The Free Energy Delusion July 23, 2007
Posted by Graham in : Peak Oil , trackbackI am often asked about this or that “new” idea that promises some kind of “free energy” and whether I had looked into it because it could “change the debate” about energy. The answer is usually that I havent looked into it because I already know that these “new” ideas will not change the energy debate. Arrogance! Closed mindedness! How can we possible know such things wont work unless we find out about them? After all, we cannot really be sure they wont work, can we? A recent example that has been much publicized is the Irish company Steorn who placed an advert in the Economist earlier this year claiming to have produced such a device called the Orbo which uses magnets to produce energy. (Magnets are a standard “free energy” idea; another would be various different kinds of electrolysis to extract hydrogen from water etc..)
There is a good BBC report (thanks to Tom!) with commentary by Professor Sir Eric Ash who explains very well how we can know these things wont work, or, leastwise, cannot do what they claim. It is all to do with the Laws of Thermodynamics which we know to work at all times and in all places. According to Ash, the confusion is caused because these scientific Laws are commonly believed to be on a par with the rather random dogmas of Religion:
“The law of conservation of energy…states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant, although it may change forms, into heat or kinetic energy for example. In short, law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Denying its validity would undermine not just little bits of science - the whole edifice would be no more. All of the technology on which we built the modern world would lie in ruins.
There is no flexibility in the acceptance of the law as true - at all times, and in all circumstances.
It is the failure to appreciate the difference between this scientific law and a law of religion or of society which is why we know - without having to examine details of a particular device - that Orbo cannot work. “
But how can it be in this day and age that otherwise well-educated and sophisticated people- members of the most educated generation perhaps of all time- growing up in a world surrounded by the gadgets and conveniences of a science-based modern society be so misinformed about the difference between scientific understanding and religious beliefs? Why this strong conviction- often encountered in the environmental movement, and, Im sorry to say, amongst Permaculture people who really should know better, that science can’t really “be sure” of anything?
This is an important issue, because it helps us understand why, for example, so many people are even now easily swayed by propaganda of the climate change denial industry etc.. and are so ready to doubt any scientific pronouncement.
Some of these ideas are explored by the incomparable Richard Dawkins in “The God Delusion” (thanks again Tom!) which is one of my Books of the Century and should be read by everyone who has an interest in understanding the world.
But I think that as regards belief in free energy, there are a few points worth making about why it is so appealing, and these are all to do with the way the abundance of cheap energy has effected belief systems.
In effect, oil has been like free energy. I dont think any of us can fully grasp just how much of a leap it has been for humanity to move from a society that relies on the daily solar income to living off the capital of ancient stored sunlight. Having oil has been simply magic. You push the button, things work. We fly around the world and buy any kind of exotic fruit whenever we want. My generation has had more opportunities than any previous one. We live like kings and queens and can dream of going to the stars. We have grown up in a world of new devices and gadgets every year, each one more fantastic than the last, but as consumers, we are rally quite divorced from the less savory aspects of obtaining and using this energy in the first place. The environmental destruction and pollution left behind in places like Nigeria and the Amazon after the oil companies have got what they want. The displaced people, the toxic waste. The extraordinary injustice and inequality caused by this global industry of greed which benefits only a minority of humanity.
Beliefs in “free energy” are common amongst the beneficiaries of the oil industry- ie middle-class consumers in the West- and I believe this is because fossil energy and the technology it has made possible has created for us a mythical fairy-tale world in which all our dreams and fantasies can be answered. Peak Energy seems to have brought with it Peak Fantasy. It has kept us in a state like little children believing that anything is possible if only we just believe. Father Christmas will always come on time, or the Fairy Godmother, wave his or her magic wand and give us all the goodies and free energy we could wish for.
Unfortunately- or perhaps fortunately- the world just doesnt work like this. We are indeed in this physical realm inescapably tied to the rules of the game which are the Laws of Thermodynamics. It is painful to grow up but that is what we are called upon to do if we want to find appropriate responses to the end of the Oil Age.
More than that, the basic assumption that “Free Energy” would be a good thing needs to be severely questioned, for two reasons at least:
Firstly, as I have written before, the use of energy is inherently destructive. So we need to be very careful how much we have and what use we make of it. Ideally, the amount of energy available would be limited to the level of moral responsibility we can demonstrate. A child should not be entrusted with the keys to the car, access to the chainsaw or the lawnmower, until it has reached an appropriate level of maturity to handle these powerful machines.
Secondly, the myth of Free Energy is inherently dis -empowering; it is not much use unless you can actually manifest it. Simply believing in it while you remain dependent on fossil energy for everything is just no good. What I mean by this is, some obscure invention somewhere by some maverick hero of the New Age who once managed to do this or that with magnets or whatever but was then assassinated by the CIA or just “disappeared” is really no use to anyone.
We need energy solutions which are accessible to ordinary people, that can be readily replicated on an individual, regional or community level; that can be repaired and maintained with minimum fossil-inputs, preferably using local resources that are carefully managed by the community. Energy sources should be multiple, diverse and above all democratic, not the preserve of distant geniuses or centralised state authorities. To build a resilient sustainable society requires far more personal and community involvement in and responsibility for the resources we use, and much more local decision making in how they are actually used.
Still not convinced about the Laws of Thermodynamics or natural limits to available energy? Next time the “Low Fuel” light comes on, dont just head for the nearest petrol-station. Just wish upon a star.
Comments»
What? You mean the Tooth Fairy isn’t real? You’ve ruined my day now… . I had a woman talk to me after a talk in Penzance a while ago and enthuse about a man in Australia who had made a car that ran on water. I rather disappointed her by saying that with half the world on the verge of water over access to water, the only thing more insane than a car that ran on water would be one that ran on food, which is of course what biofuels are. Like you Graham, I have no time for free energy buffs, I don’t remember who it was who said it, but I remember someone writing that everything we needed for powerdown, energy-wise, was in place in the 1970s, just the fossil fuel party started swinging again and we lost the momentum.
Thank you Graham. At primary school our teacher offered a prize to the creators of a perpetual motion machine. My friends and I were convinced we had found success by running a series of water pipes through some miniature water wheels and buckets we had found in a classroom cupboard. The teacher, Mr Wood, said nothing. He simply walked over to the apparatus we were gloating over - and turned off the tap. Reading the argument over peak oil, it seems some people have never made it, emotionally, past seven years old.
I see some parallels with other beliefs which make peak oil seem like a picnic, such as those who claim technological progress will allow industrial society to dodge resource shortages without too much pain. Or those who believe that if there is demand, supply will always be met somehow, despite what I would have thought was quite a lot of basic scientific theory that sych resources on planet earth are finite. And thats without even factoring in those who find concepts such as Abiotic oil to be a belief worth having.
Not that I think scientific law is quite as solid as you suggest, faith and belief and dogma are not concepts totally absent from the world of science, there is always the possibility that progress and new understanding in certain fields can yield progress that would not sound scientifically valid if I imagined it today. To me these possibilities should not be relied on, if some great new progress is actually made, rather than merely a press release proclaiming progress, then humanity can consider itself lucky. Personally I find myself wondering if the pace of useful progress hasnt been rather slower in recent decades. In any case I think one of the things about peak oil is that a lot of peoples beliefs and realities will be shaken by just how much of the progress of the last several hundred years, was driven by discovering new ways to exploit resources, and just how useless these wonderous human triumphs are if the resources arent there any more.
So anyways I pay no attention to free energy, I start by trying to get some sense of electrical useage that I can relate to something in the physical world, to try to get a handle on what its true cost is. Pedal power is where Ive got to so far in my thoughts, how many watts can I generate by with pedal power. And I will know from the sweat and the time spent that it isnt free energy. And it would also be energy from food, I suppose, Id like to compare the efficiency of that use of food to biofuels. I’ll stop rambling now.
Graham
I have noticed recently how the “if we only try hard enough”/”if we only wish or want bad enough”/”if we only pray long enough” mantras have kind of blended into one huge philosophy of life for many people. Nothing, it seems, is impossible given sufficient emotional effort. And even more astounding, intellectual effort is aparently suspect since nothing the established scientific community proposes is trustworthy. It is only now that you have led me to understand the connection between that horribly skewed approach to life and exuberant cries of the “everything will be OK once we get the technology/investment/regulatory relief/political will that we need” crowd.
Bravo! I run an energy crisis site and our forums are routinely visited by proponents of free energy devices, and they all say the same: energy is not free yet because of conspiracies, thermodynamics limits are dogmatic because science is always advancing, etc,
Also I liked a lot the final comment about our responsibility in using energy, even some modern “environmentalists” have succumbed to the fusion chimera and see no harm in pursuing increased high energy lifestyles.
This is a lovely narrative. It’s fundamentally flawed, but well written. While I can’t write that well, I can, fortunately, comprehend the difference between a device that uses a known source of energy and one that uses energy from an unknown source. In neither case is the energy “free”, as you seem to believe. Steorn’s device, even if it works, is not a free energy device, or a perpetual motion device, or an infinite anything device. If it works, it’s an energy conversion device that utilises an unknown source of energy.
The kind of ill-considered misinformation you’re propogating in this article in fact serves to hinder the progress of science, because it implies that any device that doesn’t operate solely within the established sphere of knowledge is fraudulent or deluded. It is this implication that is in fact the delusion.
Well said Kurt. Has no one heard of Zero Point energy!? This is the name the world of quantum physics has given to the energy that is abundant within everything. We all have a different name for it. Chi in China, prana in India. Yes, scientists now agree that it exists. In fact, learned men have for millennia agreed upon its existance. Einstein himself spoke about the “Ether”. Only in the last few hundred years has science disputed it. Why? Because they could not see or touch it. Which is why they took so long to accept germs as a reality!!!
Is it not possible that these “Free Energy” devices are in fact genuine working apparatus, tapping into this form of energy, which is something so alien to the majority of people, we decide to denounce them as fantasy?
A chi-power plant? Hmmmm…. if the shaolin-monk reactor core were to have a meltdown, the consequences could be disastrous. Have you not seen Rush Hour? or it’s equally entertaining sequal, Rush Hour 2???
Eoin
good points but there is another that was not emphasised in the article.
If we found a new source of ‘free’ energy we would just reach a peak in some other finite resource sooner - e.g. precious metals, minerals, even soil.
Finding a new source of cheap energy would be another disaster until we have really learnt to consume less and live in a way that can be sustained over generations.
I’m inclined to agree with Kurt here. There are no absolutes except for change and while the ‘Laws’ - i.e. our current most-widely accepted explanation - of Thermodynamics is helpful to understanding the physics of energy it does not explain the potential for energy that is as yet unexplained such as ether - a concept accepted as potential if unproven by Einstein incidentally - in space.
‘Free’ in the economic sense is not a possibility under a dominant economic system that commodifies everything it touches, but in principle is possible. ‘Free’ in the sense that does it have untold ecological consequences? Well we don’t know yet as we haven’t made use of it. There have been many delusional Scientists and those who sit smug in the belief that they have the absolute answer should think again, because our knowledge of the Universe is never complete and they may yet find cause to bite their tongue.
The capacity for humans to innovate and use their ingenuity to move technology forward isn’t something that permaculture or any other sytem of social organisation will ever stifle or would they see us for ever ensconced in an 17th Century idyll that never existed.
Nikola Tesla, a man who would leave all those here in his wake in terms of his understanding of the potential of Natural phenomena or Viktor Schauberger, certainly believed is was possible to achieve a more mature and socially benevolent use of unexplained energy potential.
I think there is a confusion of the misuse of knowledge under a system that exploits for private gain and a system that seeks to deliver the benefits of scientific investigation with the ecological consequences of such decisions to the fore. which will only take place under very different economic/political conditions.
Graham’s reference to the BBC article does not dismiss the arguments, but simply shows an article relating to one man’s claims; after all there are plenty of known examples, right now, where innovation has been stifled to serve an economic interest. Take the Pharmaceutical industry for example… Please…
Please show a bit more acceptance for the fact that you don’t know all there is to know, but that we can agree that ‘Free’ energy is “not currently available”.