H2Orbit - Its About Sustainability

This page was initially planned to promote 'new' technologies; however I have recently been educated that there are an absolute array of "old" technologies that have previously not been able to be capitalized upon for one reason or another. So this page will endeavor to point those out as well since they might be incorporated in new ways and thus bring about incremental revelations or insights.

Some interesting perspectives on energy production are presented in an online movie entitled: "Free Energy: The Race To Zero Point". It's about an hour and a half long and has some not-so-conventional discussions both early and in the middle but we suggest you stick with it and watch the entire movie before coming to any conclusions.

Notes:

Biomass: We note that many other groups and agencies list biomass as a "green" source of energy production. H2Orbit, at the moment, is not listing it as as such. The reason is that biomass is a net zero sum gain in terms of the carbon dioxide situation. That is the part of the carbon cycle these plants participate in stays at zero. Which is what we mean. Our position is that the atmosphere already has too much carbon dioxide and it needs to be lowered. We agree that biomass doesn't necessarily add to the problem but it doesn't help, if its burned. In that case it maintains status quo and that isn't good enough. An argument could be made that the other methods also maintain zero in the carbon cycle, because they don't participate in it in the first place, and we agree on that point. Our point is, that a much better use of the biomass is to turn it into peat as a form of carbon dioxide sequestration rather than combusting it for energy production. There are other forms of energy production that can be used instead and from a strategic objective point of view, sequestration is a higher priority. Therefore we encourage the use of biomass in sequestration efforts not energy production efforts.

Other areas on 'engineering': Please make sure to review the other sections in this area of the site because there are "engineering" oriented links in other places, like Hyrdogen and HHO as examples. Rather than be redundant we tried to place the links consistent with the main thrust of the organization sponsoring the information. If you have suggestions please use our feedback form.

H2Orbit has proposed a number of engineering projects in an array of areas and one of the driving objectives behind every one of them must be to lower overall costs to the consumer in every manner possible. Energy production in particular. The motivation for that is to be able to deliver energy to the broadest possible base possible. To deliver energy to locations around the world that currently have no power. Power to drill wells, filter water, deliver water, and irrigate crops. These capabilities will allow things to grow where none grew before.   Those activities will increase carbon cycle participation, clean the air, feed hungry people, reduce the spread of diseases, and lower temperatures. Increasing the standard of living in those areas and at the same time help cleanse the biosphere.

Marketing professionals at "publicly held" energy production companies write business plans that 'balance' energy production with demand to extract the maximum profits from consumers so that they can provide strong ROI to shareholders. That's good for those participating in the stock exchanges but bad for the biosphere. Energy costs need to be as low as possible to empower people to participate in the broadest array of activities that can help solve the situation we are all in.   This means lower direct costs associated with energy. It does not mean implementing "cost assistance" programs for lower income families. That misses the point entirely.

Everyone everywhere can help any publicly held company to "see the vision", see our "Influencing Business" page for some ideas.

As we cited on our "Situation" page there are three countries poised to build some 850 new hydrocarbon fueled power generation plants that will produce about 2.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide. Now these companies could install CO2 Sequestration units on these power plants to produce calcium carbonate as H2Orbit proposes in our page on the subject. That calcium carbonate could be used in projects like we propose on our Reef Restoration page to offset the costs of producing energy in this manner. Our contention is that the cost offsets are not deep enough to make this a long term solution. At best it only brings energy production costs back to today's levels. H2Orbit contends in recognition of our situation we (collective we) need to drive energy costs to consumers to a point where the entire planet can afford to implement the kinds of programs and initiatives needed to meet the issues and challenges so we can implement the solution and deliver the vision.

Economists will need to study this scenario to understand if it will indeed provide interim cost effective methods to eliminate carbon dioxide production from not just these new 850 facilities but from all existing hydrocarbon fueled facilities. The point here is to eliminate, to the greatest extent possible the production of 'net new' carbon dioxide introduced into the biosphere. Indeed we need to be working to drive those levels to preindustrial revolution levels and that's where Dr. Klaus Lackner's ideas come in.   The CO2 gathered from facilities like that can then be processed and leveraged to achieve the vision in a similar manner described on our CO2 Sequestration and Reef Restoration pages.

Traditionally "cost assignment" is performed against superficially obvious (e.g. obvious to the most casual observer) items or activities. H2Orbit contends that the Generally Accepted Accounting Principals (GAAP) need to be updated to accommodate "systemic impact to the biosphere". Constituents need to work with their appropriate levels of legislative officials to assure that laws, policies and practices are in place that recognize our situation; address the issues and challenges mitigating the associated risks while we implement the solution to deliver the vision.

Thomas Townsend Brown, was an absolutely remarkable gentleman, yet most people have never heard of him. One of his many patents are posted here.

Thomas Townsend Browns' - "ELECTROKINETIC APPARATUS" USPTO 2,949,550, patented August 16, 1960.

When this patent was filed, the "van allen radation belt" around the Earth had just been confirmed by the Explorer II spacecraft about 18 months earlier. Mr. Brown worked for the US Navy at one point and formed NICAP, a group that sought to document UFO cases in an effort to categorize sightings into groups for further investigations about his patents. We suppose he wanted to see if anyone else had built a craft using his patents.

NASA and the US Air Force have investigated what has become known as the "Biefeld-Brown" affect. Their conclusion is that common 'ion wind' was erroneously labled 'electrokinetic'. While there are also other lables applied to this affect there were also some anomolies that have as yet not been identified under rigorous scientific experimentation. Those reports are available here:

With today's technology in power generation, motors, materials, computers, controllers and superconducting ceramics, it would be interesting to establish, once and for all, a rigrous test on the remaining issues with this technology.