more about the poor state of journalism than the energy industry.

It seemed inevitable at the time that the conversion to clean economical hydrogen was in the near future, but somewhere between the late 1980s and 1990s it all went away.

Reality set in.

Originally Posted by Strange

And, of course, batteries are not a source of energy, just a means of storing it.

I suppose someone who reads this might need that fact pointed out to them.

Originally Posted by Strange

Also we know about these potential attempts by Cobasys to "suppress" / exploit it so it doesn't really fit the idea of a secret conspiracy.

Saying "suppress" / exploit is about like saying kill / resurrect. See the part about the lawsuits filed against Cobasys for failure to fill contracted orders, one of which was to Mercedes Benz. How is pissing off customers part of profitable exploitation? And "secret conspiracy" hasn't been explicitly mentioned in any post or link in this thread till your mention. Although it might be construed implicitly from the OP.

I suppose I should distance myself from the OP considering that it doesn't accurately reflect my position.

Originally Posted by markgrime

It seemed inevitable at the time that the conversion to clean economical hydrogen was in the near future

It takes more energy to produce hydrogen than is obtained from the hydrogen in a fuel cell reaction. Not a great idea, a fuel that takes more energy to obtain than it generates.

Originally Posted by markgrime

It's time to prove that the scientific community cannot be purchased or frightened

Umm, this is just kinda silly.

And I hope no one is going to drag out the tired urban legend saw about the 100mpg carburetor. That would be silly as well.

I know Dywyddyr asked for "examples" and I've only provided one. My apologies for being lazy and not researching a couple more. But how often does anybody around here ask for an example or citation and get anything at all.

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

Originally Posted by Strange

And, of course, batteries are not a source of energy, just a means of storing it.

I suppose someone who reads this might need that fact pointed out to them.

I thought so.

And the same is true of hydrogen, of course, so it probably does fall within the scope of the OPs argument.

Saying "suppress" / exploit is about like saying kill / resurrect. See the part about the lawsuits filed against Cobasys for failure to fill contracted orders, one of which was to Mercedes Benz. How is pissing off customers part of profitable exploitation?

Fair enough. Feel free to move the scare quotes to "exploit" if that is more appropriate (I really can't be bothered to learn more about the who/what/why of Cobasys.)

It takes more energy to produce hydrogen than is obtained from the hydrogen in a fuel cell reaction. Not a great idea, a fuel that takes more energy to obtain than it generates.

Although, that is true of all fuels / storage systems. There are differences in efficiency but I think the practical aspects are more important. Things like storing/transporting hydroegn, the relatively low energy density (in practical systems), etc. Similarly, one of the current challenges for electric vehicles is the weight, cost, charge time, and limited life of batteries. (Don't tell me, the Cobasys technology would address this )

If Cobasys really are attempting to control a technology in order to gain a monopoly of it, then they have a very poor understanding of both business and history.

Umm, this is just kinda silly.

Agreed.

It seemed inevitable at the time that the conversion to clean economical hydrogen was in the near future

Errr...that might be true on gas giants such as Jupiter, but certainly not here on Earth. Producing, transporting and storing useable hydrogen in sufficient quantities is difficult, expensive, dangerous, and not very resource efficient at all. That's why all of this kind of fizzled out after the initial buzz.

30 years ago, it seemed that in a few decades fusion was going to provide limitless cheap, clean energy.

That is still true today. Work goes on (not "suppressed") but at every step it turns out to be a much more complex problem that previously thought.

At the other end of the scale, anyone can now get involved in generating some or all of their energy "for free". They can even sell the excess back to the utility company, often at subsidised rates. Oh the pain of being "suppressed".

Meanwhile, off in the corner, there are the "special" kids playing with magnets who think they can generate free energy but somehow are never quite able to. They claim their ignorance and incompetence is due to being "suppressed" (despite the fact they are all over the Interwbez). Actually it is due to them being morons (or crooks). But there you go.

Cobasys, and NiMH batteries in general are really yesterdays news and technologies now. The next generation of battery will likely be a LiPo. I don't believe that anybody holds any controlling patents on that technology. Really all I was doing was providing a credible example of likely technological suppression. If Chevron (The corporation with controlling interest in Cobasys) was hoping to retard electrical vehicle development, they only succeeded in doing so to an effect of a few years. I predict that in ten years half of all new private vehicle sales will be electric.

Yea, don't know what to say to the special kids with their pile of junk magnets blathering about over unity. I guess they never heard of Emily Noether.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Please show, conclusively, that energy technology is being, or has been, suppressed.

How industry has been able to shut down so many clean and economical energy solutions is mind boggling

Examples please.

Can you show, conclusively, that energy technology isn't being, or hasn't been suppressed?

Was the hydrogen example not enough for you to check out and see the obvious? Try searching the archives of any (or better yet several) scientific magazine(s) that was/were around in the 1970s and 1980s and then try to ask that question and not feel a bit foolish about it.

Do all pieces of information require certified data to be allowed into your consciousness, and have you ever done some personal investigations on certified data to verify it hasn't been altered or staged?

Can you provide proof that you're not paid to get on forums and attempt to kill energy discussions with the old standard heckle "prove it" to every posed idea approach?

So rather than continue with the simpleton courtroom lawyer approach to this discussion do you have anything to contribute productively?

Personally I prefer to question methodically to open doors and support creativity, rather than to question to create boundaries.

I am trying to get good ideas flowing through this discussion and am inviting any ideas for consideration, if there is anything to add to it we are all welcome to expand upon the idea, if anyone doesn't see the potential of the idea they are welcome to move on to the next. There is little or nothing productive about battling over each others beliefs because neither party is likely to change them and it disrupts the creative flow.

I especially welcome the folks that can get their hands dirty and do experiments for themselves, for that is where the creativeness and productivity flow freely.

So are you creative, are you productive, do you have something to contribute? or not?

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

It seemed inevitable at the time that the conversion to clean economical hydrogen was in the near future

Errr...that might be true on gas giants such as Jupiter, but certainly not here on Earth. Producing, transporting and storing useable hydrogen in sufficient quantities is difficult, expensive, dangerous, and not very resource efficient at all. That's why all of this kind of fizzled out after the initial buzz.

And just how much research went into closing that door? Does this dismiss the multitude of hydrolysis methods to derive it instantly on demand from water? Is there there is no possibility that the drawbacks listed weren't deliberately promoted heavily to discredit the technology before it started catching on and cutting into profits? BTW I remember some methods of storage that used flameproof porous materials that did test to be safer than a gas tank but they were a bit more bulky.

Are we about researching ourselves to an end or researching to find the undiscovered?

Originally Posted by markgrime

Can you show, conclusively, that energy technology isn't being, or hasn't been suppressed?

Whoa! Burden of proof: YOU are the one making claims. Therefore YOU need to provide evidence. You can't just assume that default is that technology is suppressed and expect to be disproved.

Only loony crackpots make ridiculous claims then yell Prove me wrong!!!. Don't be that guy.

Was the hydrogen example not enough for you to check out and see the obvious?

Are the obvious technical challenges not enough to prove you wrong? (And ignorant)

Can you provide proof that you're not paid to get on forums and attempt to kill energy discussions with the old standard heckle "prove it" to every posed idea approach?

Can YOU provide proof he is as, again, you are the one making idiotic claims?

Personally I prefer to question methodically to open doors and support creativity, rather than to question to create boundaries.

Evidence needed of that. You sound like a gullible conspiracy theorist (based on the evidence so far). Can you prove you are not?

I am trying to get good ideas flowing through this discussion and am inviting any ideas for consideration, if there is anything to add to it we are all welcome to expand upon the idea, if anyone doesn't see the potential of the idea they are welcome to move on to the next. There is little or nothing productive about battling over each others beliefs because neither party is likely to change them and it disrupts the creative flow.

There have been lots of good ideas (apart from the post #1 and #14).

I especially welcome the folks that can get their hands dirty and do experiments for themselves, for that is where the creativeness and productivity flow freely.

Do experiments themselves? What has that got to do with your conspiracy theory?

So are you creative, are you productive, do you have something to contribute? or not?

You mean, will he mindlessly agree with you ... or not. (Not, I suspect.)

LOL....people pay Dy to STAY OFF of forums...not post on them.

Originally Posted by markgrime

Can you show, conclusively, that energy technology isn't being, or hasn't been suppressed?

You're the one claiming "suppression".

Was the hydrogen example not enough for you to check out and see the obvious? Try searching the archives of any (or better yet several) scientific magazine(s) that was/were around in the 1970s and 1980s and then try to ask that question and not feel a bit foolish about it.

See Harold's reply to that.
If you're claiming suppression you have to show that.
Not just mention widespread claims that didn't pan out.

Can you provide proof that you're not paid to get on forums and attempt to kill energy discussions with the old standard heckle "prove it" to every posed idea approach?

Can YOU "provide proof" you're not paid by cranks to bring up old, many-times-disputed claims?

So rather than continue with the simpleton courtroom lawyer approach to this discussion do you have anything to contribute productively?

Oh wait, we're supposed to discuss this rationally by taking your word that it's a fact?

Personally I prefer to question methodically to open doors and support creativity, rather than to question to create boundaries.

So you don't consider "provide evidence for your claim" to be methodical?
You'd rather we simply accepted that it's true and proceed from there?

I am trying to get good ideas flowing through this discussion and am inviting any ideas for consideration, if there is anything to add to it we are all welcome to expand upon the idea, if anyone doesn't see the potential of the idea they are welcome to move on to the next. There is little or nothing productive about battling over each others beliefs because neither party is likely to change them and it disrupts the creative flow.

I especially welcome the folks that can get their hands dirty and do experiments for themselves, for that is where the creativeness and productivity flow freely.

So are you creative, are you productive, do you have something to contribute? or not?

Basically then, we're to assume that it's a fact that this suppression occurs, has occurred, and talk about that. With the specifics not mentioned - i.e. you won't tell us which particular technologies are subject to this suppression.
Fair enough.
I personally consider it disgusting that they suppressed all that free power from the concentrated sunlight in cucumbers.
Go figure...

Off to Pseudo. Gotta earn my pay-off money.

Originally Posted by markgrime

And just how much research went into closing that door?

That door has not been closed. There is still a huge amount of research going on into hydrogen fuel and fuel cells.

Does this dismiss the multitude of hydrolysis methods to derive it instantly on demand from water?

You do realise that would need more energy than you would get from the hydrogen?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

I personally consider it disgusting that they suppressed all that free power from the concentrated sunlight in cucumbers.
Go figure...

It wasn't really suppressed, more like eaten, with salt. Uurrp... Sorry.

Originally Posted by Strange

That door has not been closed. There is still a huge amount of research going on into hydrogen fuel and fuel cells.

I know that to be fact.
My last-but-one job involved developing a hydrogen fuel cell for certain car company.
My favourite part of that project was that I was on holiday and out of town when they ran the first tests.
Mainly because, one week prior to those tests the guy ¹ who'd had the responsibility for designing the pressure vessel ² confided to me that he had no idea how to arrive at a figure for the thickness of said vessel and just taken a wild guess.
I half expected to return to work only to find a large hole in the ground where the factory had been.

1 An engineering graduate ³ with less than a year's practical experience.
2 IIRC 30 atmospheres of hydrogen/ oxygen at some ridiculously high temperature - to be fitted in a car boot!
3 And no, generally, being a "graduate" in engineering is NOT regarded as advantageous, except for getting through interviews.

Is there not one member in this forum that isn't convinced that the energy industry isn't doing anything to protect its empire and constantly growing profit margins from something more economical taking its place?

No... there are no conspiracies, are there? Gee... I guess TV news is accurate and factual?

From the direction of the responses it is clear that few dare to share anything here that isn't already proven. Even then it would be heckled to no end.

With such a low percentage of listening and such a high percentage of resistance this appears to be more like the argument clinic than a place to look for ideas and support.

I may look around for information here but will no longer consider it feasible to ask for it.

Thanks to the few that can see through.

Originally Posted by markgrime

Is there not one member in this forum that isn't convinced that the energy industry isn't doing anything to protect its empire and constantly growing profit margins from something more economical taking its place?

No... there are no conspiracies, are there? Gee... I guess TV news is accurate and factual?

You obviously either can't read or can't think logically.

We have asked you to provide evidence for your claims of suppression.
We have not said that the energy industry isn't looking out for its own interests, nor that there are no conspiracies ¹, nor has anyone declared the belief that TV news is (100%) accurate and factual.

The act of asking the questions we have does not, in any way, shape or form imply the "conclusions" you appear to have drawn.

1 Although, that would depend on what particular conspiracies you have in mind.

Originally Posted by Strange

30 years ago, it seemed that in a few decades fusion was going to provide limitless cheap, clean energy.

That is still true today. Work goes on (not "suppressed") but at every step it turns out to be a much more complex problem that previously thought.

"Cheap" is rather meaningless; as we don't have the technology yet to make fusion work, there is no realistic way to predict cost. Limitless is an exaggeration, but to be sure with reserves vastly greater than any fossil fuel if we consider the deuterium in the world's oceans the major fuel source. However, the main sticking point here, which is certainly not original to Strange, is the description "clean." Cleaner than what? Generally speaking, fusion is far dirtier than fission, which is itself considered so dangerous as to be unacceptable to many. The problem is neutrons. Fusion reactions produce a LOT more neutrons per unit energy generated than fission reactions. The neutrons travel until they strike an atomic nucleus and are captured. This results in an atom with a changed isotope number, which often turns out to be radioactive. Gradually, everything in the vicinity of the reaction becomes radioactive due to neutron capture. This issue is already a serious problem with fission reactors, it would be much more so with fusion.

Originally Posted by markgrime

Is there not one member in this forum that isn't convinced that the energy industry isn't doing anything to protect its empire and constantly growing profit margins from something more economical taking its place?

No... there are no conspiracies, are there? Gee... I guess TV news is accurate and factual?

There is no doubt that people with common interest, which may be for-profit companies or political groups, collaborate to accomplish some result. This could include lobbying government officials, conducting political campaigns, distributing propaganda, and so forth. However the idea that some such group could prevent people all over the world from pursuing some potentially profitable technology is a bit far fetched. The sheer scope of a conspiracy like that would be breathtaking.

Let's say there is an oil company that owns the patent on a profitable alternative energy technology. The oil company could develop that technology and make a profit, all the while collecting their oil profits too. What are the other oil companies going to do about it? Is it like the mafia or something?

Originally Posted by markgrime

Is there not one member in this forum that isn't convinced that the energy industry isn't doing anything to protect its empire and constantly growing profit margins from something more economical taking its place?

You are not going to persuade anyone without evidence. Just repeatedly whining, "but it is true" is not evidence.

From the direction of the responses it is clear that few dare to share anything here that isn't already proven.

It doesn't need to be proven. Just supported by some evidence. Produce some evidence and we can discuss it. There has already been some discussion of the Cobasys "conspiracy" - what do you have to say about that? Is that the sort of thing you are talking about? Does it support your theory? Or contradict it? Is it relevant?

Stop playing the victim and engage in the discussion!

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by markgrime

Is there not one member in this forum that isn't convinced that the energy industry isn't doing anything to protect its empire and constantly growing profit margins from something more economical taking its place?

So are you going to answer the question?

You are not going to persuade anyone without evidence. Just repeatedly whining, "but it is true" is not evidence.

Isn't it presumptive to assume their is any whining? It is easy understand why one might dodge such a question in a place like this.

From the direction of the responses it is clear that few dare to share anything here that isn't already proven.

It doesn't need to be proven. Just supported by some evidence. Produce some evidence and we can discuss it. There has already been some discussion of the Cobasys "conspiracy" - what do you have to say about that? Is that the sort of thing you are talking about? Does it support your theory? Or contradict it? Is it relevant?

The term suppression pretty much amounts to the removal of evidence or information so the evidence ends up more as circumstantial, coincidence or witness testimony. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to put two and two together when each round of data is collected.

Beside all of the back and forth witness testimony vs publicized data of the Wardebclyffe project. there is Thomas Henry Moray - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to look into. There is also a mountain of conflicting information regarding Stanley Meyer's dune buggy and hydrogen separation from water.


I asked if anyone was interested in sharing energy information on the premise that it is being suppressed, and outside of maybe two, the proof of the premise became the primary focus. Because of this sort of reactions it looks like nobody (or extremely few) want to be caught admitting they believe there is any suppression so the first thing done is hand off any or all responsibility by dropping the "prove it" bomb. There shouldn't even be a need to prove suppression. Those that deduce it on their own and are willing to share information in order to overcome the suppression have done what they can. The more common intent displayed here so far is to argue validity and not to feed a creative pool with information. For this reason primarily, I don't believe this is an environment that is compatible with my style of thinking or endeavors.




Stop playing the victim and engage in the discussion!

Again assuming there is victim playing going on.

Originally Posted by markgrime

Originally Posted by Strange

Is there not one member in this forum that isn't convinced that the energy industry isn't doing anything to protect its empire and constantly growing profit margins from something more economical taking its place?

So are you going to answer the question?

(Why are all cranks too stupid to master the basics of the forum's QUOTE function. Sigh.)

How am I supposed to answer a question about what all members of this forum think? But, the clue is in the name: it is a science forum. Unsupported assertions will be rejected. Provide some evidence and we'll see.

Isn't it presumptive to assume their is any whining? It is easy understand why one might dodge such a question in a place like this.

You are the one dodging by refusing to provide any evidence. But still whining on that we should believe you anyway. Like a spoiled kid.

The term suppression pretty much amounts to the removal of evidence or information so the evidence ends up more as circumstantial, coincidence or witness testimony.

Ah, I see. The brilliant crank argument that "the fact there is no evidence proves how powerful the conspiracy is".

Beside all of the back and forth witness testimony vs publicized data of the Wardebclyffe project. there is [/COLOR]Thomas Henry Moray - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[COLOR=#0000ff] to look into.

You think some nutter claiming to have invented something (which doesn't exist and is theoretically impossible) and then claiming to have been shot at, is "evidence"? Pathetic.

There is also a mountain of conflicting information regarding Stanley Meyer's dune buggy and hydrogen separation from water.

A convicted fraudster? Is that the best you can do?

I asked if anyone was interested in sharing energy information on the premise that it is being suppressed, and outside of maybe two, the proof of the premise became the primary focus.

Because you don't have any.

There shouldn't even be a need to prove suppression.

Don't be ridiculous. I can assert there is an invisible pink unicorn in my garden: there shouldn't even be a need to prove it.

For this reason primarily, I don't believe this is an environment that is compatible with my style of thinking or endeavors.

You may be right. We prefer rational, evidence-based thinking.

Again assuming there is victim playing going on.

An evidence-based deduction.

Originally Posted by markgrime

Is there not one member in this forum that isn't convinced that the energy industry isn't doing anything to protect its empire and constantly growing profit margins from something more economical taking its place?

Of course they are trying to protect their empire. No company willing to quietly go out of business survives. Take BP - they are getting into alternative energy in a big way to try to profit from it.

No... there are no conspiracies, are there?

Sure, there are some. People are arrested all the time for conspiring to defraud.

Gee... I guess TV news is accurate and factual?

?? No, generally it bears only a passing resemblance to reality.

From the direction of the responses it is clear that few dare to share anything here that isn't already proven. Even then it would be heckled to no end. With such a low percentage of listening and such a high percentage of resistance this appears to be more like the argument clinic than a place to look for ideas and support.

It's all a conspiracy!

Originally Posted by markgrime

Because of this sort of reactions it looks like nobody (or extremely few) want to be caught admitting they believe there is any suppression so the first thing done is hand off any or all responsibility by dropping the "prove it" bomb.

Uh - not sure if you are aware of this, but this is a science forum - and in science "prove it" is always the order of the day.

There shouldn't even be a need to prove suppression.

I think you are suppressing the kind of technology that would make coal power close to 100% efficient.

I don't believe this is an environment that is compatible with my style of thinking or endeavors.

Sounds like it isn't; this, after all, is a science forum, not the National Enquirer.

BTW I drive an electric car and charge it with electricity from a solar power system. Where do you get your energy?

Originally Posted by markgrime

Can you show, conclusively, that energy technology isn't being, or hasn't been suppressed?

Anyone can now generate some or all of their energy "for free" using wind, solar, geothermal, or even (if you can get it to work) some sort of magic "overunity" device. You can even sell the excess back to the utility company, often at subsidised rates. Something like 50% of the houses where I live are doing this.

So now we have some evidence that people aren't suppressed ... how about some evidence that they are,

Believe me, if the military could get a profit out of "free" energy, we'd all be flying around in hovercars within a decade.