Updates to Mad Teddy's Zero-point energy page

Mad Teddy's web-pages

Updates to my Zero-point energy page

(originally included within that page)

This page created on Thursday, 3rd May 2007

UPDATE, 14 February, 2006

ABC-TV has a weekly current-affairs program called "Four Corners". Last evening, the program aired a story featuring some Australian scientists who have risked much to go public about what they claim is pressure being brought to bear upon the scientific community to keep quiet about a certain issue which has a direct bearing on government policy and/or big business interests (take your pick; whats's the difference?!).

The program, entitled "The Greenhouse Mafia", dealt with how the powers-that-be don't want the scientists giving out specific warnings about how desperately bad the Greenhouse Effect situation really is. Surprised? Neither was I!

UPDATE, 6 April, 2006

While listening to the news on ABC Radio National, I've heard that the business community is starting to become concerned about the greenhouse effect (but only because it will be "bad for business" ), and are urging the Australian government to take note. Now there's a surprise! Stay tuned...

UPDATE, 11 April, 2006

Well - it looks as if this issue might actually take off. While sitting in the car waiting for someone yesterday, between 6pm and 7pm, I listened to Radio National's "Australia Talks Back" program, on which current events are discussed and listeners can ring in with their comments.

Among the commentators and those who rang in, some interesting issues about "green energy" were raised.

One of them, of course, was wind energy. Those large windmill-based turbines which were first mooted 20 or 30 years ago are now a reality. They work fine; on the downside, the resulting "wind farms" are noisy and not exactly pretty, and represent a serious danger to birds.

Another possible technology which was mentioned involves piping water down a deep pit where the temperature is well above 100oC and using the resulting steam to drive turbines. (Interestingly, this idea - or something very similar - has been around since at least 1988, when science fiction writer Isaac Asimov used "heatsinking" as the source of power for the planet Trantor in "Prelude to Foundation". See this page - about halfway down - to read more about this.)

Other possibilities discussed included more traditional means of producing steam, but with more tightly controlled emissions of carbon-based greenhouse gases. Quite clearly, it is possible to make some improvements if there's enough political will and people don't mind having to pay the cost of development. However, they all ultimately involve feeding energy produced in one place into a "grid" to transport it to other places.

I'm all for doing some of this in the short-term, but I don't believe it represents a long-term solution. I'm convinced that grid-free zero-point energy (ZPE) is the way to go.

Notably, not one participant even mentioned ZPE - presumably, because they'd never heard of it! (and I wasn't in a position to ring in myself at the time).

There is so much to do...

UPDATE, 30 May, 2006

Last evening, while in exactly the same situation as on 11th April (above), I listened again to "Australia Talks Back" - which, again, was on the subject of "renewable" (or "green") energy.

Much the same sort of discussion ensued as on the earlier occasion. Again, no-one mentioned ZPE. I wasn't surprised; how can people discuss something they know nothing about?

Again, I felt a bit frustrated at not being in a position to ring in and have my "two-bob's worth". However - as before - I knew deep down that, even if I had been in a position to do so, I probably wouldn't have done anyway, because I'd probably be cut off before having had anything like a fair chance to explain my position. Talk-show hosts have scant patience with what they see as "cranks", giving them just enough time to make complete idiots of themselves, rubbing salt into the wound by making a few snide remarks, and getting back onto what they see as the more important thrust of their show.

- Except that this isn't "crank" stuff. As mentioned further down in this page [i.e. in my zero-point energy page, where these remarks were first published], eminent scientists have been pointing in the direction of ZPE for decades.

However, this time, there was one important difference. Suddenly, nuclear power is well and truly on the agenda. Over the last few weeks, Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, has gone very public on what he sees as the need for a "full-blooded debate" on nuclear power. (Coincidence? Read my earlier updates, above. If the business community starts to make a noise about something, conservative governments will take notice - whereas they wouldn't give the time of day to anyone else saying exactly the same thing!)

So, it seems, Australia is now happily headed toward a nuclear future. Of course, there will be public outcry of the "not in my backyard" variety over the siting of nuclear power stations and waste dumps - for a while. But, eventually (as is always the case) people will get sick of it, apathy will prevail, and the government will get its way.

It's not going to happen overnight. Building the infrastructure for this to occur is going to be both time-consuming and expensive (although expense isn't really a problem for this government, which has built up an enormous "surplus", courtesy of the beleaguered Australian taxpayer, over the last decade).

So why am I even bothering to mention it?

Because I believe that, ultimately, truth will always prevail. It may take time; but eventually, it's inevitable. By launching this website, I'm hoping that I can help to make that time as short as possible. I just hope that enough people will become informed and active before it's too late. "Let's fix it" beats the hell out of "I told you so", every time.

So now there is even more to do...

UPDATE, 12 December, 2006

Now, what was I saying about John Howard's "full-blooded debate" about nuclear power? - About how his government will listen to representatives of industry if they start jumping up and down about environmental issues, but not to anybody else?

Surprise, surprise... check out this link...

Yup - that's right! The heading for that Sydney Morning Herald page (December 10, 2006) is:

Industry dominates emissions taskforce

To be fair, it's not about nuclear power this time; it's about carbon emissions trading - but the principle is the same; it's still an environmental issue.

The Australian Labor Party has labelled it "just another talkfest"; and the Australian Greens have criticised the taskforce as being "stacked with miners". I'll just quote one full sentence from that page here:

Mr Howard told ABC's Insiders yesterday the group had no environmental experts because he wanted "to involve the industry" and a number of government departments were represented.

Says it all, doesn't it.

I hope you'll forgive me for having a bit of a crow here, but I think I've earned it. As mentioned in the previous update, "let's fix it" still beats the hell out of "I told you so"; but...


Return to Zero-point energy

My home page     Preliminaries (Copyright, Safety)