Mr. Creighton’s hypothesis, authored over many articles, argues that the Towers were destroyed “via conventional demolition, and that during the design stages of the process, the conspirators relied too heavily on the use of detonation cord in the floor systems, which led to the vaporization of most of the double-bridged long steel trusses. This was accidentally revealed (the “iron microspheres”) when the RJ Lee Group did their Composition and Morphology study of the Ground Zero dust samples for Deutsche Bank.”
PETN/RDX is a good candidate because these are the most commonly used explosives in the industry. They have a long, studied history and are generally reliable. I think it’s sensible to start with conventional explosives first, and failing that, move onto testing more exotic hypotheses.
Background Reading if interested (Chronological Order):
Main Conventional Explosives Hypothesis
- To Steven Jones…on the subject of detonator cord. This article introduces the possibility of detonation cord being used in the Tower demolition sequence. The specific role of the cord would be to break up the concrete, metal floor pans and trusses which hold the floor pans up. He also suggests that the iron-rich microspheres found in the WTC dust have a possible source other than Jones’ “nanothermite”.
- Smoke and Dust This article compares an acknowledged demolition with the South Tower demolition. Notice the telltale signs of high explosives in each sequence.
- Demolition Hypothesis This article explains Mr. Creighton’s idea on how the demolition sequence proceeded. The graphics mention the use of thermite, which Creighton later rejected as a viable hypothesis.
- Revised Hypothesis This article reveals that there were cabling ducts located underneath the metal floorpans which could be used for simple cable installation. Creighton proposes this as a possible vector for the PETN det cord installation (under the guise of a fibre optic cable upgrade). CAT-5 fibre-optic cable is visually similar to Primaline-85 cord. Kevin Ryan documents a security upgrade for the Twin Towers in 1999-2000.
- Det Cord and Concrete Slab
- The 46,000 This article connects the discovery of “iron-rich microspheres” to the destruction of the floor systems.
- The 6000 The same dicovery but extended to the metal floor pans of the Trade Center, which were held up by the long trusses.
- Neither Gravity nor Thermite. This article details the extent of the heat events in the Trade Center collapse.
- This is Det Cord
- Refuting “Purgatory Ironworks” Steel Beams Demonstration. This article is a great master narrative around his conventional hi-explosives hypothesis. Towards the end, it describes the similarity between the inferred composition of the iron microspheres and WTC steel trusses. It quotes from the seminal 2003 RJ Lee Report on the background of the WTC dust markers, and the NIST report on the WTC steel trusses. NIST NCSTAR 1-3D, Table 3-11, p. 58 (p. 92 in PDF). The similarity in chemical makeup between the WTC dust markers and the Trade Center trusses is unmistakable. This is a key discovery which strengthen’s Mr. Creighton’s hypothesis about the destruction of the floor systems.
- BBC Piece Post Mortem: Mark Loizeaux and the Special Engineer This article offers an explanation for the acknowleged presence of demolition crews at the Trade Center site.
Proposed Tests to Detect Conventional Explosives
- Dust to Dust This article proposes a test for detecting the residue of post-explosion by-products in the Trade Center dust.
- Proposed Testing Procedure for Hi-Explosive Residues in Ground Zero Dust This article details possible specific procedures for testing for hi-explosives in chain of custody Trade Center samples.
There’s informative discussion in the comment threads of these articles as well!
- Comment Thread #1. Mr. Creighton refutes a troll comment on difficulty of wiring upgrade
- Comment Thread #2/I. Mr. Creighton refutes a troll comment on tracers as primary PETN identifier
- Comment Thread #2/II. Mr. Creighton refutes a troll comment on tracers as primary PETN identifier, Part II
- Comment Thread #3. Mr Creighton refutes a troll comment on the PETN residue detection process
- Comment Thread #4. Mr. Creighton’s lengthy argument with reader regards Twin Towers’ factor of safety, mechanics of a progressive collapse, mechanics of controlled demolition, etc. (and continued in replies further down)
- Comment Thread #5. Debunking John Cole’s “beam splitting” experiment with his thermite
- Comment #6. The pyroclastic flow of Tower collapse, owing to the great volume of molten metal microspheres in the dust clouds
PETN detonation is still a strong candidate (better than thermite) for many of the apparent combustion byproducts that were discovered…
Key innovations of this hypothesis:
- The iron-rich microspheres are byproducts of PETN det cord explosion. The source of these spheres are primarily the 6000 metal floor pans and 40,000 double-bridged long trusses, the majority of which apparently were not found in the rubble. This also reveals a key feature of how the Tower destruction was engineered (re removal of floor systems).
- This also explains the great abundance of spheres; the floor systems were a major structural element of the Towers, so their destruction, via det cord, would lead to hundreds of tons of iron-rich spheres.
- The microscopic “red-gray chips” in the dust, which were found alongside (often attached to) the iron-rich micospheres, can be explained as the primer paint which coated the trusses. The intense heat from the PETN det cord (to pulverize the floor systems) would’ve flash melted the pulverized trusses, and the resultant molten metal cooled off whilst suspended in space…which formed via surface tension into these micro-spheres. That is the RJ Lee report’s for how these spheres formed.
- Because different sorts of paint ignite at different temps., and we know Jones & Harrit only focused on the primer paint from the columns, paint from the trusses as a source for these red-gray chips cannot be ruled out. Mr. Creighton’s hypothesis provides a good accounting — as with the micro-spheres — for their presence in the WTC dust.
- The pyro-elastic collapse dust cloud can be explained as the molten iron-rich spheres generated from the det cord, traveling within the pulverized concrete cloud at rapid speed. Recall the firefighter testimony on the Tower collapses as documented (see Citation #1 in his article) by Kevin Ryan and others. The “Neither Gravity nor Thermite” article and the firefighter testimony refute the common claim that the collapse was “cold”, whereas its initiation was “hot”.
- The smoke and dust clouds are linked again to the pulverized concrete floor systems. Not unique to Mr. Creighton’s hypothesis, but still accounts for it well in terms of the demolition design.
Would PETN/RDX Detonation Be “Too Loud”?
That regular cutter charges would be “too loud”, therefore we can exclude their use, is not a supported claim. This is the same argument NIST offered for not performing the explosive residue tests. We know NIST both artificially rose the minimum decibel level required for a ‘blast scenario’, and ignored reports of very high decibel levels — using unsupported and unstated assumptions — which indicate hi-explosive charges like RDX. When use of hi-explosives is suspected, we run the appropriate tests for known probable compounds. That’s the only way to exclude compounds like PETN, RDX, TNT and HMX from consideration. Then, if those results fail, we can move on testing more exotic hypotheses, like “nanothermite”.
Stated Assumptions of NIST “Plausible Blast Scenario”:
- No efforts at noise abatement
- Complete transmission of sound to outside air
- No absorption or blockage of sound along the path
- Unknown if assumed use of efficient cutter charge
The goal of a controlled demolition is to use the minimum required for the design, and this involves strategic placement in known installation vectors (floors, columns) and pre-weakening. Drilling of explosives deep within structural supports could also limit the sound level. Explosives could’ve also broken multiple important connections, rather than sever major columns outright.
Could the numerous explosions heard by several hundreds of witnesses, considering these above factors, fit the known PETN/RDX detonation sound profiles? I have sufficient confidence to (tentatively) say…yes!
Conventional Explosives Would Be Too Easy to Test For?
No major government agency has ran the standard tests for conventional hi-explosive residue on the Trade Center steel! Not NIST, FEMA, USGS, or the FBI.
Strength of Nanothermite Hypothesis
How does the latter hypothesis compare to PETN/RDX? The use of nanothermite can explain some bizzare features of post-collapse conditions (e.g. the molten Tower rubble pile).
However, criticisms and weaknesses have been pointed out:
- It wasn’t shown in the “Active Thermitic Material” paper, that “super nano-thermite” is a high-explosive. Please ignore the kook “directed energy weapons” website; the article itself is fine.
- The paper has poor experimental design, and does not demonstrate what it claims to.
- Harrit, the paper co-author, is a novice in using scanning electron measurement methods, the main method used in the paper.
- Paper was not peer reviewed, and two journal editors resigned over it.
- Dr. Jones has not performed the inert atmosphere ignition test for his alleged thermite chips. A successful test published in a credible, peer-reviewed journal — and multiple independent replications — would give a large boost to the thermite hypothesis.
- Two comprehensive comments on the 2009 paper’s problems here and here.
- It seems likely that Jones and Harrit were analysing LaClede primer paint, or even rust.
Were Conventional Explosives Combined with Thermite?
Speaking for myself, in regards to particular evidence of the Tower’s destruction…no, I don’t think so. I accept that thermite can be combined with standard high-explosives, if one wishes to manufacture a genuine explosive variant of thermite (which is traditionally an incendiary). However, in the case of the Twin Towers, one hypothesis negates the other. The evidence doesn’t support a combination of explosives in any conceivable way. This is because the evidence for thermite is better explained as the byproduct for PETN/RDX use.
Further, the conventional hypothesis explains features of the post-collapse conditions which thermite can’t, such as the missing trusses and floor pans, and ties it back to how the demolition was engineered in the design stages.
The two claimed pieces of evidence for thermite are primarily the “red-gray” chips, and the iron-rich microspheres. The iron-rich microspheres, according to the thermite hypothesis, are the partially-reacted byproduct of the thermitic red-gray chips. No strong evidence of a thermitic reaction was shown in the 2009 Bentham paper, such as a 4kJ/g energy release or an alum-redux reaction (see “Criticisms” subsection).
With the PETN hypothesis, thermite as a source for these two pieces of evidence are ruled out. The PETN/RDX provides a plausible explanation for the close relation of these two pieces of evidence: The “red-gray” chip is primer paint (either from the trusses or the columns), and the micro-spheres are the trusses post-PETN explosion. We also know that primer paint was coated on the trusses and the columns. Further, we know that different sots of paint ignite at different temperatures, which is why Jones reported a range of ignition temps. for his alleged thermite chips.
If we assume the chips are evidence for thermite, you have to ask why so much was used. Why would demo. planners use so much of an exotic, untested material which apparently reacts so inefficiently that hundreds of tons of unreacted thermite are left in the dust? Does that make sense? Wouldn’t it also be prohibitively expensive, considering the experimental nature of the “explosive”? Even black operations have a budget.
The same result can be accomplished with 4 tons of det cord. I’ve lost the article which did the calculation, but the author stated to me it was less than 4 tons. I’ll retain this figure as a ballpark estimate.
I thought I would stir the pot, and offer an alternative idea of why we haven’t seen “free-energy” or “over-unity” energy production technology enter into the mainstream.
Let’s face it; there’s been a litany of free energy claims over the years. It’s a cottage industry. In every case, none of the claimed results have been reproduced in front of anyone, and very often, the story is that their discoveries were stolen away by some secret government agency, usually the military industrial complex, or big oil. That said, I wouldn’t dismiss wholesale the idea that free-energy, as a concept, is possible.
How you frame a question influences how you answer it, and I think we have framed the question of free energy and its technological applications wrongly. The question we should be asking isn’t, “Has free-energy technology been suppressed?” That’s a loaded question. It’s also not a good starting point for exploring what is an intriguing subject. That question presupposes the possibility that free energy exists to start with, and secondly, that such applications thereof have been suppressed.
The second inference one could make from the absence of free-energy technology, I argue, is not that there is a suppression of existing applications, but that such applications haven’t materialized yet due to how institutional science (and capitalism) function. And, if you like, we can treat suppression as an epiphenomenon — a secondary effect — of how the current science regime functions.
It’s possible (even likely) that some horror stories about stolen/suppressed inventions are true, but these cannot be cited as the principle reason for absence of free energy applications in the mainstream. Many “suppression claims” are excuses to hide the fact that the claimed invention doesn’t work. This makes it harder to distinguish legitimate over-unity claims, which are worth investigating, from bunk claims which are not. The result is that “suppression” claims are rendered untenable.
Thus, we need stronger and complementary evidence aside from “suppression” to understand why over-unity technology (probably) hasn’t appeared. The explanation I offer agrees with what I understand about institutional behavior and, I think is also more plausible, given the difficulty of validating suppression claims.
I want to argue against common points which dispute the suppression of free-energy applications. The lack of evidence for free-energy suppression is often conflated with the idea that free-energy is impossible, and that is why I’m engaging these arguments. Many of which we will see are plausible on the surface, but counter-intuitive when considering the scientific environment and political realities. These are arguments from actual skeptics of the idea, to let you know.
Points Against Free Energy Suppression
“Free-energy violates the laws of physics.”
In natural science, a “law” does not indicate inviolability. The meaning differs slightly between sub-disciplines, but it’s simply a generalization of empirical observations, a generalized statement about how a given thing can behave in some situation. “Laws” describe the general case of how something will behave. There are extensions to laws where the general case fails to accommodate. “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” describes (or substitute any situation you like) how a ball will bounce back when hitting a wall with some amount of force. But the quantum tunneling effect bypasses the second law of motion. That would be a case where the law does not apply.
Further, legitimate theories about certain phenomena can challenge commonly held conceptions of physics, if these theories themselves are backed by good physics. For instance, the theories posed to explain curious aspects of certain phenomena, like anomalous heat transfer in palladium lattices (the back-bone of cold fusion/LENR), are not paradigm-breaking, but are rather confined to condensed matter physics.
“Scientists working in these fields are very competitive, and would fight tooth and nail to show that such applications worked!”
What skeptics leave out is that the fields which these researchers work in are considered legitimate. They are actual professions, and research is dependent on grants. There’s a dis-incentivized and marginal space for research in controversial fields, such as cold fusion (or low-energy nuclear reactions). There exist better research opportunities in closely allied fields (like muon-catalyzed fusion) where relevant experience could be applied. This leaves little space for room-temperature fusion research. This pushes away competent scientists, and fraudsters and loons like Greer, Hutchison, etc. fill the void. The reason is that competent scientists don’t claim to have unlocked free-energy like cold fusion. Rather, it’s a “Huh, that’s odd…”.
It’s not even clear that a breakthrough in free-energy applications would be immediately apparent, because there would be several valid interpretations of preliminary data, and a competent scientist would not risk his career in boldly announcing research which at first glance, contradicts basic physics (there is the notable exception of Fleischmann and Pons, but that is for another time, I’m afraid).
“The discovery of free-energy would make its discoverer rich beyond his wildest dreams and propel him to global fame overnight!”
There are competing fields of research. Entrenched research communities (any industry with enormous funding, like aerospace research or nuclear research) want to protect their research grants and industry investments. The long-term prospect of job security and access to a venerable funding pool, for the individual scientist, out-weighs any idealistic benefit from discovering free-energy. The competent researchers have established careers in legitimate fields.
For instance, why risk their reputation in researching room-temperature fusion, widely considered a pseudo-science? Even Nobel laureates aren’t insulated from attack. Einstein-like fame is an unrealistic job prospect and is antithetical to serious scientists. Those who have defended subjects like cold fusion have faced ostracism (Schwinger resigned from the American Physical Society). Professor Peter Hagelstein at MIT was denied a full professorship due to his associations with cold fusion, and remains an associate professor there.
TL;DR: How scientific research is organized creates a disincentive around controversial research for competent scientists. This means that fraudsters and loons take up those sorts of fields. Then, the whole field reeks of pseudo-science, because the fraudsters are practicing pseudo-science, and so we have confirmation bias. This argument is therefore unrealistic.
“If the US/Russia/China had anti-gravity technology, they would have conquered the Earth already.”
This works well for arguing against military suppression of such tech. But it doesn’t extend to an argument against the possibility of over-unity applications. Technology which would result in military domination, would also have civilian applications which challenge the material base of the power structure (i.e. a structure based on inefficient finite resource allocation is incompatible with free-energy applications. One is centralized, the other leads to decentralization). The wide-ranging civilian applications out-number the military applications.
This is an excellent reason why such technology hasn’t appeared. Not because it has been suppressed (such claims are hard to verify), but because power structures are wary of socially disruptive technologies. The introduction of free energy into the mainstream would destabilize it.
People are short-sighted, and institutions, being risk-averse, intensify this fault. This causes us to misjudge the value of emerging technologies. It’s been said that we overestimate the progress of technology in ten years, but underestimate its progress in a century. There’s also a complex overlap between capitalist development pressures, engineering capability, and theory when we discuss exotic technologies, such as alternatives to fossil fuels.
1. FTL warp-drives are theoretically possible, but we have no engineering capability. It also does not seem to serve capital interests, unless the economy of scale would drive down costs low enough to render planetary colonization possible.
2. Low-energy nuclear reactions seem possible in some proposed theoretical frameworks (e.g. Keith Johnston, Hagelstein, Edmund Storms). There is some engineering capability to take advantage of these reactions for use in practical applications. But there are no capital development pressures for them. The monetary return on investment would drop as the economy of scale increases, rendering LENR no longer profitable. This may be fine to some intrigued investors, but it is not tolerable to the power structure.
Thus, it’s not so much that these technologies have been suppressed, but that they’re excluded from consideration by virtue of how two major institutions function: capitalism and science. The progress of science under capitalism (“capitalist science”) has led to development pressures for highly redundant technology, or technologies which improve linearly and satisfy market imperatives.
These technologies are good for investment because of realistic expected returns. David Graeber writes extensively about this in his article in the Baffler. The reason we (probably) haven’t seen technologies capable of solving our energy crisis, is due to how capitalism responds to disruptive technologies.
TL;DR: We (likely) don’t have free-energy technology, not because it’s suppressed, but because:
We have a capitalist science institution which minimizes destabilizing outcomes and maximizes profitable outcomes.
- Lack of serious research from competent scientists due to how research is structured
- The cacophony of fraudulent free-energy claims discourages many investors, and lone intrigued investors are the source of much funding for these fields.
- Its implications seriously challenge risk-averse power structures
- If suppression has happened, it is an epiphenomenon of a larger cause, and not the cause itself
Note on “pseudoscience”: There is much debate in the philosophy of science over whether a clear line can be drawn between legitimate scientific and pseudo-science. Pseudo-science presumably has some quality that clearly distinguishes it from legitimate science. I think there are general guidelines you can follow to distinguish dishonest science from honest science.
I ask if “pseudoscience” is an honest qualitative description of some controversial fields, or if it, more often than not, simply reflects biases with institutional science. I think there are legitimate fields, such as LENR/cold fusion, which have unfairly earned the moniker of pseudo-science. That is, if you were to compare LENR and some other field in a hard science, you would find no qualitative differences in how research is conducted between them.
I had a think about the current state of capitalism and its trajectory. In particular, how socialism may arise from post-capitalist conditions. I think part of economic democracy comes from managing our limited resources in a sustainable manner. But I think there’s a fundamental economy which underlies all else, and that is the energy economy. I don’t merely refer to how energy is stored and extracted (be it hydrocarbons or solar rays), but in particular the universal capacity for humans to perform work, both from utilizing this latent energy and our own bodies. Insofar as we reproduce the means of life everyday through our work, so too is energy central to the human economy as a whole. There’s much talk about non-fossil fuel sources and post-fossil fuel economies, which can be broadly categorized as renewable energy solutions.
We can speak of renewable energy sources concretely, but in principle, Newton’s Second Law of Thermodynamics would forbid that. The ability for a closed system in non-equilibrium to perform work decreases as energy is converted into irreversible work. By definition, no energy source is completely renewable, because work cannot continue indefinitely. From the industrial revolution in the 18th century, our rate of consumption has steadily exceeded initial energy input, and this disparity will only get worse into the future. Others claim we need to scale down our energy consumption in preparation for a democratic economy (or socialism).
But I see a lingering problem with this proposal. The productive capacity of capitalism has allowed the exploiter nations to industrialize quickly at the cost of environmental and social upset. The current economy is wasteful in two ways:
a) It has produced excess which is systematically with-held from those who need it;
b) It’s inefficient in converting usable energy into work. For fossil fuels, the average energy conversion rate is very poor. The rest is dissipated as waste heat which cannot be used for work. For rockets, one must reach very high speeds in order to get good efficiency.
In order to sustain our wasteful energy economy in its current form, we’ve had to invest literal trillions of dollars into infrastructure. I strongly believe that our dependence on fossil fuels is manufactured, due to the capitalist profit motive. I believe innovation has been stifled thanks to private interests, and there are a limited range of non-fossil fuel alternatives which would require scaling down our energy dependence. It’s true that we can scale down our consumption and liberate those trillions of dollars into more productive work, such as quality education and childcare. But, I think we should also look at alternatives which could both meet our energy needs and not generate waste.
The central problem we face requires we know about physical energy costs vs.physical output. This is before we can even talk about energy needs. There are fundamental needs which simply cannot be metered. And while it’s true our current system is wasteful, it’s doubtful that a post-industrial nation could be sustained with socialism and windmills alone. There’s not enough productive capacity for that. However, if we could find a way to allocate energy use efficiently, we’d free up productive capacity. And it’s from here that I see post-industrial socialist societies being viable. With negligible costs, there’s no worries about consumption.
There are four categories of technology that show promise in this regard:
- Quantum vacuum/zero-point field energy access systems and related advances in EM theory and applications
- Electrogravitic and magnetogravitic energy and propulsion
- Low energy nuclear reactions
- Electrochemical and related advances to internal combustion systems which achieve near zero emissions and very high efficiency
The third one in particular, low energy nuclear reactions (LENR), is the one I’m most knowledgeable of, but we can also discuss EG and ZPF to some extent. LENR is the technical name for a nuclear-scale process more commonly known as “cold fusion”. Experiments with it have shown compelling results. In particular, much more energy is recorded being released than being put in. This is enough to warrant being a source of anomalous power generation, and not simply within expected values due to other mechanisms and error. By analogy, merely one teaspoon of heavy water has the energy content of three hundred gallons of gasoline. Your car could drive 55 million miles on a gallon of heavy water, simply by tapping into the fusion potential of the deuterium nuclei.
In the original experiment by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons–and I’ll note this discovery was by fortunate chance–two electrochemical cells were compared. There was a heavy water-palladium cell (D/Pd) and a light water-palladium cell. The D/Pd loading ratio in the first cell was much higher than in the second, where light water has about 1/6500th of its hydrogen nuclei naturally occurring as heavy isotopes. Pons and Fleischmann were recording the temperatures of both cells and plotting it against the heater power as a function of time. Normally, the solvent evaporates as the cell heats up, and less heater power is needed to maintain the same temperature over time.
The positively-charged deuterium nuclei (D+) were packed into a compact palladium-platinum lattice. Somehow, the D+ overcame the repulsive Coulomb barrier and managed to fuse. Ordinarily, such fusion is only possible under conditions of extreme heat, such as at the sun’s core. This implies that a reaction occurred at room temperature where the strong nuclear forces overtook the Coulomb barrier. The two scientists measured nuclear scale excess heat in the D2O heavy water cell.
A source of skepticism was that P & F didn’t encounter lethal gamma radiation as nuclear physics predicts for hot fusion, when the deuterium nuclei fused. If they’d encountered fusion, where was the radiation ? This became known as the “dead graduate student” problem. Three prominent theorists stepped forward to posit possible mechanisms for room temperature fusion that could explain the absence of radiation: Keith Johnston, Peter L. Hagelstein and Julian Schwinger (Nobel Laureate in Physics, experience in particle physics).
There’s something about the D/Pd loading ratio in the D2O cell and how the D+ nuclei were packed in the Pd lattice that induced fusion. D/Pd loading ratios of ≥90% have given good results, as a recent talk by Hagelstein states. It’s very likely that the MIT Plasma Fusion Center used loading ratios well below 90%. That’s a key difference between a negative result and a positive result for cold fusion.. MIT’s Plasma Fusion Center–representing an industry with vested interests–had an unpublished draft report on Cold Fusion (the Phase-II calorimetry report), where the excess heat curve for the D2O cell was downshifted with no explanation.
There were two drafts of the report–one published in a journal, another unpublished. The unpublished curve suggested 20% less (20 milli-watts less) heater power was needed to heat the same volume of fluid. What was the source of this power? It could not be attributed to solvent loss alone, as Dr. Mitchell Swartz showed in his analysis of the MIT PFC Phase-II calorimetry report. The published negative report was used by the Department of Energy to deny funding for cold fusion research.
But there are contradicting statements about the negative report. Teams who obtained positive results alleged that MIT et al. didn’t reach a high enough D/Pd loading ratio for the effect to occur. But then we have a downshifted heat curve. I believe that MIT initially found the proper ratio, but then deliberately used a lower D/Pd ratio so that other teams, referring to MIT’s experiments, could not reproduce Fleischmann and Pons’ findings. This would lead to an artificial scientific consensus against LENR, and the initial heat curve could be explained away as solvent loss.
There’s compelling evidence for a concerted effort against cold fusion/LENR. This is for several reasons, which are beyond the scope of the post. But I can elaborate in detail later.
Implications and Uses for These Energy Sources
The removal of air pollution related to energy generation, including electric power plants, cars, trucks, aircraft and manufacturing.
The near elimination of all manufacturing processes since the energy per se required for same would have no cost related to fuel consumption. This would allow the full application of technologies which remove effluent smokestacks, solid waste, and waterways.
The practical achievement of an environmentally near-zero impact yet high tech civilization on earth, thus assuring the long-term sustainability of human civilization.
Trillions of dollars now spent on electric power generation, gas, oil, coal and nuclear power would be freed to be spent on more productive and environmentally neutral endeavors by both individuals and society as a whole.
Underdeveloped regions could industrialize in about a generation, and without the negative costs of environ. impact, including health and social.
We don’t need to scale down our energy use for the long term. In particular, our current and future needs can be met by these low-cost, highly productive technologies listed above. The physical cost of maintaining these systems (energy input) is so low that we simply can’t meter them. And of course, to meter means to profit. By definition, we cannot monetarily profit from these technologies. I think these alternatives will be the catalyst to ending capitalism. The primary human economy–energy–will supply our food production, travel, and manufacturing needs. Every industry, every action, requires energy (capacity for work). Without energy, we can’t reproduce the means of daily life.
I hope we can also use these alternatives to power labor-saving devices at negligible cost. This would allow us to transition to a democratic leisure economy. Currently, only first-world nations (USA, UK, Canada etc.) have a leisure economy dependent on a super-exploited class (the third world). There’s a large middle class with disposable income and leisure time. If these labor-saving devices were made available to everybody…there could not be an exploited class. Energy will be available to anyone, so there’s no need to expend human labor. There’s so much work to be done, and yet there are no jobs. This is a capitalist contradiction, and it’s an artificially imposed mindset. Work will be redefined in terms of its social utility, so everyone, young or old, will have the chance to contribute to society and pursue their goals.
If we’re to discuss any industry–even food production–we must talk about energy. But the current alternatives we have aren’t enough. It’s true that some Nordic countries (e.g. Denmark) derive a good portion of their energy supply from clean wind power and solar cells. But this is dependent on local climate, elevation and other geographic factors which affect the distribution of these technologies. I think we can use LENR, et al. to supply our needs wherever we are. We don’t need the blessings of geography–only science.