Methods of Evaluating the Creation/Generation of Energy

From HeroX
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is for sharing ideas and references about methods to compare multiple technology types for their abilities to generate a net positive energy flow.

This page has grown to include many subjects, but it seems worthwhile to also touch upon the original question: assuming we have several working technologies, how do we compare between them? What makes one technology better than another, or even better than current energy sources such as solar PV and Coal ? A couple of angles might be considered :


About Energy

"Throughout space there is energy, it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of Nature." - Nikola Tesla

Everything has energy: every particle, and every photon.

The standard, scientific, SI unit of energy is the Joule (J). On a global scale we need a much larger unit of measure, such as the exa-Joule (or EJ), which is 1018 Joules! [1]

In the energy sector it is common to express units of energy in terms of an amount of power delivered over a given time; for example kilowatt-hours (kWh) or megawatt-hours (MWh).

A BTU (British Thermal Unit) is another traditional unit of energy (heat) representing about 1055 joules.[2]

Energy is conserved: it cannot be created, nor destroyed; it just changes from one form into another.

The only slight exception to the law of conservation of energy is quantum mechanics, the Uncertainty Principle and virtual particles. Energy can be "borrowed" from nowhere for a small amount of time, but it has to disappear again. The more energy borrowed the shorter the time it can exist for. When this energy creates particles they are known as virtual particles; and some of these are the mechanism behind the fundamental forces of nature [not sure about gravity though]. Quantum mechanics also gave rise to our page about zero point energy. However, although a force has been measured, a force by itself does not represent a source of energy...

Energy is derived (or "work is done") by applying a force to move an object through a distance. If you look at all common real world examples of this, you will find that one source of energy is being converted into another (e.g. potential energy to kinetic, or kinetic to potential).

The above few facts about physics could help you to quickly spot things that look suspicious - like a perpetual motion machine for example: there is no problem with perpetual motion (like a space probe travelling away from Earth, for example) but an unlimited energy source from nowhere, well that's suspicious.


Power is the rate at which energy is used, or supplied. Its standard SI unit is the Watt (W), which is Joules per second.

Larger representations of the unit of power are the kilo-Watt (kW), mega-Watt (MW), and giga-Watt (GW), which are 103, 106 and 109 Watts respectively.

Energy density

The energy densities[3] [4] of various chemical and nuclear substances can be useful for estimating the potential of a given solution.

Since cost curves (kWh/$) are rather difficult to establish objectively for early-stage tech, we might revert to using energy density as a proxy: kWh/kg. The reasoning being that it is likely that a particular technology that gets a lot of kWh out of a small device is cleaner, cheaper, more EROEI-efficient (Energy Returned On Energy Invested [5]), more abundant and more convenient than a technology getting the same amount of energy from a much larger (heavier) device.

Separate consideration should be given to radioactivity: current nuclear processes are very energy dense, but even a "small" amount of radioactive waste material can cause significant environmental management headaches.

The "Terra Incognita" of Energy Generation

David Neibauer, in his presentation at the Global Breakthrough Energy Movement Conference in 2013[6], presented an interesting graphic (original source, Matt Trevithick, Venrock). This presentation highlighted two things well:

  1. Based on energy density, the inferiority of (current versions of) wind/solar vs the density of oil/gas (by a factor of 10-1000 times less dense) is profound, meaning its difficult to conclude wind and solar will ever replace fossil fuels, which are much more energy dense by many magnitudes of scale.
  2. The "Terra Incognita" (or "unknown land"), the void in the graph that spans 10000k of energy density where no genres exist, between the density of oil/gas, which is lower down the chart, at 10k density, and the diabolical nuclear weapon, which is high on the chart at density of 1(mil)k. This aspect of the chart begs the question, "is there really no genre of energy generation technology in this sweet spot, that would both render fossil fuels obsolete, while being more safe and manageable than the highly dense but dangerous nuclear genre?"

Some Numbers

The World Energy Council is in a truly unique position to provide impartial and objective data sets about energy to inform the debate and support sustainable business decisions and policymaking. See their Facts and figures. [7]

Our average global power consumption is estimated at approximately 12 TW [8]. This could increase by about 30 percent between 2020 and 2040 [9]. Another source suggests global energy consumption is expected to surge more than 50 percent by 2035. The U.S. makes up for about 20% of that global energy consumption.[10]

Fossil Fuel's account for 78% of the U.S energy consumption and 80% in 2015 and 2016.

Solar, in 2016, made for less than 1% (.71%) of the U.S. Energy Consumption.[11] However, given its global exponential rate of progress [12] [13] [14] it could soon become a major supplier of energy [15]. Global PV capacity soared from 40 GW in 2010 to 219 GW in 2015; and solar PV could to account for as much as 7% of global power generation by 2030 – a six-fold increase from today. [16]

How much electricity will a PV roof produce? In practice, the output is often less [than quoted] - when it is cloudy or the sun is lower in the sky. In average UK weather conditions, a PV system rated at 1000 W (1 kW) will produce between 700 and 900 kWh of electricity per year. To illustrate this: A PV roof consisting of 15 modules rated at 180 W can produce a maximum of around 2,700 Watts (2.7 kW rated capacity). Over the course of a year, the roof will produce between around 1,800 and 2,400 kWh of electricity. The output over time is the important figure for most applications. PV produces much more energy in summer than in winter. A 1 kW array may produce more than 100 units in July but only 20 units in December. [17]

Renewable power generation data (globally) for 2016. [18]

Avoided Emissions Calculator: This calculator estimates the greenhouse gas emissions avoided due to a country’s renewable electricity generation in a given year compared to various fossil fuel generation scenarios. [19]

In 2015, the average annual electrical consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 10,812 kilowatthours (kWh), an average of 901 kWh per month.[20] For simplification and illustration purposes, this means, this theoretically average U.S. home, if it drew the same constant load over whole year time without variation, that average U.S. residential home's energy draw would be 1.25 kW at any given moment (this load would accumulate the ~30 kWh per day, the 901kWh per month and the 10,812 kilowatthours (kWh) for the year cited in the EIA statistics).

Energy poverty

Modern energy services are crucial to human well-being and to a country’s economic development; and yet globally 1.2 billion people are without access to electricity and more than 2.7 billion people are without clean cooking facilities. More than 95% of these people are either in sub-Saharan African or developing Asia, and around 80% are in rural areas. [21]

Predictions on our Future Energy Trajectory Outlook

"By 2050, the world’s population will grow by 33 percent, much of it an emerging middle class that will contribute to energy demand that is five times greater than that of today. At the same time, leading scientists say we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent. The only way to accomplish both is to develop revolutionary new technologies." - Argonne National Labratory Chain Reaction Innovation Program[22]

As you will see by the following cited independent analysis, the current energy paradigm provides little expectation, talks little about and assigns a low probability that our use of fossil fuels will be significantly reduced in the near term and foreseeable future (the first part of the 21st Century). Despite the excitement about renewable energy or work being done to promote growth for renewable energy uptake, in the most mainstream of analysis, there is absolutely no sign of fossil fuel obsolescence on the horizon (aside from peak oil predictions where we run out).

The 25x'25 Initiative

In a prepared statement, Rand Corporation researchers said that meeting a goal known as the 25x'25 initiative, in which 25 percent of the energy used for electricity and motor vehicle fuel in the U.S. is supplied by renewable energy sources by the year 2025, would not increase total national energy spending if renewable energy production costs decline by at least 20 percent in the next 20 years, which is consistent with recent historical trends, as estimated by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).[23]

In 2004 the Energy Future Coalition launched 25x’25, and since then it has grown into the premier renewable energy initiative in the agricultural community. The 25x’25 U.S. vision is for the U.S. to supply 25% of its energy needs with renewable energy by 2025 while continuing to produce safe, abundant, and affordable food, feed, and fiber.[24]

U.S. EIA 2040 Prediction

The Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2014 with projections through 2040 has a very bleak outlook if you were hoping for something in the change department; the EIA sees no significant deviation from the fossil fuel dominated landscape as we currently see.[25]

The IER (Institute for Energy Research) titled their detailed analysis: 2014 EIA Forecast: Fossil Fuels Remain Dominant Through 2040[26].

The Potential for Growth

The experiments and measurements conducted on each prototype technology will determine the ability of that technology at the time. However, we should be mindful of the fact that technologies improve over time, and the 21st century will see the impact of exponential technologies in many areas.

So what does exponential growth look like? Consider an energy technology that currently provides just one percent of total demand. See how quickly it grows year on year, if it doubles annually.

Exponential Growth: The ability to rapidly meet demand
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Percentage of total demand 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128

In just seven years the original demand is satisfied.

Interestingly, this represents a similar profile to the growth in Solar Technologies. For example, see the exponential growth in this Solar Capacity graph and others. [27] [28] However, not all sources suggest a doubling annually, so the rate of progress (without a breakthrough innovation) might be slower than the above table.

Ray Kurzweil Solar Prediction

One of the most famous proponents of this hypothesis is well known futurist and X Prize Board of Trustee Ray Kurzweil,who applies this to Solar. Kurzweil's comments during at talk in Anaheim, CA grabbed headlines like Ray Kurzweil: Here’s Why Solar Will Dominate Energy Within 12 Years[29] and Futurist Ray Kurzweil predicts solar industry dominance in 12 years:

“In 2012, solar panels were producing 0.5% of the world’s energy supply. Some people dismissed it, saying, ‘It’s a nice thing to do, but at a half percent, it’s a fringe player. That’s not going to solve the problem,’” Kurzweil said. “They were ignoring the exponential growth just as they ignored the exponential growth of the Internet and genome project. Half a percent is only eight doublings away from 100%...Now it is four years later, [and solar] has doubled twice again. Now solar panels produce 2% of the world’s energy, right on schedule. People dismiss it, ‘2%. Nice, but a fringe player.’ That ignores the exponential growth, which means it is only six doublings or [12] years from 100%.”[30].

However, when looking at Kurzweil's prediction applied to solar growth in the U.S., the prediction holds true only for the years 2011-2013 and 2012-2014. Solar growth rates in the U.S. have in recent years declined again to well below doubling every two years and in no years prior to 2013 did solar usage ever double (in a two year period) in the U.S.[31]

Year 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1995 1990
U.S. Solar Usage Quadrillion Btu 0.596* 0.427 0.316 0.225 0.157 0.111 0.090 0.078 0.074 0.065 0.061 0.058 0.058 0.058 0.06 0.062 0.063 0.068 0.059
2-year U.S. Solar Growth Rate 88%* 90% 101% 103% 74% 42% 22% 20% 21% 12% 5% 0% -3% -6% -5% -9% 7%

* Assumes a 0.050 quadrillion Btu U.S. solar usage for December 2016 (the average of the 11 prior months of 2016), since data was available thru November 2016.

As noted above in the Some Numbers section, Solar, in 2016, made for less than 1% (.71%) of the U.S. Energy Consumption and so as exciting as Solar is for some who are optimistic about our future energy path, there is still an ever growing crowd of skeptics that don't belive the needed change to our energy paradigm will come without a breakthrough that takes us beyond (wind and) solar.

U.S President's Signaling Breakthrough Energy Technology

Barack Obama "breakthroughs that can completely replace fossil fuels" Comment

In Charlotte, North Carolina, on April 2, 2010[32], 44th President of the United States Barack Obama made the following comments about breakthrough energy technology beyond wind and solar that will replace traditional sources in response to a question from Michael Shore, during a town hall meeting with Duke Energy and Siemens employees:[33][34]

Obama: "This gentleman right here."
Michael Shore: "Thank you very much, Mr. President. My name is Michael Shore. I'm here in Charlotte. First of all, it's an honor to have you here with us today.  I'm concerned that your decision to permit offshore drilling is going to have a chilling effect on investment in alternative sources of energy, and I'm interested to see what incentives you are proposing to establish the conditions and to stimulate research and development and expansion of that critical sector."
Obama: "That's a great question. We invested in wind; we invested in solar; we invested in research and development; we invested in battery technology. Here's the challenge that we have. We don't YET have the technological breakthroughs that can completely replace fossil fuels. So for the next ten years; the next twenty years; we're still going to be using oil; we're still going to be using coal; we're still going to be using natural gas; we're still going to be using the traditional sources to fuel our cars, heat our homes, run our big power plants, etc. – unless somebody here invents something tomorrow, which would be very helpful. And if you have it, let me know."

Obama's comments begged a follow-up question so the president could further elaborate on what knowledge of future technologies he is referring to. President Obama spells out a specific timeframe, between 10 and 20 years, so by approximately 2020-30, in which breakthrough energy technologies would emerge, rendering oil, coal, natural gas and traditional genres of energy generation obsolete.

Does Obama have specific knowledge of technologies to make such a definitive claim? And if so, what are those technologies?

Donald Trump "harness the energies... of tomorrow" 2017 Presidential Inauguration Speech

Included in the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump, January 20, 2017 Inauguration Speech[35][36], Trump stated the following:

"No challenge can match the heart and fight and spirit of America. We will not fail. Our country will thrive and prosper again. We stand at the birth of a new millennium, ready to unlock the mysteries of space, to free the Earth from the miseries of disease and to harness the energies, industries and technologies of tomorrow. A new national pride will stir ourselves, lift our sights and heal our divisions." ~Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of America

Coincidentally, Donald Trump's Uncle[37] John George Trump (-February 21,1985) connects our current president directly into advanced energy research and development in America. President Trump often references to his uncle, John G. Trump, who was "a pioneer in the scientific, engineering, and medical applications of high voltage machinery". At the time of his death, John Trump was professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the department of Electrical Engineering and senior consultant High Voltage Energy Corporation. John Trump came to MIT to work with Professor Robert J.Van de Graaff (see Vandegraaf Generator Effect) in what was then the new field of super-high voltage generation and applications.[38]

John G Trump was also directly involved with Nikola Tesla. The morning after the inventor's death, his nephew Sava Kosanovic´ hurried to his uncle's room at the Hotel New Yorker who was also an up-and-coming Yugoslav official. By the time he arrived, Tesla's body had already been removed, and Kosanovic´ suspected that someone had already gone through his uncle's effects. Technical papers were missing as well as a black notebook he knew Tesla kept—a notebook with several hundred pages. P. E. Foxworth, assistant director of the New York FBI office, was called in to investigate. According to Foxworth, the government was "vitally interested" in preserving Tesla's papers. Two days after Tesla's death, representatives of the Office of Alien Property went to his room at the New Yorker Hotel and seized all his possessions. Dr. John G. Trump, an electrical engineer with the National Defense Research Committee of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, was called in to analyze the Tesla papers in OAP custody. Following a three-day investigation, Dr. Trump concluded:
"His [Tesla's] thoughts and efforts during at least the past 15 years were primarily of a speculative, philosophical, and somewhat promotional character often concerned with the production and wireless transmission of power; but did not include new, sound, workable principles or methods for realizing such results."[39]
This above PBS (Public Broadcasting Service Corporation) narrative of the connections between John G Trump and Nikola Tesla leads the reader to believe there was little to nothing of significance within the confiscated possessions of Tesla, a sort of "move along, nothing to see here" storyline seems to underpin the piece. This PBS report titled Tesla -The Missing Papers is intriguing for New Energy / Tesla enthusiasts nonetheless.

The NY Times reports PBS may be specifically listed by the Trump administration for which they will "eliminate or trim domestic spending for" within their first budget.[40]

Donald Trump's President-elect energy philosophy for America can be found here.

The Energy-Conversion Efficiency

The energy-conversion efficiency is a key metric that facilitates comparison of the performance of various approaches to energy conversion. However, a suite of disparate methodologies has been proposed and used historically to evaluate the efficiency of systems that produce fuels, either directly or indirectly, with sunlight and/or electrical power as the system inputs. A general expression for the system efficiency is given as the ratio of the total output power (electrical plus chemical) divided by the total input power (electrical plus solar). The solar-to-hydrogen (STH) efficiency follows from this globally applicable system efficiency but only is applicable in the special case for systems in which the only input power is sunlight and the only output power is in the form of hydrogen fuel derived from solar-driven water splitting. Herein, system-level efficiencies, beyond the STH efficiency, as well as component-level figures of merit are defined and discussed to describe the relative energy-conversion performance of key photoactive components of complete systems. These figures of merit facilitate the comparison of electrode materials and interfaces without conflating their fundamental properties with the engineering of the cell setup. The resulting information about the components can then be used in conjunction with a graphical circuit analysis formalism to obtain “optimal” system efficiencies that can be compared between various approaches. The approach provides a consistent method for comparison of the performance at the system and component levels of various technologies that produce energy[41]. [Or more specifically as the reference says: "The approach provides a consistent method for comparison of the performance at the system and component levels of various technologies that produce fuels and/or electricity from sunlight", i.e. it is not a general purpose energy comparison system.]


The briefing materials often state the quest to find a "breakthrough" technology. So it is worth reflecting on what this means.

The word "breakthrough" is a common term used in innovation. It is another word for "radical innovation", and "disruptive innovation". You can see the definitions for those terms in What is Innovation? [42]

So the innovation will probably have at least one radical aspect to it.

This does not necessarily mean discovering a new energy source, there are other radical possibilities too:

  • Innovation in the way energy is captured (e.g. vastly increasing the efficiency of the process)
  • A radical method for deploying renewable energy technologies (e.g. automated construction of an energy plant within 1 week, instead of months or years)
  • A radical way of storing or distributing energy (e.g. a small portable energy source supplying an individual's monthly energy needs)
  • etc.

The other thing "breakthrough" is associated with, and this is very relevant to the XPRIZE, is the "moonshot". This is a huge, ambitious, innovation that often aims to improve things by a factor of 10, it makes something 1000% better! It's often a very ambitious aim that the average person thinks will be impossible.

It is this ambitious attitude that leads to the real big breakthroughs, like space travel, robots, and self-driving vehicles.

Hence, the need for an open mind in the evaluation process, balanced by rigorous scientific testing.

Black Swan Thesis of Energy Transformation

Vinod Khosla says "I've fundamentally looked at the problem of today 500 million people, mostly in the western world, enjoying an energy rich lifestyle and I envision 5 billion people wanting it. That's a hard problem, but its an exciting problem to try and solve. And I think technology and innovation is the only way to do it....So, that's what I spend my time on, what is enough of an odd idea, a black swan, a breakthrough, a surprise that will cause this gap to close."[43] Breakthrough Energy Technology would be a black swan for the history books and it could very well be introduced as such. Like the folklore of the day we all woke, thanks to Christopher Columbus, and realized the world wasn't flat after all, maybe one day we wake up just the same, to a day we just don't need fossil fuels any longer.

The Kardashev Scale

First proposed in 1964 by the Soviet astronomer Nikolai Kardashev, the Kardashev scale is a method of measuring a civilization's level of technological advancement, based on the amount of energy a civilization is able to utilize. The scale has three designated categories called Type I, II, and III:

  • A Type I civilization uses all available resources impinging on its home planet.
  • Type II harnesses all the energy of its star, and
  • Type III of its galaxy.

The scale is only hypothetical, but it puts energy consumption in a cosmic perspective. Various extensions of the scale have been proposed since, from a wider range of power levels (types 0, IV and V) to the use of metrics other than pure power.[44] This scale gives us perspective on just how far we have to go, how much we have to learn and how much we genuinely just don't know scientifically.

It might be worth reflecting on this during the evaluation. How far could a winning technology take us into the future? We know coal had a significant role to play for over 200 years. Will the next energy breakthrough support our global, and interplanetary, society for the next 200 years? [for example]

How far forward the X Prize and its winner can take us is currently TBD, but the Kardeshev Scale illustrates just how far we still can go actually go as a civilization in terms of development and in doing so it helps us imagine a little more easily why major scientific breakthroughs like advanced energy generation technology would have to be on the horizon somewhere if we are to traverse through the scale it defines.

The U.S Patent Office

Navigating the patent process with an advanced energy system requires wisdom and understanding; the process is long fabled to be a key stumbling block for inventors in this space. Some would go so far as to argue the breakthrough energy technology has already been submitted to the patent office and suppressed by it from public commercialization.

Sensitive Application Warning System

The patent office does maintain The Sensitive Application Warning System (SAWS), developed in 1994 to allow patent examiners to alert leadership when a patent might issue on a sensitive matter.[45]

The following Sensitive Application Warning System (SAWS) Topics were defined in release to the public by way of a FOIA request. The following topics directly related to this new energy subject matter are expersly stated (page 12)[46]:

  • Motor, Power plant, or other device which is self-sustaining (perpetual motion) or appears to violate the laws of chemistry or physics
  • Cold Fusion, "hydrino" reaction, or "magnecule" as an energy source or any other production of excess heat outside of known chemistry or physics
  • Anti-Global Warming devices or any other device operating at the global scale

In a later section of the same FOIA released document (page 30), the following section titled "Subject matter of special interest..." includes the following:

  • Perpetual motion machines
  • Anti-gravity devices
  • Free energy - Tachyons, etc.
  • Gain-assisted Superluminal Light Propagation (faster than the speed of light)
  • Other matters that violate the laws of physics
  • Applications containing claims to subject matter which, if issued, would generate unfavorable publicity to the USPTO.

Patents for Humanity

Patents for Humanity is the United States Patent & Trademark Office's (USPTO) awards competition recognizing innovators who use game-changing technology to meet global humanitarian challenges.

  • Household Energy - technologies providing power to energy-poor homes and communities for household needs like lighting, cooking, and heating[47]

Challenging the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Conversations about whether breakthrough energy technology emergence is possible usually circle back (in one form or another), or outright get reduced to: a debate on whether or not YOU choose to believe the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be broken (violated, challenged, altered or expanded). Like it is with so many other societal issues, the current thinking seems to contain this component of forcing us into taking a definitive side, one or the other. This aspect of the free energy narrative/debate seems to take the form of yet another dialectic in which we get divided, "do you believe in free energy or not", which side are you on (the quackery or the hopeless)!

Conversely, it can be argued that science is performed by scientists (Talk:Methods of Evaluating the Creation/Generation of Energy).

Its those who reject this narrative and get together, skeptics and the believers, to work with all on the task at hand, this is the scientific community environment that possesses a real chance of making a change.

Maxwell's Demon, a term coined long ago (date) but one so appropriate to describe the current debate over what will become of our future energy paradigm. Its as if we are now collectively struggling with the very question Maxwell himself did as he developed and perfected what we now know as Maxwell's Equations: can these very bedrock rules, can they be broken by something not yet understood, by something that somehow finds its way through the cracks of our current collective understanding; is this possible even if that understanding is seemingly so strong, solid, accepted and stood on by so many?

Maxwell's Demon

In the philosophy of thermal and statistical physics, Maxwell's Demon is a thought experiment created by the physicist James Clerk Maxwell in which he suggested how the Second Law of Thermodynamics might hypothetically be violated. In the thought experiment, a demon controls a small door between two chambers of gas. As individual gas molecules approach the door, the demon quickly opens and shuts the door so that fast molecules pass into the other chamber, while slow molecules remain in the first chamber. Because faster molecules are hotter, the demon's behavior causes one chamber to warm up as the other cools, thus decreasing entropy and violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics.[48] For an in depth discussion of Maxwell's Demon, read: The physics of Maxwell’s demon and information.[49]

And so, if this debate was good enough for Maxwell to allow and embrace, then it should be good enough for all of us to as well.

James Clerk Maxwell (13 June 1831 – 5 November 1879) was a Scottish scientist in the field of mathematical physics.  His most notable achievement was to formulate the classical theory of electromagnetic radiation, bringing together for the first time electricity, magnetism, and light as manifestations of the same phenomenon. Maxwell's Equations for electromagnetism have been called the "second great unification in physics" after the first one realized by Isaac Newton.

Many physicists regard Maxwell as the 19th-century scientist having the greatest influence on 20th-century physics. His contributions to the science are considered by many to be of the same magnitude as those of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.  In the millennium poll—a survey of the 100 most prominent physicists—Maxwell was voted the third greatest physicist of all time, behind only Newton and Einstein.  On the centenary of Maxwell's birthday, Einstein described Maxwell's work as the "most profound and the most fruitful that physics has experienced since the time of Newton".[50]

The Wikipedia's page for Thomas Henry Moray describes the current scenario from a mainstream perspective on what it means to 'challenge the second law':

"A counter culture has developed with claims about alternative energy, citing Moray as a leading example of lost opportunity and of free energy suppression.  Since Moray patented his invention with detailed drawings and further described his ideas in books he wrote, the economics and technical operation can be understood with conventional science and engineering."[51]

The "Closed System" Paradigm Has Persisted Too Long

Ilya Prigogine won the Nobel Prize for discovering that the importation and dissipation of energy into chemical systems could reverse the inexorable disintegration into disorder predicted by the second law. The second law only applies to closed thermodynamic systems with no exchange of energy or entropy with the environment, whereas life is an open thermodynamic system, in which energy is imported as food and oxygen and utilized in a process we call metabolism. Entropy in the form of waste products is exported. As entropy decreases, order must increase. Thus the imported energy is used to create the spontaneous development of self-organized, emergent phenomena.[52]

For so long in our collective scientific narrative, we have clung to the second law, in particular, the key clause that holds it all together, "in a closed system". We refuse to broaden our horizons of thinking, allowing for scientists to "open the system up" to the environment around it and the possibility that we can simply find the way to pull in from that infinite nature surrounding us (and our inventions) and let go of this demand in our minds that in the context of advanced energy technologies, the generator will forever stay isolated from it. Maybe Ilya Prigogine (and Isabelle Stengers) said it best:

“when  nature  is  eventually  seen  as  refusing  to  express  itself  in  the  accepted language, the crisis explodes with the kind of violence that results from a breach of  confidence. At  this  stage,  all  intellectual  resources  are  concentrated  on the search for a new language.” Prigogine & Stengers (Order Out of Chaos, 1984)[53]

Since at least 1962 this very struggle has in fact been underway, when Thomas S Kuhn released his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a landmark event in history, philosophy, and in the sociology of scientific knowledge, triggered an ongoing worldwide assessment and reaction in—and beyond—those scholarly communities. Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in "normal science". Kuhn called the core concepts of an ascendant revolution its "paradigms" and thereby launched this word into widespread analogical use in the second half of the 20th century. Kuhn's insistence that a paradigm shift was a mélange (medley) of sociology, enthusiasm and scientific promise, but not a logically determinate procedure, caused an uproar in reaction to his work.[54]

Mel Acheson[55] of the The Thunderbolds Project - A Voice for the Electric Universe paralleled Kuhn's explanations to the debate he describes as the one between competing cosmologists as Gravity vs. Plasma:

Newton was unaware of plasma. Today his disciples spend years in training learning when and how to shut their eyes to it. It’s not just the Big Bang, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics that are in trouble but the foundation of them all: Gravity is an exhausted and bankrupt concept. A higher, more comprehensive foundation is needed. The technologies of gravity have lifted us to a viewpoint that’s bigger than gravity, and we need new ideas and new tools to make sense of the new vistas.[56]

Perpetual Motion

The idea of perpetual motion has been around for a long time. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica has a lengthy discussion about the topic with citations going back to the 1600's and 1700's.[57] In large part, this day and age, speaking within the new energy field and using this term is not a wise choice, because of the negative connotations we've attached the term's definition. At the same time, there maybe no more concise term to describe the goal at hand.

Why Infinite Energy?

Eugene Mallove, a pioneer among pioneers, a legend among heroes within the field new energy, his legacy of work and contributions to the field live on long after his tragic death. In Edition One of his magazine, Mallove right away explained why he chose the describe the field in and as Infinite Energy and what it all meant to him, read the rest of his first edition titled Breaking Through here.

"Every new magazine needs to explain itself on “Day One,” and we admit that this one needs some explaining! Infinite Energy? Sounds preposterous, doesn’t it? Perhaps, until you examine what has been happening in the so-called “cold fusion” field since 1989— and in the “New Energy Technology” field, which actually began many years ago when scientists, tinkerers , and inventors were puzzled by unexplained anomalies of excess power production in heat-producing as well as in electricity-producing machines. Are these phenomena related —cold fusion and other forms of excess power? More to the point, are they real at all? Read our magazine and draw your own conclusions. That’s all we ask of you. Be true scientists and study the data without jumping to the rash conclusion that preconceived theories rule out the mountain of “cold fusion” and “new energy technology“ data that will confront you. We would be surprised if you did not come to agree with us that the excess heat and excess power phenomena are both real and revolutionary. Of course, not all experiments in this dynamic field may be said to be conclusive, but the overall range and multiplicity of findings leaves no doubt, in our minds at least, that new science and a rapidly emerging new technology are upon us." -Eugene Mallove, Edition One, Infinite Energy Magazine, March/April 1995


The Background page defines abundant as follows: Abundant means accessible, reliable, and wide-spread. Abundant also means limitless and inexhaustible for all practical purposes. Finally, abundant means inexpensive.

The Scarcity vs. Abundance Mentality

The XPrize is clearly seeking for solutions that could be applied at scale, i.e. those that can make an impact on our planetary energy consumption. This concept of Abundance stands in stark contrast to the lense of scarcity in which we see the universe in which we live. Within our energy paradigm, examples of scarcity abound, whether explained by peak oil within at the (negative) traditional end of the spectrum or at the positive end of the energy paradigm in which we live in the renewable conversation where we currently require the most extreme mining of even more rare earth metals, in field of solar and battery tech.

If human civilization is to going experience incredible technological advancement in power (energy) generation, it may very well be accompanied by a shift of our attention from living in a planet with very limited fossil fuels and rare earth metals to one of a universe of infinite abundance and unlimited energy availability.

Energy return on energy invested

We should make sure that any energy technology is actually a net energy source, i.e. that it doesn't require more energy to produce a technology than what the technology will yield over its useful lifetime

  • Convenience A technology delivering electricity is more versatile than one delivering heat. Compactness is convenient as well, and required for mobile applications
  • Price The ultimate parameter that will really move the needle is the expected cost curve for new technologies, fundamental to the speed of widespread adoption[58]

One Cent Energy

Carl Page's work at the Anthropocene Institute would be an interesting concept to apply to this component of the X Prize Design Competition. Applying Page's novel idea here would demand:

Philosophically, we believe in prosperity rather than austerity.   Belt tightening won’t save the world. The Anthropocene Institute is supporting all innovations capable of enabling One Cent Clean Energy ($0.01 / kWh LCOE unsubsidized).  A short VIDEO describes our (Anthropocene Institute) perspective.


In addition to the above energy source, efficiency and environmental aspects we also want to know how feasible the solution is to implement, in order to provide a solution for our future global energy needs. This includes the following factors:

  • Costs (e.g. patent royalties; development; installation; commissioning; operation; handling byproducts, waste and pollution; energy storage and delivery; and end of life decommissioning)
  • Sourcing the required resources and its implications
  • Accessibility and availability (how easily can potential users around the world access and utilise the solution)
  • Implementation (How quickly can this be deployed, on a global scale? What skills, knowledge and investments are required?)

Commercial Viability

Cambridge dictionary insists this concept of commercial viability means a business or product to make a profit.[59] However, many in this field would argue the new technology may shift the paradigm for human life on earth so significantly as to emerge without needing to turn a profit in the traditional sense. If a new energy technology is going to emerge, although money does make the world go roung so it is highly likely, it doesn't necessarily have to emerge in a traditional sense, maybe it could be "free", why not. This said, other aspects will be required for the technology to emerge (and to win an X Prize).

It is not enough to be a bench model, something that is a genuinely a real thing proven in a laboratory, the product must reach market in a disruptive (or some otherwise quantified) manner to be considered commercially viable.

Maybe the product is too difficult to develop or manufacture in a cost effective enough way to get it out. Maybe the product just can't be sustained over a meaningful enough time frame or cannot be scaled appropriately for market. Maybe contractual, legal, or litigation holdups paralyze an otherwise perfect idea. A myriad of example stumbling blocks on the way from prototype to meaningful market share can be encountered along the way to achieving commercially viable, and so if a winning submission to the X Prize is unable to be a commercially viable option, within the massive human market place of things, in any marked way, this X Prize will not result in a dramatic impact to the current fossil fuel dominated energy paradigm, not directly and immediately, not through the winning technology.

The argument can be made that an X Prize award still be made possible for a submission of bench prototypes without a path to commercial viability, but maybe this calls for a multiple prize tier X Prize. The Ultimate Prize does seem in concept reserved for a technology that actually emerges into the market place, for real in the here and now. Enough stories, predictions and promises, is this X Prize not about just that, getting a new energy technology to market!

Addressing this factor of commercial viability is a considered in the design of this X Prize.

Evaluating Costs

To compare the affordability of each energy technology we might need a standard way of calculating costs.

The "levelised" cost of electricity (LCOE) is the price that must be received per unit of output as payment for producing power in order to reach a specified financial return - or put simply the price that project must earn per megawatt hour in order to break even. The LCOE calculation standardises the units of measuring the lifecycle costs of producing electricity thereby facilitating the comparison of the cost of producing one megawatt hour by each technology. [60]

Sustainability Scale

The logarithmic Sustainability Scale provides a method to classify the sustainability of a given process. The link also provides an example for solar power; specifically the lifetime of the Sun.

Each proposed energy solution could be assigned a rating on the sustainability scale, depending on how long the proposed solution is likely to be sustainable for. Admittedly, this would be an estimation, based on available knowledge at the time.

These sustainability ratings can then be compared as part of the evaluation process.

Interestingly, the definition for abundance seems to rule out most solutions with the limitless and inexhaustible phrase. Therefore, it is proposed that we quantify this aspect, by using the Sustainability Scale, so that proposed solutions can be compared with each other.

Category (C) Duration of Sustainability (years)
0 Not sustainable.
1 1 to 10
2 10 to 100
3 100 to 1,000
4 1,000 to 10,000

A category (C) refers to something that is sustainable for up to 10C years.

The X Prize should not only consider commercially viability of submissions and if the product makes it to market, but also consider how sustainable the product is in the market. If a product requires a herculean effort to make but lasts only one year, then maybe the product makes it to market, but has a significantly limited ability to make the shifting impact this X Prize is being designed to make. Sustainability ties closely into the definition of clean and abundant within the context of this X Prize design.

In addition to these factors, the uptake of a new technology is also dependent on social factors. This has been shown to be the case for the rural scenario.[61]


Environmental Impact

Let us not forget why we are looking for a new energy source. It is not because we do not have an energy source, it is because...

There are concerns that carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels is driving climate change

... and the mining and transportation of those fuels have an impact;

... and burning fossil fuels results in air pollution that has an adverse impact on human health, and the environment (with emissions of CO2, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons / volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and oxides of nitrogen);

... and "energy from waste" incinerators are vulnerable to emissions of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) (during installation and when operational problems occur) [62];

... and a cheaper source of energy for all would be beneficial.

Scientists made a detailed “roadmap” for meeting the Paris climate goals. It’s eye-opening. Example scenarios are presented to achieve the 2 degrees Celsius limit for global warming. The extent of the effort required is clearly huge. [63]

One way to deal with climate change is geo-engineering [64]; and an abundant clean source of energy might help with the implementation of some of that.

POPs are a group of chemicals that are very toxic and can cause cancer and other adverse health effects. POPs are persistent in the environment and travel vast distances via air and water. [65]

So an evaluation might want to factor these points in too.

Even for those dissenters of the argument that carbon dioxide induced climate change is our top ecological danger, there is still common ground. Many who explore this topic agree - the petrochemical industry, which is carbon based mining and production (including fossil fuel) presents humanity with some apparent limitations for our long term earthly future. Whether through industrial unused bi-products, agricultural fertilizer products, human pharmacological, human consumer products or via fossil fuel combustion, our consumption and discharge of petrochemical derivatives into our environment leaves our overall energy/plastics paradigm significantly exposed to one's imagination and question: "Is there of a more resonant (efficient) way we'll get to in our future?" Any breakthrough in our energy paradigm should, as a result, show a measurably reduced industrial impact to the known ecology around us. A winning prize should significantly reduce our petrochemical consumption.

Should it? Technically, that would be a close-minded approach. The XPRIZE aims to adopt an open minded approach. Petrochemical consumption is not the problem as such; the problem is the combustion of petrochemicals (or any fossil fuel). A technology that can use fossil fuels in an innovative way that does not pollute and produces abundant clean affordable energy has a chance in an open-minded competition.

Low CO2 emissions seems a prerequisite for any energy tech seeking the label "clean", but more widely, the total environmental impact of the technologies should be considered. Fuel use (if any), material resource use, land use, waste streams, radioactivity (if any), ... Combustion has inherent problems with regard to air pollution (NOx, HC, CO, PM, etc.). Even the widely quoted "clean" hydrogen fuel could give rise to emissions of NOx because burning in air converts nitrogen to nitrogen oxides (NOx), which currently represent a major urban pollution issue globally [mainly due to diesel emissions currently]. So hydrogen use in fuel cells might be preferable to combustion. In short, technologies that avoid combustion are more likely to achieve the status of "clean" - assuming no other pollution factors prevail.

Carbon Mitigation

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a method to mitigate climate change by capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from large point sources such as power plants and subsequently storing it away safely instead of releasing it into the atmosphere.[66]

A winning Abundant Clean Energy X Prize submission might accomplish carbon mitigation while providing a new means of energy generation. An example of this is Joule Unlimited's CO2 to fuel technology; since this technology takes CO2 waste out of the environment and converts it directly into new fuel. Granted, this new fuel is then combusted via traditional means, thus ultimately re-releasing that CO2, but the technology still opens the imagination to the possibility a new energy technology might also accomplish carbon mitigation while generating energy.

Open to Innovative Solutions Using Fossil Fuels

Thinking outside the box, imagine an innovation that turns fossil fuel into clean hydrogen fuel (for fuel cells), and converts the remaining carbon into useful nano-materials (carbon nano-tubes and graphene). That's a win-win. But what's this comment doing in the evaluation section? Its purpose here is to point out that the XPRIZE should be open minded to all solutions and that includes the innovative processing of fossil fuels. The challenge aims to seek out clean abundant energy - that could come from anywhere; and with radical innovation, even from the current driver of pollution and climate change!

We Don't Know What We Don't Know


When evaluating technologies, its important to understand the physics behind these breakthroughs may fundamentally challenge current understandings and methods. New means of measurement may be required and new instruments and processes may also be required to test and detent new phenomina properly. Consider, for example, the tachyon, Scientific America describes it in an article titled What is known about tachyons, theoretical particles that travel faster than light and move backward in time? Is there scientific reason to think they really exist?[67] Whether the tachyon theory proves to be the path forward towards a breakthrough or whether its alternative theory that correctly explains the changed understanding, either way, a very open mind, like with other breakthroughs in human history, seems likely to accompany a new energy paradigm. Therefore, imagination might prove valuable in the meantime. Tachyon's certainly do require an imagination at this point.

"Briefly, tachyons are theoretically postulated particles that travel faster than light and have 'imaginary' masses.[68] - Raymond Y. Chiao, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley

The tachyon is one of the mainstream accepted terms that's also of the truly woo-woo variety in this new energy space, but if the future comes anywhere near what this theory describes, our laboratory tools and processes for development and manufacturing will be transformed.

Planck Spherical Units (PSU's)

Continuing further into the woo-woo aspects of this field (for documentation, not necessarily for promotion), Nassim Haramein calls these tiny energy packets Planck Spherical Units (PSU's) because they are spherical, like most other structures the universe creates at all scales. These spherical waveforms overlap and perfectly pack together to form the 3D flower of life structure of space itself. First discovered by Max Planck, the smallest distance you can possibly measure is the length of this universal fundamental wave-from called the Planck Length which is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001616cm[69]

Plasma seeks out charge, seeks out flow in the system, its drawn to it magnetically. So plasma particles bombard Planet Earth every day. Many of them gain sufficient charge in the magnetosphere and are then repelled back out to the universe. But these particles are so microscopic that still so many of them get through, most as wave forms riding the ultraviolet spectrum.  At other times they form stable shapes that are able to maintain current flow through all PSU’s. This flow of energy transfer continues naturally through the system as these stable sub atomic PSU’s pass through everything seeking charge, seeking vibration, seeking connection, creating harmony. Increasing the charge and rate of vibration of all they interact with. These stable shapes, smaller than plasma are what I call Tachyons. I will dedicate a separate post another time to this wonderful state of matter the sits between the 4th and 5th elemental state.[70]

[How is this relevant to the evaluation page?]

Red Mercury

Red Mercury represents another example in the department of 'we really don't know what we don't know' comes from within the very real and accepted science world of Nuclear Energy that derived from Nazi Germany and the U.S. Manhattan Project during World War II. Even in the realms of accepted physics, there are still a lot of secrets (state secrets) and occult information held from the public realms, causing confusion and awaiting further clarifying understandings. Is red mercury even real? Red Mercury is real enough to have many historical references for this term to exist, but at the same time, the public understanding is so futile the best definition we can give it is that it doesn't actually exist.

Regardless of whether red mercury its real or not is not the point. The point is, research and the debate within this new energy field must come to terms firstly with the fact there is so much we just don't know, and secondly that the fact our energy paradigm is such that sometimes we simply don't know because systemically we have decided these secrets (that if revealed from the occult, might move us forward in the realms of energy generation) must be perpetuity no less. Meaning, there is a possibility that developments in this field will come not for lack of known physics, but simply form a shift in our paradigm in that designs the system by which we manage that scientific understanding.

Red mercury is a substance of uncertain composition purportedly used in the creation of nuclear bombs, as well as a variety of unrelated weapons systems. The existence of such substance has not been documented. It is purported to be mercuric iodide, a poisonous, odorless, tasteless, water-insoluble scarlet-red powder that becomes yellow when heated above 126 °C, due to a thermochromatic change in crystalline structure.[1][2] However, samples of "red mercury" obtained from arrested would-be terrorists invariably consisted of nothing more than various red dyes or powders of little value, which may have been sold as part of a campaign intended to flush out potential nuclear smugglers.[71]

5th Phase of Matter

Bose–Einstein condensate

In 1924, Albert Einstein and Satyendra Nath Bose predicted the "Bose–Einstein condensate" (BEC), sometimes referred to as the fifth state of matter. In a BEC, matter stops behaving as independent particles, and collapses into a single quantum state that can be described with a single, uniform wavefunction.[72]

If tachyons and red mercury are too far into the woo woo junkscience, the Boss-Einstein should be enough for us to admit there is a lot within what the forefathers of modern physics left us at outer limits of what's real or accepted to admit we still have so much to learn about the cosmos, in the field physics and in the realm of where we can generate our electricity and power from.

For us to on one hand be exploring with such fond acceptance for things like the God Particles Higgs-Bosum at mutli-billion dollar particle colidors like CERN, but to on the other hand have developed as a global sciencetific establishment and affected culture such a disdainful and abstinence towards simple terms such as perpetual motion and free energy.

Interestingly, it is where Einstein's ideas surrounding a 5th Phase of Matter, this idea of a uniform wave function, that start to sound a lot like the Unifed Field Theory[73] sounds, a theory some in the new energy community are often discared as quacks and psuedoscientists for embracing, discussing, researching and postilating about.

New Instrumentation

Mel Acheson, in The Thunderbolts Project Official Movie - Thunderbolts of the Gods, he did a wonderful job speaking about how modern Space Age instrumentation has been a key part of change. The Hubble Telescope allowed us for the first time to see the entire electromagnetic spectrum of the cosmos, instead of the visible end of it. Radio Telescopes today allow us see electric currents and magnetic currents and measure them, the forces involved and the amount of energy in space. Continuing to implement these new instrumentation as well as develop further new ones will allow us to see/detect new aspects of energy. Developing new understanding, improving upon and even correcting previously disseminated interpretations is to be expected. And new instrumentation in the laboratory and in use by scientists will likely play a vital part. In the documentary (18:56) Acheson explains that in certain areas of modern science, the scientific collective is effectively "looking through the wrong end of a telescope and telling us what they imagine they see".[74]

The point here is if the future of understanding in physics is tachyon and PSU like, Unified Field Theory or not, the orthodox inside our partner laboratories and R&D facilities will have to accommodate change within their environments to adequately facilitate the emergence from the depths of our imagination and into a new technology.

We might already have the technologies necessary to measure such things. For example, at one point in our recent history, scientists detected neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light - or so they thought: it was faulty equipment! There is a lesson there for the robustness of testing in the X PRIZE.

Crest Factor

Crest factor and the capability of instruments to handle a range of waveforms is important in the measurement of energy. Meters used to measure input and output waveforms during device testing must have the capability to handle the crest factor of the waveform being measured.

Crest Factor is a measure of a waveform, and is is the peak amplitude of the waveform divided by the RMS value of the waveform, such as alternating current or sound, showing the ratio of peak values to the effective value. In other words, crest factor indicates how extreme the peaks are in a waveform. Crest factor 1 indicates no peaks, such as direct current. Higher crest factors indicate peaks, for example sound waves tend to have high crest factors.[75]

System Representation

The following approach aims to represent the operation of the energy solution, using a generic system representation.

Diagram of an Energy System

The most basic realistic system consists of one that has inputs and outputs:

  • Energy is input in a particular form (e.g. potential energy)
  • Energy is output in a particular form (e.g. electricity)

However, in the real world the energy technology might have one or more inefficient processes. For example:

  • Input energy (e.g. potential energy)
  • Output energy (e.g. electricity)
  • Energy lost (e.g. heat)

An energy technology might also produce byproducts. For example:

  • Input energy (e.g. potential energy)
  • Output energy (e.g. electricity)
  • Energy lost (e.g. heat)
  • Byproducts, in particular Pollutants (e.g. carbon dioxide, and additional byproducts polluting the land, sea and/or air)

So for any given energy technology we can, at least in theory, estimate:

  • The input and output energy, and the energy loss; which can be used to derive an efficiency factor
  • The quantity of byproducts and pollutants produced

Energy Ecosystem

However, the energy technology is probably part of a larger ecosystem, consisting of:

  • The source of the input energy (and its associated processing and transportation)
  • The method for transporting or distributing the output energy to the end users
  • The capture, transportation and processing of the byproducts and pollutants (e.g. disposal or recycling)

All of these factors have to be taken into account for the evaluation of an energy solution.

In addition, the life-time impact of the technology and ecosystem has to be evaluated. This includes manufacturing (including supply chains), construction, operations, decommissioning, and disposal (or preferably recycling). Typically, any major development these days will require an environmental impact assessment.

(For example, in the early days of nuclear fission reactors the evaluation might have appeared attractive; however, the associated radioactive byproducts with a half-life of hundreds of years represents a questionable process. Similarly, the decommissioning phase might be challenging and expensive.


What risks are associated with the solution?

Quick Checklist

So in summary we would, ideally, want to evaluate the following factors:

  • Source
  • Input
  • Output
  • Losses
  • Byproducts and pollutants; and their transport and processing
  • Transport and distribution of energy
  • Overall life-time impact
  • Feasibility
  • Risks

Qualified Vetting

The process of vetting technologies, evaluating whether they qualify for an X Prize is closely tied to Research & Development. Its going to be the scientists within their R&D laboratories moving the invention from concept to distribution that are going to be among the most qualified to explain the worthiness of the innovation. If an X Prize is won, there will have been a successful interface between those judging the technology for X Prize and those within the submitter's team,

An extremely big problem within the field of new energy is a lack of robust vetting and surrounding systems and processes. In the information age, there seems to be this cycle surrounding claims of exotic energy generation technologies, in a breathe of seemingly different genres. First, a claim emerges, second, it gains attention (a level of excitement among some is built), next a period of some research and disclosures, but now no disruptive technology has emerged to date by the claimant (for any given number of reasons), not finally, excitement and attention fades to some varied degree.

The cycle doesn't simply end here; due to a lack of significant enough evaluation and development infrastructure, these claims then get recycled back around doing the process over, sometimes over and over, other times in the form of a slight variation, a new person involved with a previous claimant's work.

Its a formidable task to get involved with evaluating all the free energy claims in any dramatic and comprehensive way, but (sadly if so) this seeming inability to establish systems to allow adequate access to research and development for many of those inventors, innovators, scientists and engineers with claims new energy technology to get a fair and lasting evaluation.

Democratized Approach?

Evaluating entries to the X Prize is a critical component to the success of the project. It would be catastrophic to award a large prize to a hoax, conversely, it would be sad if a legitimate technology was missed with the root cause sourcing back to the vetting processes. Determining how to vet the submissions is a deep dive and hopefully the submissions to the design challenge come up with some incredible ideas.

One question is whether to open up evaluation to the world a large, to have a distinct panel of judges or some combination of both.

Opening up the evaluation process to the universe of people who want to join in has its advantages. This X Prize may be open to submissions from anyone, anywhere on earth. If it is, how will an cost effective, efficient and responsive approach to evaluation be done when most likely the judges will have to see the technology face to face at some stage in the process?

If a distinct panel approach is made, that panels limited time and resources to travel the world seems impractical. And since the potential technologies span such a wide range of physics approaches, a panel may be limited in itself in its ability to understand and properly evaluate each submission.

Opening up the vetting to all solves the geographical questions above, as people local to the submission can rally together to study the technologies coming from their community, each community around the world responding in kind. At least in the preliminary evaluation, this democratized approach may prove most response, cost effective and efficient, given there is a system in place to bring those vetting contributors together into the X Prize evaluation process.

With the advanced functionality we see within internet globally connected computing, a vetting portal supporting a democratized vetting process, where certain processes for report filing on X Prize submissions can be created to support an effective X Prize contestant submission process, that feeds directly into a transparent and effective evaluation process. One consideration with open source vetting is maintaining the security for inventors making their submission, in a way satisfactory to them, so to encourage and not discourage submissions.

Building an Expert Team

The XPRIZE challenge will require a Judging Panel, and experimental Testers. These might consist of scientists (especially physicists), engineers, environmentalists, experts in proposed and conventional energy technologies, accountants (to forecast and compare costs), and others.

The testers might work in the field or in independent laboratories.

Some of these might be sourced from the following:-

  • REN21 group [76] based at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in Paris. The group helps to produce an annual Renewables Global Status Report as well as regional reports; and the network stands at 700 renewable energy, energy access and energy efficiency experts. [77]
  • The World Energy Council [78] is the principal impartial network of leaders and practitioners promoting an affordable, stable and environmentally sensitive energy system for the greatest benefit of all. The Council is the UN-accredited global energy body, representing the entire energy spectrum, with more than 3000 member organisations located in over 90 countries and drawn from governments, private and state corporations, academia, NGOs and energy-related stakeholders. The World Energy Council informs global, regional and national energy strategies by hosting high-level events, publishing authoritative studies, and working through its extensive member network to facilitate the world’s energy policy dialogue.

Submissions for the X Prize will themselves likely be evaluated in part by the team surrounding the project. If an X Prize winner is going to be required to get beyond all (or even some) stages including prototype, engineering, commercialization, manufacturing, regulatory approval and distribution (to name a few stages), all the way to a point of significant market uptake, this will likely require many team members beyond the (singular or small group of) "inventor(s)" and how well functing this team is will likely be a determining factor in whether a submission wins. Some of the very important aspects of this team are listed here:

Research & Development

Building a Bridge to Established Research & Development

Below is a long but certainly not exhaustive list of empowered organizations participating in different aspects and at different levels with the cleantech / renewable energy, not necessarily involved with advanced new energy technology, but each one making their own commitments to improve our energy generation paradigm. It will be imperative to leverage the incredible laboratory and resources available in these institutions around the globe. Gaining access to R&D budgets and investment is unavoidable for the submissions to the Abundant, Clean Energy X Prize submissions, this is in essence why they would submit to a cash prize competition, to pay for or payback such expense. It would be ashamed if the largest, most resourced laboratory and institutions in the world weren't interested in such a grand challenge or weren't approached to assist in the process of manifesting a winning X Prize.

When considering the challenge of vetting (evaluating X Prize submissions) on a global scale, in conjunction with the grand scale inherint in this X Prize and then trying to design an X Prize with these two aspects (Vetting and R&D) in mind, seeking partnerships with these already established institutions seems like a suggested path as part of the overal process spelled out in the X Prize design.

Do we reasonably expect to have an X Prize Judging Panel operate in a vacuum, without assistance from a wide array of scientists whose assistance might help both logistically in that their resources and geographic locations might serve cost effective and efficient, without access to labratories and instruments (or required to fund its own, taking time and money) when their are incredible institutions spanning the entire globe serving these very functions the X Prize will likely undertake themselves during the evaluation phase of the competition.


Intellectual Property

Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the intellect for which a monopoly is assigned to designated owners by law.[79]

One of the criticisms of free energy is that it by definition challenges the intellectual property (IP) system we have in place. In theory, energy generation might become so ubiquitous if future technology advancement leads to the type of abundance embodied with the Abundant Clean Energy X Prize ambitions. If so, who owns it? What if the technology become so reproducible it was hard to control in a traditional nation state / corporate model we see applied to the fossil fuel industry today? What if we (or the inventor themself) just wanted the technology to be owned by the collective and wanted it to be controlled in society in a novel, nontraditional sense?

Steptoe & Johnson, LLP

Steptoe has one of the preeminent energy practices in the country. Chambers USA calls our firm a “powerhouse in world energy regulatory matters” and a “major force in the energy regulatory field.”  Chambers awarded the firm the 2012 “Award for Excellence” in Energy Projects, and conferred a top-tier ranking nationwide in the category Energy: Oil & Gas (Regulatory & Litigation).  We have long-established relationships with the country’s leading energy producers, transporters, suppliers, and marketers, and we have an extensive practice involving counseling, litigation, and representation of companies before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and other federal and state agencies.[80]

David French

David French is a retired patent attorney and the principal and CEO of Second Counsel Services who has worked analysing papents within the field of LENR.

Open Source Technology

On one hand, a cash based X Prize in essence validates the right to own, a long cherished and fought for value within human society. Ownership and property rights go hand in hand with rights to life, liberty, happiness and security. It's very difficult to discriminate against someone, who if they can invent something, has a right to own it. On the other hand, many have expressed fondness for what an open source approach to this new energy field can offer. If the advancement is ultimately free energy, this directly contrasts the concept of the monopoly implied in intellectual property law. Some would outright challenge the assertion of right to own (and monopolize through traditional patent and IP law) the invent of new energy technology. Arguing when it manifests, it won't be because of one man or women, that even if a great innovator emerges in the public eye leading us through a rapid new energy technological advancement, this someone will still just be building upon the great collective effort of so many of those before and along side the effort, and have no legitimatize right to claim all profit as their own.

Open sourcing technology allows for rapid development of the technology and rapid uptake for demanded solutions since no restrictions are placed on who can help with the development an who can take up the solutions delivered by those developers. The computer software technology field is possibly the best illustration of the difference between open source vs. traditional IP, in the context of Linux vs. Microsoft. The Linux operating platform allows any developer to make developments to features, and any user can approach the market with a feature request, find its development and uptake the solutions without the restrictions seen in Microsoft Operating system, where the user is at the whim of what Microsoft allows to be developed next, who can even do development and how/if the desired feature will be designed.

Criticisms of open sourcing technology include A disincentive development if there is no explicit reward for the developer, no ownership incentive.

Careful consideration of technology ownership could ultimately lead to more creative X Prize design ideas, especially if novel new approaches to intellectual property are found. Possible hybrid approaches of open source and traditional intellectual property/patent methods could assist pushing technological development in this field.


There are some that think the laws of science can be bent to their own subjective will. However, the laws of the universe are not subjective, they are objective. It is the role of science to study these laws, and to produce the corresponding, validated, (mathematical) models. In particular, with regard to the laws of energy and thermodynamics, it is the role of physicists to determine (through scientific research) what those universal laws are; not the random subjective opinions of anyone in society. Anyone can do science, but there is a ​scientific methodology​ that has to be followed, and that includes peer review and replication (by other, independent, scientists). The ​scientific methodology includes some good practice aspects that will be useful here:

  • documenting the methodology, and the equipment used
  • recording the raw data

This serves two useful purposes: it allows other scientists to repeat the experiments; and it allows independent analysis of the raw data, which might lead to different interpretations and conclusions to those in the initial report. It might be particularly useful to document the attributes of the prototypes in great detail, and measure significant characteristics.

Science adopts a methodology that aims to ensure a high level of integrity in its findings, and is considered to be the most robust methodology of any research process. However, science does not claim to deliver an absolute truth, and there are known limitations to science. [81]

There are different aspects to science:

  • theoretical science, where theories are proposed and developed
  • experimental science, where data is collected (which allows theories to be validated or disproved); and
  • applied science, where scientific knowledge is applied to develop new and improved products and processes.

A lot of experimental science is conducted under controlled conditions in a laboratory. These controlled conditions are particularly useful for testing some of the proposed energy technologies in this wiki. The section on Laboratories could be useful for identifying places to conduct experiments on energy technologies.


“​ You canna change the laws of physics captain!​ ” - Scotty, Star Trek

It is the role of physicists to conduct theoretical and experimental research into the fundamental aspects of energy. Physics delivers validated theories that explain the characteristics of energy and its interactions with matter. Physics is the authoritative topic for energy. See more about energy in the Energy section.

Physics involves taking measurements, along with the error​ ​ (or uncertainty) in the those measurements. It is important to include the measurement error so that it can be seen whether the theoretical prediction falls within the measured range, as part of the validation process.

Where many measurements are taken, in an environment that has significant random distributions associated with it, the standard deviation or standard error is calculated; and reported along with the average value of the measurements.

In particle physics, such as the experiments at CERN, you might see five or six "sigma" mentioned, which is another statistical measure. [82]

Recording and reporting data

Measurements should be recorded with their unit of measurement, and the uncertainty in the measurement. For example, the output power was: 1.23 +/- 0.05 kW.

Graphs should show the units for each axis; and a clear explanation should accompany the graph. Uncertainties in measurements can be represented on a graph with the use of error bars.


Wherever possible it is recommended that prototypes are tested in independent laboratories. The type of laboratories required will be dependent on the nature of the technologies under evaluation.

See also: Previous & Ongoing Attempts Section of this wiki.

In addition to the list below, laboratory facilities can be found in many universities, such as those found in physics, chemistry, biology and engineering departments. Universities across the world have been ranked by research ability. [83]

(The following is not an exhaustive list.)


Organisations across the world brought together by Energy Research Directory [84]

Solar Keymark Test Laboratories The test labs recognised by an empowered certification body for Solar Keymark testing of solar collectors and/or solar systems according to: EN 12975-2: Solar thermal systems and components - Solar collectors; and EN 12976-2: Solar thermal systems and components - Factory made systems. [85]


University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg (South Africa): Electrical Energy Technology Laboratory Has facilities for designing testing and evaluating a wide range of Electrical Energy Technologies ranging from classical electrical rotating machines to more exotic generators for renewable energy source like wind and wave energy. In addition there are facilities to study classical energy systems as well as new intelligent energy systems. There are also facilities for the design and testing of power technologies. [86]


Singapore has a strong R&D programme into clean energies. [87]

  • Singapore has completed the first stages of its renewable energy living laboratories as it continues to aim to develop clean technology expertise for future export. [88]

Research Centre for Applied Science and Technology (RECAST) One of its research themes is renewable energy. (Nepal) [90] [91]


CERN (World leaders in particle physics, in case you have not heard of them.) [92]

There a wide range of Energy Laboratories at EPFL (Switzerland) [93]

Fraunhofer IWES (Germany) possesses extensive testing and experimental facilities, laboratories, and state-of-the-art equipment. [94]

Technical University of Eindoven (Netherlands): Energy Technology and Fluid Dynamics: Laboratories [95]

Institute of Energy Technologies: Laboratories (Spain) [96]

Laboratory of Systems and Applications of Information and Energy Technologies (SATIE) (France) [97]

LITEN (France) The Innovation Laboratory for the Technologies of New Energies and Nanomaterials (LITEN) is involved in the development of future energy technologies. The institute works in three areas: renewable energies, energy efficiency / storage, and synthesis of materials. [98]

University of Patras: Physics Conducts research into renewable energy. (Greece) [99]


For typical, or anticipated, energy prototypes one of the following energy laboratories might be suitable. However, unusual or unexpected technologies might require the services of a generic laboratory (e.g. one capable in physics, chemistry and/or biology).

UK energy laboratories

Cranfield University: Offshore Renewable Energy Engineering Centre The Offshore Renewable Energy Engineering Centre specialises in research, design and development and techno-economic-environmental assessment of renewable energy technologies. Facilities include a marine environment experimental field site and an ocean systems test laboratory. [100]

European Marine Energy Centre Testing at sea. [101] [102]

Loughborough University: Renewable Energy Systems Technology [Scroll down their page to see laboratories.] [103]

Science and Technologies Research Council: Energy Research Unit The Energy Research Unit [104] specialises in performing and enabling innovative research on new and renewable energy technologies. The Unit, established over 25 years ago at STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire, has an international reputation in wind energy research, providing:

  • Collaborative energy R&D with UK academics and industry
  • Strategic advice and information about energy R&D priorities to all major stakeholders
  • Outdoor test facilities for New and Renewable Energy research

Scottish Energy Laboratory A network of over 40 nationally and internationally significant facilities across all key energy sectors. The Energy Technology Partnership is the largest power and energy research partnership in Europe and promotes greater levels of collaboration between universities and industry to deliver unparalleled energy capability and core research strengths across a broad range of energy technologies but with a current focus on Wind Energy, Marine Energy, Grid, Power Systems & Networks, Solar Energy, Bio-Energy, Carbon Capture and Storage, Energy Conversion and Storage, Energy Utilisation in Buildings and Oil & Gas. [105] [106]

National Physical Laboratory (NPL): Energy A wide range of capabilities. [107]

Newcastle University: Smart Energy Labs A lab for testing smart grids. [108]

Power Networks Demonstration Centre The unique facility enables highly realistic and accelerated technology testing alongside a rich portfolio of research programmes across the full Smart Grid domain. [109]

University of Nottingham: Energy Technologies Research Institute The University is a leading international centre for energy research, with a reputation for excellence across a broad range of technologies encompassing bioenergy, fossil energy, energy storage, advanced materials, the built environment, smart grids and the impact of human behaviour on energy use. There are an extensive and growing range of facilities. [110]

University of Southampton: Research Group: Energy Technology [111] Eight research laboratories cover a wide spectrum of mainstream and renewable energy technologies: thermal energy; institute of cryogenics; electrochemical engineering; solar energy; maritime energy; electromechanical energy; materials for energy; and energy management and control. See: facilities.

University of Warwick: Sustainable Thermal Energy Technologies Laboratory [112] Thermal labs and solar labs (PV and thermal). Design and testing of advanced thermal storage.

Health and Safety Laboratory: Energy HSL plays a major part in enabling the safe development of new and innovative energy technologies: identify, assess and manage the health and safety risks of projects relating to the hydrogen economy, nuclear decomissioning and the use of novel fuels such as Liquefied Natural Gas. It has a dedicated energy centre. [113]

National Renewable Energy Centre Wave and under-sea test facilities. [114]

Culham Centre for Fusion Energy (CCFE): Culham Centre for Fusion Energy contributes to most of the key areas of study in magnetic confinement fusion research. [115]

UK generic laboratories

The National Physical Laboratory (NPL) has an extensive range of science and technology capabilities. [116]

Science & Technologies Facilities Council: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Approximately 1,200 staff at RAL support the work of more than 10,000 scientists and engineers. Research covers: particle physics; space science; materials; astronomy; photon science; computational and e-science; biology; biomedicine; and chemistry. [117]

North America


Hydro Quebec Hydro-Québec generates, transmits and distributes electricity. Its sole shareholder is the Québec government. It uses mainly renewable generating options, in particular large hydro, and supports the development of other technologies—such as wind energy and biomass. A responsible corporate citizen committed to sustainability, Hydro-Québec carries out construction projects to prepare for the future. It also conducts R&D in energy-related fields, including energy efficiency. Include seven laboratories plus additional facilities. [118]

Clean Energy Research Lab CERL is a world-class facility where researchers are working on the world's first lab-scale demonstration of a copper-chlorine cycle for thermochemical water splitting and nuclear hydrogen production. Using nuclear, solar or other heat sources (such as waste heat from industrial plant emissions), the Cu-Cl cycle promises to achieve higher efficiencies, lower environmental impact and lower costs of hydrogen production than any other existing technology. [119]

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Lists a wide range of research topics. [120]

The Wind Energy Institute of Canada has facilities for testing wind and battery technologies. [121]

The National Research Council of Canada provides access to renewable energy research facilities. [122]

Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA): Fusion Research Two plasma fusion technologies are described. [123]

University of Western Ontario: Dr. Sun's Nanomaterials and Energy Group: Research into the development of approaches to synthesize low-dimensional nanomaterials such as carbon nanotubes, graphene, semiconducting and metal nanowires, nanoparticles and thin films as well as exploring their applications as electrochemical electrodes for energy conversion and storage including fuel cells and Li batteries. [124]


For typical, or anticipated, energy prototypes one of the following energy laboratories might be suitable. However, unusual or unexpected technologies might require the services of a generic laboratory (e.g. one capable in physics, chemistry and/or biology).

US energy labs

United States Department of Energy national laboratories [125] [126] and Office of Science Laboratories [127]

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Has a diverse energy research agenda, which includes the National Wind Technology Center, Bioenergy Centre and Center for Photovoltaics. [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134]

Fraunhofer CSE: Research Facilities Includes a number of labs for thermal, solar PV, and smart grid research. [135]

Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center Facilities allow for ocean, river and flume testing (of wave machines and turbines). [136]

Sandia National Laboratories: Energy and Climate Has a diverse range of interests. [137]

Arizona State University: Quantum Energy and Sustainable Solar Technologies (QESST): Facilities [138]

Gas Technology Institute GTI's 18-acre headquarters in Chicago contains a flexible combination of specialized labs with equipment for design, testing and analysis of advanced energy technologies. [139]

Hawaii Natural Energy Institute The research unit, within the University of Hawaii, conducts research of state and national importance to develop, test and evaluate novel renewable energy technologies. It has a wide range of facilities. [140]

Idaho National Laboratory: Energy Systems Laboratory Research at ESL ranges from bio-energy to nuclear energy and includes work scopes from laboratory-scale prototypes to full-scale operations. The laboratory is also known for its multidiscipline scientific, engineering and project management capabilities and successful history of developing first-of-their-kind systems and testing protocols to resolve energy and environmental challenges. [141]

Brookhaven National Laboratory: Northeast Solar Energy Research Center The new centre will serve as a solar energy research and test facility for the solar industry. The NSERC will include laboratories for standardized testing in accordance with industry standards, along with a solar PV research array for field testing existing or innovative new technologies under actual northeastern weather conditions. [142]

NC State University: NC Clean Energy Test Center The Center has over 15 years of experience testing solar collectors and systems , and measuring solar radiation. The Center’s engineers have provided performance testing to designers, manufacturers, and distributors of large scale concentrating solar thermal systems, low cost solar air heaters, concentrating PV systems, traditional PV modules, flat plate solar thermal collectors, and evacuated tube solar thermal collectors. [143]

Department of Energy: National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL): On-site research facilities [144] NETL is a US national laboratory under the Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy. It focuses on applied research for the clean production and use of domestic energy resources. NETL performs research and development on the supply, efficiency, and environmental constraints of producing and using fossil energy resources, while maintaining their affordability. [145]

Exova: Solar Testing The Facility is one of North America's leading centres for solar testing and rating green energy technologies. It consists of indoor and outdoor test environments, including a large area, full spectrum, climate controlled, indoor solar simulator. [146]

University of Washington: Clean Energy Institute Have access to state-of-the-art shared user facilities for the fabrication and characterization of advanced materials ranging from thin film solar cells to nanostructured batteries to flexible transistors. [147]

Oak Ridge National Laboratory The US Department of Energy's largest science and energy laboratory. The facilities offer a diverse set of tools for experiments across a range of fields, including biology, materials and energy sciences, physics, engineering, and chemistry. ORNL’s user facilities include world-leading facilities for neutron scattering, high performance computing, material and nanoscale research, and additive manufacturing. They have capabilities across a wide range of scientific and engineering disciplines, including materials science and engineering, computer and computational science, neutron scattering, neutron science and technology, biological and environmental research, nuclear physics and engineering, nuclear energy technologies, fusion science and technology, and energy efficiency and renewable energy (building technologies, advanced manufacturing, transportation technologies)[148]. [149]

Georgia Tech: Core Energy Labs and Centers nationally-recognized, energy-focused research centers and laboratories foster multidisciplinary collaborations to address critical challenges concerning our energy supply and use, climate, and the environment. [150]

The Solar Technology Acceleration Center (SolarTAC) is the largest test facility for solar technologies in the United States. It provides an exciting venue for researching, demonstrating, testing, and validating a broad range of solar technologies at the early commercial or near-commercial stage of development. It includes facilities for testing photovoltaic and concentrated solar power (CSP) technologies, including access to the grid. [151]

Argonne National Laboratories conduct research into batteries and energy storage. [152]

The Los Alamos National Laboratory conducts research into a wide range of energy technologies, not just nuclear. [153]

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: Energy and Environment [154]

US generic labs

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has a wide range of tools and instruments. [155] [156]

  • Physical Measurement Laboratory PML is a world leader in the science of measurement. We determine the definitive methods for nearly every kind of measurement employed in commerce and research, provide NIST-traceable calibrations, and disseminate standards and best practices throughout the nation. At the same time, PML works continuously at the outermost frontiers of metrology, devising tools and techniques to meet the ever-changing demands of American industry and science. [158]
  • Material Measurement Laboratory MML serves as the national reference laboratory for measurements in the chemical, biological and material sciences. Activities range from fundamental and applied research to the development and dissemination of certified reference materials and data to assure the quality of measurement results. [159]

Argonne National Laboratories provides a range of facilities. [161]

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Facilities [162]

Berkeley Lab: Facilities [163]

NASA [164]

Respectable Modern Physics Skeptics

Jean de Climont published a 2016 edition of his book, The Worldwide List of Dissident Scientists, a list of several thousand "critics and alternative theories".

  • John Chappell
  • Walter Thornhill
  • Mel Acheson[165]

Respectable according to whom, or according to what criteria? Physics is an evidence based science, validated by repeatable experiments conducted by independent scientists. The XPRIZE should use independent scientists.

Working with the U.S. Federal Legislature

In 2000, Ken Shoulders' related to high energy electron charge clusters was incorporated into a Future Energy Technologies briefing presented to The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee[166] ,titled Outside-the-Box Technologies, Their Critical Role Concerning Environmental Trends, and the Unnecessary Energy Crisis, presented by Dr. Theodore (Ted) Loder III.[167]

The purpose of the briefing was to show that:

  1. We have growing environmental problems that will have major economic impacts.
  2. 2. There are technologies, presently being repressed, that are real and could replace the present fossil fuel usage with the appropriate investment in research necessary to bring them on line.
  3. There are scientists ready to testify at a Senate hearing on the realities of these issues.
  4. The need to move ahead is very urgent because the time necessary to implement the use of these technologies may take the better part of this decade and neither the environment nor the economics of fossil fuels can wait any longer.

The Briefing presenters and topics covered included the following:

  • Dr. Theodore Loder, Convener and overview of the issues and urgency
  • Dr. Steven Greer, Implications of the implementation of non-polluting free-energy devices
  • Mr. Thomas Valone, Present energy issues, energy devices and patent office issues
  • Dr. Paul LaViolette, Physics reassessment and anti-gravity research
  • Dr. Scott Chubb, Cold fusion, scientific responsibility
  • Dr. Eugene Mallove, Cold fusion, scientific response and patent office issues
  • Dr. Thomas Bearden, Physics reassessment, the world energy crisis, and �free energy device� technology

In 2007, Brian O'Leary of the New Energy Movement, working with Senator Dennis Kusinich, drafted the “Energy Innovation Act of 2007”. See the below section on New Energy Movement for more details.

U.S. Department of Energy

Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977

In the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Congress emphasized the need to develop and commercialize renewable resources, create strategies to avoid wasting energy, and incorporate environmental protection goals into energy programs (through the establishment of the U.S. Department of Energy).[168]

PURPOSES...(6) to place major emphasis on the development and commercial use of solar, geothermal, recycling and other technologies utilizing renewable energy resources;[169]

The Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 specifically created the Office of Energy Research.

The United States Department of Energy (DOE) is a Cabinet-level department of the United States Government concerned with the United States' policies regarding energy and safety in handling nuclear material. Its responsibilities include the nation's nuclear weapons program, nuclear reactor production for the United States Navy, energy conservation, energy-related research, radioactive waste disposal, and domestic energy production. It also directs research in genomics; the Human Genome Project originated in a DOE initiative. DOE sponsors more research in the physical sciences than any other U.S. federal agency, the majority of which is conducted through its system of National Laboratories.  The agency is administered by the United States Secretary of Energy, and its headquarters are located in Southwest Washington, D.C., on Independence Avenue in the James V. Forrestal Building, named for James Forrestal, as well as in Germantown, Maryland.[170]

High Level D.O.E Administrators

  • Rick Perry, U.S. Secretary of Energy (Presidential Appointee)
  • Currently Vacant, Under Secretary of Energy for Science (Presidential Appointee)[171]
  • Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
    • Steve Chalk, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Operations
    • Doug Hollett, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Renewable Power
    • Ian Hamos, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
    • Ray Stults, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
    • Robert Sandoli, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Quadrennial Energy Review[172]

U.S. DOE Fiscal Year 2016 Science and Energy Plan[173]

Technologies Critical to U.S. National Security

Lynne McTaggart wrote in her book The Field - The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe, that Harold (Hal) Putoff and Ken Shoulders were doing work on condensed charge technology under the classification of zero-point energy and were rated in the top 3 of what McTaggert called Pentegon's National Critical Interests List compiled by the Interagency Technological Assessment Group (page 29-30).[174]

Today, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), maintains this list in the public domain under a page called Ensuring the Effective Protection of Technologies Critical to U.S. National Security.[175]

The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951[176] requires the government to impose "secrecy orders" on certain patent applications that contain sensitive information, thereby restricting disclosure of the invention and withholding the grant of a patent. Remarkably, this requirement can be imposed even when the application is generated and entirely owned by a private individual or company without government sponsorship or support. Statistics compiled by The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) reveal well over 5680 patents were under secrecy orders at the end of 2016, with a drastic increase to "John Doe" secrecy orders (imposed on private inventors) jumping from 15 in 2015, to 49 in 2016.[177]

There is a term called Born Secret (or Born Classified) both terms which refer to a policy of information being classified from the moment of its inception, usually regardless of where it was being created. Whether or not it is constitutional to declare entire categories of information preemptively classified has not been definitively tested in the courts.[178]

How many "free energy" technologies that are "suppressed" via patent laws is a highly speculated upon topic within new energy.

Other Legislation

H.R.589 - Department of Energy Research and Innovation Act (January 30, 2017)

This bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives and is in the U.S. Senate Committee. The legislation can be found here.

The American Clean Energy & Security Act of 2009

American Clean Energy & Security Act of 2009. H.R. 2454 July 7, 2009 Kankakee Regional Chamber of Commerce By Gary H. Baise Attorney at Law Olsson Frank Weeda, P.C. Washington, D.C. Review of Key Provisions. Purpose Create Clean Energy Jobs Achieve energy independence VIEW HERE

Factors for evaluation of a net positive energy flow

Standard practice for analysis of devices or experiments that purport to transform fuel into power is to provide a complete accounting of all power that goes into the system and all power that comes out of the system. Ordinarily, for claims of power gains, peak and average power outputs are compared to peak and average power inputs.[179]

It is also worth comparing total input energy and total output energy (as opposed to power). This test ensures that systems that store input energy over time and then release a large output power spike don't fool the testers.

The System Representation approach provides a generic framework for measuring total input and output energy, and hence net output energy and efficiency. However, the question is how far do you go back through the supply chains?

Going back to 2001, a KeeleyNet document put forth called Proof of Principle highlights the struggle and need to "vet the claims" being put forth in the new energy economy. More than a decade since this document was published, the mere existence of the X Prize we are designing is stark reminder that we are still waiting for the first genuine example (made public and available to the entire human race) so many have so long ago set out to find.

George D. Hathaway, in his paper Engineering Non-Conventional Energy Systems, presents a very brief overview of engineering issues related to the development and commercialization of so-called ‘Non-Conventional Energy Technology’ (NCET). lt is hoped that this brief summary will provide the basic tools and techniques necessary for the average experimeter to measure and characterize NCET devices.

Comparing technologies and solutions

A fundamental question is posed at the top of this page: how do we compare technologies?

The wiki has seen very little on this subject [until now], and perhaps that is because it is a difficult question to answer, like this one: "if you have two apples and three chairs, how many do you have?" Some questions don't make sense, or lack sufficient elaboration, context or reasoning.

The only practical way, that matters to people at the end of the day, is to compare Cost and Environmental Impact.

The following might show why trying to compare different energy solutions is difficult, prone to inaccuracies and in some cases even futile. However, on a positive note, the following can still be put to good use.

The efficiency metric

The total output energy divided by the total input energy leads you to an efficiency factor.

We can use this to compare the efficiency of two technologies that use the same type of process (i.e. the same input energy resource and the same type of output). For example, two prototypes that burn coal to produce heat can be compared, based on efficiency: both prototypes are given an equal mass of coal (of the same type and quality) and the total output heat is measured and compared. Relatively simple.

Input energy

There are practical problems associated with calculating energy efficiency: what is the total input energy?

For example, in the case of a chemical reaction we can accurately measure the potential energy stored in a unit mass of material. Relatively simple. However, what about the energy required to obtain that material? Energy is required to mine/extract fossil fuels, refine them, process them, and transport them. (Typically, some input energy is also required to start the chemical reaction.) So when we talk about the efficiency of a process that liberates energy from a chemical reaction, how much of the input energies should we include? It is easy to say include them all, but much more difficult to accurately calculate the answer. The apparently simple efficiency calculation now looks much more complex.

Similarly, nuclear powered processes will have a chain of energy inputs; as will the obtaining of materials used in batteries; as will the material used in solar panels; or any other manufactured object.

End of life energy

Energy is also required at the end of the facility's or a product's life. Materials have to be transported to waste sites or recycling facilities.

In the case of nuclear power stations hazardous waste has to be stored at dedicated sites for many years, and plants require a significant decommissioning effort [180] [181] [182] [183] [184].

Hazardous waste: A solid waste is a hazardous waste if it is specifically listed as a known hazardous waste or meets the characteristics of a hazardous waste. Listed wastes are wastes from common manufacturing and industrial processes, specific industries and can be generated from discarded commercial products. Characteristic wastes are wastes that exhibit any one or more of the following characteristic properties: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity. [185]

Diverse energy sources

Another challenge arises when comparing the efficiency of solutions that use different types of energy source, in particular an energy resource in material form (e.g. fuel or nuclear material) versus an ambient energy source.

For example, comparing the efficiency of a nuclear power station to the efficiency of a solar farm is difficult. They both use different types of energy input. The nuclear power station might have its efficiency expressed based on the electrical output energy per kg of (Uranium) mass used (kWh/kg). But the solar farm consumes no mass and its efficiency might be expressed as the electrical output energy per unit area, per average year (kWh/m2/year). [Note the use of year as the power output varies by time of day and by season. It is also complicated by actual weather conditions throughout the year, hence the need for an "average" year.]

So comparing nuclear and solar power is like comparing kWh/kg with kWh/m2/year. It don't make much sense, does it?

Such a comparison does not help us compare different types of energy solution that rely on different types of energy source. In particular, this problem arises when comparing energy from a mass, with ambient energy from the environment.

This is further complicated by the fact that (on Earth at least) there will be a finite quantity of fuel/mass available, whereas many ambient sources of energy are almost limitless (e.g. direct and indirect solar energy sources). It also means that energy has to keep being expended to extract the fuel, whereas ambient energy sources are available without ongoing energy expenditure.

Comparable efficiency metrics for similar technologies

It has been shown that comparing technologies sometimes does not make much sense because the dimensions of their respective energy sources are different and to an extent incompatible. However, some useful metrics can be used to compare the efficiency of similar technologies, as shown below.

Type Units Comments
Solar power (and solar derived fuels) kWh / m2 / year
Wave Comparisons in a real-world environment could be challenging[186] [187] and so testing prototypes under identical laboratory conditions might be required.
Wind kW / ms-1 / m2 Power from a given wind speed over a unit area. See also the following references. [188] [189] [190]
Geothermal kW / m2

or kW / m3

Power extracted per unit area for the above ground plant area, or power per unit volume of underground equipment; at a nominated temperature and geological characteristics
Tidal kWh per unit of potential energy Potential energy = mass of water * height change * g (gravity). However, it is more complex for tidal funnelling and tidal stream.
Hydroelectric kWh per unit of potential energy Potential energy = mass of water * height change * g (gravity)
Biomass kWh / kg
Energy efficiency and storage devices Ratio of output : input energy Compare energy instead of power. Used for comparing batteries, gravity (storage), regenerative motors, magnetic fields, etc.
Collecting ambient heat kWh per unit of heat extracted Heat extracted = mass of energy source * specific heat capacity * temperature change.
Fuel powered kWh / kg
Nuclear powered kWh / kg Compare like with like, e.g. fission with fission, fusion with fusion. Note that LENR fusion compared with plasma fusion might favour plasma fusion. So LENR technologies could be compared against other LENR only [but is this the right thing to do, perhaps not?].
Electricity transmission Ratio of energy output : energy input Superconductors might perform well here

It is also useful to know how the efficiency of similar technologies changes over time, and with use. For example, some battery technologies perform poorly over time (the number of charge-discharge cycles). The ease with which this can be established will vary across technologies; and for some it might not be feasible to derive such data.

Conclusion on efficiency

Comparing the efficiency of similar technologies, that use the same energy resource, is relatively simple and useful. It can be used to determine the better technology. However, comparing the efficiency of different technologies, that use different types of energy source, can be much more difficult and less useful.

If two completely different technologies score equally across all other criteria then this might be useful for picking the winner: the one that had the highest efficiency in its class.

Product lifetime and cost

Here is a metric that can, in theory, be compared across all technologies: the estimated lifetime of the product, and its cost.

However, there are some practical challenges to deriving these values.

It might not be possible to accurately derive the cost of a product, because there is no established manufacturing process to (mass) produce the new product.

Radical prototypes might use new processes or materials that little is known about. This makes it difficult to estimate lifetimes and costs.

Further, future (exponential) progress might come up with much more durable and cheaper solutions to those products; so such a comparison would only have short-term relevance. (In this respect it is important to know not only what technological developments are taking place now, but to also have a good vision of the future. [191] [192])

So short-term approximations might be the best we can hope for, with regard to obtaining these values.

However, what the testing procedure can do is identify characteristics of prototypes that might lead to poor durability. For example, how do prototypes perform over time and multiple charge-discharge cycles? How quickly do materials degrade in their intended operating environment?

If two technologies score equally across all other criteria then this might be useful for picking the winner.

Approaches used to compare technologies

The following refers to actual studies and approaches used to compare energy technologies:

Renewable electricity generation technologies

Renewable electricity generation technologies were assessed against a range of sustainability indicators and using data obtained from the literature. [193] The indicators used to assess each technology were:

  • price of generated electricity
  • greenhouse gas emissions during full life cycle of the technology
  • availability of renewable sources
  • efficiency of energy conversion
  • land requirements
  • water consumption, and
  • social impacts.

It was found that wind power is the most sustainable, followed by hydropower, photovoltaic and then geothermal. Wind power was identified with the lowest relative greenhouse gas emissions, the least water consumption demands and with the most favourable social impacts comparing to other technologies, but requires larger land and has high relative capital costs.

[However, for the purpose of the energy prize, the study's conclusions above might not be relevant, as radical innovations could change how technologies score in the future.]

Multi-criteria methodology

A study using multi‐criteria outranking methodology [194] found that the methodology is suitable for the evaluation of energy technologies taking into account varying preferences depending on their stage of maturity. It is a feasible alternative to other methodologies which allow for interconnections like the analytic network process. The results show that, based on a multi‐criteria life cycle approach, renewable energy technologies are competitive with conventional alternatives for supplying heat and power.

Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) techniques are gaining popularity in sustainable energy management. The techniques provide solutions to the problems involving conflicting and multiple objectives. Several methods based on weighted averages, priority setting, outranking, fuzzy principles and their combinations are employed for energy planning decisions. A review of more than 90 published papers is presented here to analyze the applicability of various methods discussed. A classification on application areas and the year of application is presented to highlight the trends. It is observed that Analytical Hierarchy Process is the most popular technique followed by outranking techniques PROMETHEE and ELECTRE. Validation of results with multiple methods, development of interactive decision support systems and application of fuzzy methods to tackle uncertainties in the data is observed in the published literature. [195]

A study compared the use of ELECTRE III, PROMETHEE I, II, and SMART decision-aids in the context of four different real applications to environmental problems in Finland. [196]

The gap between water supply and demand is widening in Jordan. Sound measures to overcome this gap are essential for sustainable water development. In this paper non-conventional energy technologies for water desalination are discussed. These include hydropower, solar, wind, and nuclear technologies. Using multi-criteria analysis, options were evaluated for best water uses considering water productivity and environmental sustainability criteria. It was concluded that hydropower and solar technologies are most effective for water desalination in Jordan. [197]

An energy planning methodology for more efficient promotion of renewable energy source (RES) technologies in the electricity sector has been developed and the main outcome is a comprehensive computer simulation tool called INVERT. A practical application of INVERT was to perform a detailed case study for the island of Crete. A number of different RES technologies, namely wind, small hydro, photovoltaic, biomass and solar thermal plants, were simulated in sensitivity analyses based on new or additional RES promotion schemes. Simulation runs, considering existing and future electricity potential, were carried out up to 2020. Transfer costs and CO2 emissions of hypothetical scenarios were compared with a reference scenario. [198]

A study developed an MCA that considered nine criteria comprising three technical, three environmental and three socio-economic criteria. Extensive literature reviews for each of the selected criteria were carried out and the information gathered was used with MCA to provide a ranking of the renewable energy alternatives. The reviewed criteria values were generally found to have wide ranges for each technology. To account for this uncertainty in the applied input information, each of the criteria values were defined by probability distributions and the MCA run using Monte Carlo simulation. It showed that the ranking provided by the MCA in that specific case was highly uncertain due to the uncertain input information. It was concluded that it is important that future MCA studies address these uncertainties explicitly, when assessing the sustainability of different energy projects to obtain more robust results and ensure better informed decision-making. [199]

Life-cycle assessment

Life cycle assessment is a standardized technique that tracks all material, energy, and pollutant flows of a system—from raw material extraction, manufacturing, transport, and construction to operation and end-of-life disposal. Life cycle assessment can help determine environmental burdens from "cradle to grave" and facilitate comparisons of energy technologies. [200] A 4-part approach to LCA is widely accepted today:

  • Stating the purpose of the study and appropriately identifying the boundaries of the study (Goal and Scope Definition)
  • Quantifying the energy use and raw material inputs and environmental releases associated with each stage of the life cycle (Life Cycle Inventory)
  • Interpreting the results of the inventory to assess the impacts on human health and the environment (Life Cycle Impact Assessment)
  • Evaluating opportunities to reduce energy, material inputs, or environmental impacts along the life cycle (Improvement Analysis, or Interpretation)

A life-cycle analysis provided insight into key criteria for the feasibility of seven types of energy technologies. The seven types of technologies include electricity from natural gas, co-firing of coal and biomass, nuclear fuel, wind, hydropower, geothermal, and solar thermal resources. [201] The criteria used were:

  • Resource Base (availability of resources for feedstock)
  • Growth (current market direction: emerging, mature or declining)
  • Environmental Profile (resource consumption, emissions, waste, and land use)
  • Cost Profile (capital cost of new kit, operational and maintenance costs, and cost of electricity)
  • Barriers (technical barriers that could prevent implementation)
  • Risks of Implementation (Financial, environmental, regulatory, and/or public concerns. Non‐technical barriers)
  • Expert Opinion (Opinions of stakeholders in industry, academia, and government)

Greenhouse gas emissions

When comparing technologies the emission of greenhouse gases is often a significant factor.

However it has been shown that emissions across the whole life-cycle should be taken into account. [202]

Similarly a study looked at upstream emissions, and explored methodological options for hybrid life cycle assessment (hybrid LCA) to account for the indirect greenhouse gas emissions of energy technologies using wind power generation in the UK as a case study. [203]

Life cycle assessment is a technique for assessing environmental loads of a product or a system. A study reviewed existing energy and CO2 life cycle analyses of renewable sources based electricity generation systems. [204]

A Comparison of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Various Electricity Generation Sources reviewed Nuclear, Coal, Natural Gas, Oil, Solar Photovoltaic, Biomass, Hydroelectric and Wind. [205]

Comparing intermittent and base load generation technologies

Economic evaluations of alternative electric generating technologies typically rely on comparisons between their expected "levelized cost" per MWh supplied. However it is demonstrated [206] [207] that this metric might be inappropriate for comparing intermittent generating technologies like wind and solar with dispatchable generating technologies like nuclear, gas combined cycle, and coal. It overvalues intermittent generating technologies compared to dispatchable base load generating technologies. It may also overvalue wind generating technologies compared to solar generating technologies. Integrating differences in production profiles, the associated variations in wholesale market prices of electricity, and life-cycle costs associated with different generating technologies is necessary to provide meaningful comparisons between them.

Energy storage

A review of energy storage technologies included life-cycle cost analysis. Energy storage technologies were examined for three application categories – bulk energy storage, distributed generation, and power quality – with significant variations in discharge time and storage capacity. More than 20 different technologies were considered and figures of merit were investigated including capital cost, operation and maintenance, efficiency, parasitic losses, and replacement costs. The results are presented in terms of levelized annual cost, $/kW-yr. The cost of delivered energy, cents/kWh, is also presented for some cases. The major study variable was the duration of storage available for discharge. [208]

There are so many characteristics associated with batteries that it can be difficult to quantify and compare battery technologies. There are a number of metric that could be considered. [209]

A paper analysed technologies for mechanical and chemical energy storage on a grid scale. [210] It considered pumped storage hydropower plants, compressed air energy storage, and hydrogen storage facilities. These were assessed and compared under economic criteria to answer the question of which technology is to be favoured. For this purpose, the levelised electricity cost for various dispatch scenarios – short-, medium- and long-term storage – were calculated for the present and for 2030. Fundamental indicators considered were their respective efficiencies, capital expenditure and operational expenditure, and technical service lives. From an economic point of view, today pumped hydro is the most cost-efficient short- and medium-term storage technology, closely followed by compressed air energy storage. The author also claimed that in the future, too, there will be no fundamental change in this result, even with optimistic assumptions for the development of hydrogen storage. However, hydrogen storage is becoming more competitive and represents the most economic option in the future for long-term energy storage.

Waste to energy

Waste-to-Energy technologies were compared with a focus on fuel efficiency, CO2 reductions and costs. [211]

Availability of resources

For an energy source to be abundant, there needs to be an abundant supply of the resources that the technology requires. There are two aspects to this: resources to build (and maintain) the technology; and consumable resources to power (or operate) the technology.

A study examined the use of metals in the six low-carbon energy technologies, namely: nuclear, solar, wind, bioenergy, carbon capture and storage (CCS) and electricity grids. The study looked at the average annual demand for each metal for the deployment of the technologies in Europe between 2020 and 2030. The study identified 14 metals for which the deployment of the six technologies will require 1% or more (and in some cases, much more) of current world supply per annum between 2020 and 2030. The 14 metals, in order of decreasing demand, are tellurium, indium, tin, hafnium, silver, dysprosium, gallium, neodymium, cadmium, nickel, molybdenum, vanadium, niobium and selenium. [212] The study pinpoints 5 of the 14 metals to be at high risk, namely: the rare earth metals neodymium and dysprosium, and the by-products (from the processing of other metals) indium, tellurium and gallium. The report explores a set of potential mitigation strategies, ranging from expanding European output, increasing recycling and reuse to reducing waste and finding substitutes for these metals in their main applications.

Social factors

Public acceptance is recognised as an important issue shaping the widespread implementation of renewable energy technologies and the achievement of energy policy targets. Furthermore, it is commonly assumed that public attitudes need to change to make more radical scenarios about the implementation of renewable energy technologies feasible. [213]

A study assessed the social factors of sustainability based on four main criteria: security and reliability of energy provision; political stability and legitimacy; social and individual risks and quality of life. [214] Expert judgments varied considerably between countries and energy systems, with the exception of renewable technologies, which were overall positively assessed on almost all evaluation criteria.

Comparing costs

The levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) is a measure of a power source which attempts to compare different methods of electricity generation on a consistent basis. It is an economic assessment of the average total cost to build and operate a power-generating asset over its lifetime divided by the total energy output of the asset over that lifetime. The LCOE can also be regarded as the minimum cost at which electricity must be sold in order to break-even over the lifetime of the project. [215]

This is an important metric, but in a future of exponential technologies and disruptive innovations, it will be difficult to accurately use this value for long-term predictions. However, the approach can be useful for comparing technologies in the short-term. Some do try to make long-term predictions. A study analysed the levelized cost of electricity of renewable energy technologies in the third quarter of 2013. It aimed to predict their future cost development through 2030 based on technology-specific learning curves and market scenarios. [216]

Other considerations should be taken into account too, and the limitations of LCOE recognised. [217]

The Australian government looked at renewable energies across the Asia-Pacific region and their LCOE. [218]

Data for different energy technologies is presented in the following references. [219] [220] [221] [222]

An approach based on a conditional least cost distribution function can be used to better interpret empirical data in order to determine more realistic cost distribution functions for energy technologies. [223]

Market place distortions are a significant factor when comparing renewable energy solutions against fossil fuel solutions, for example. In particular subsidies for fossil fuels. [224] Another example of how subsidies might distort markets is shown in a comparison of solar and nuclear technology in the UK. [225]

From invention to market

A great invention might, or might not, appear on the marketplace as a disruptive innovation (or breakthrough technology). So when comparing technologies, or prototypes, it would be useful to know how this translates into future impact. Is there anything we can learn about this?

A study looked at the correlation between inventions (using a patent database) and its impact on energy technologies. [226]

Other evaluation factors

When someone comes up with a "good idea" there are a range of things they can do next. [227] One of these involves getting the idea evaluated, preferably by an independent party. Some of the evaluation factors to consider are shown below.

Cost and Environmental Impact

An interesting question is: how is "free" abundant ambient energy, like solar, compared to (mined) finite energy resources, like fossil fuels, Thorium and Uranium? Is there a, practical, standard metric that spans both types of energy source?

In practical terms, all energy solutions are evaluated based on one primary factor: overall cost. That is the cost per unit of energy (e.g. $/kWh), based on the entire lifetime costs of providing the solution (including supply chains and decommissioning).

Of course there is one other factor too that should always be factored in: the environmental impact:

  • Environmental Impacts of Renewable Electricity Generation [228]
  • Health and Environmental Impacts of Electricity Generation Systems: Procedures for Comparative Assessment [229]
  • Comparison of energy systems using life cycle assessment [230]
  • Potential Occupational Exposures and Health Risks Associated with Biomass-Based Power Generation [231]
  • An ecological footprint is a measure of human impact on Earth's ecosystems. It's typically measured in area of wilderness or amount of natural capital consumed each year. [232]
  • The living planet report shows the scale of the challenge we face, in terms of our impact on the natural environment. [233]
  • A categorised list of environmental issues is useful for identifying where prototypes might have an adverse or positive impact on the environment. [234]
  • Life-cycle assessment (LCA, also known as life-cycle analysis, ecobalance, and cradle-to-grave analysis) is a technique to assess environmental impacts associated with all the stages of a product's life from raw material extraction through materials processing, manufacture, distribution, use, repair and maintenance, and disposal or recycling. [235]
  • A sustainability measurement page includes useful points on measurement approaches and peak metal and peak radioactive materials. [236]
  • The UN sustainable development platform includes goals and reports on sustainable development. [237]
  • System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) is a framework to compile statistics linking environmental statistics to economic statistics. SEEA is part of the United Nations' System of National Accounts. [238]

Typically, environmental impacts are concerned with global impact, and impact to land, sea and air. However, energy products that are intended for in-door use need to have in-door factors considered too (e.g. health and safety aspects, such as toxicity, durability, in-door air pollution, and electromagnetic radiation levels). [239] [240] [241]

In many of the poorest areas of the developing world, one of the most insidious killers is indoor air pollution. [242] Teams developing a small power device for such communities have the opportunity to both address their energy needs and remove the adverse risk from in-door air pollution.

Individual level (individuals, households, enterprises)[243]

  1. Health and well being impacts This mainly relates to the public health improvements observed as a result of improved heating and cooling of buildings and air quality from more efficient transport and power generation and less demand for both. 
  2. Poverty alleviation: Energy affordability and access As energy demand and bills are reduced for the poor, these households have the ability to acquire more and better energy services, as well as free up income to spend on satisfying other critical needs. In addition, as utilities (notably in developing countries) improve their supply‐side efficiency, they can provide more electricity to more households, thereby supporting increased access initiatives which is often an important stated objective of supply‐side energy efficiency activities in developing countries.
  3. Increased disposable income  Across all income levels, when energy efficiency improves, reduced energy bills provide increased disposable income for households, individuals, and enterprises. The effect of increased spending and investment can in turn result in positive macroeconomic effects described below. Sectoral level (economic sectors – industrial, transport, residential, commercial)
  4. Industrial productivity and competitiveness Benefits for industrial firms from improvements in energy efficiency improvements include reductions in resource use and pollution, improved production and capacity utilisation, and less operation and maintenance, which leads to improved productivity and competitiveness.  
  5. Energy provider and infrastructure benefits Improved energy efficiency can help energy providers provide better energy services for their customers, reducing operating costs and improving profit margins.  
  6. Increased asset values There is evidence that investors are willing to pay a rental and sales premium for property with better energy performance. Some values of this premium have been estimated for commercial property.  

National level[243]

  1. Job creation Investment in energy efficiency and the increased disposable income can lead to direct and indirect job creation in energy and other sectors. This makes energy efficiency an important part of governments’ green growth strategies.  
  2. Reduced energy‐related public expenditures The public budgetary position can be improved through lower expenditures on energy in the public sector (including by government agencies on energy consumption and state‐owned utilities on fuel purchases). In countries where fuels are imported there is a related likely positive © OECD/IEA 2012 Spreading the Net: The multiple benefits of energy efficiency improvements Page | 5 impact on currency reserves, and in energy‐exporting countries domestic energy efficiency can free up more fuels for export. In addition, for countries with energy consumption subsidies, reduced consumption means lowered government budgetary outlays to finance these subsidies.  
  3. Energy security Improvements in energy efficiency leading to reduced demand for energy can improve the security of energy systems across the four dimensions of risk: fuel availability (geological), accessibility (geopolitical), affordability (economic) and acceptability (environmental and social) (APERC, 2007; Kruyt et al., 2009). The IEA’s existing work on energy security underlines the contribution that energy efficiency improvement can make to energy security. While policy makers are alert to this connection, the multidimensional nature of energy security makes it difficult to quantify and few studies have attempted this on a comprehensive, economy‐wide scale.  j. Macroeconomic effects Energy efficiency can have positive macroeconomic impacts, including increases in GDP, and the cumulative benefits of the above‐mentioned impacts of improved trade balance (for fuel‐ importing countries), national competitiveness, and employment support. These are mainly indirect effects resulting from increased consumer spending and economy‐wide investment in energy efficiency, as well as from lower energy expenditures.

International level[243]

  1. Reduced GHG emissions Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are reduced when energy efficiency improvements result in reduced demand for fossil fuel energy. Many climate change mitigation strategies put energy efficiency measures at their core as the most cost‐effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  2. Moderating energy prices If energy demand is reduced significantly across several markets, energy prices can be reduced, particularly relative to the impact of the counter‐factual of increased energy demand. This can have implications on economic competitiveness of countries, and, for individuals across borders, improves the affordability of energy services and the availability of resources for other expenditures.
  3. Natural resource management At an aggregated international level, less demand can reduce pressure on resources, with potential beneficial impacts on prices (at least for importing countries), as well as overall resource management. For example, in the context of peak oil and related supply constraints, energy efficiency can help to relieve pressure on a scarce resource. Similarly, expanding demand for oil etc., is pushing industry to increasingly challenging contexts for extraction (such as deep off‐shore and shale oil extraction), with related incremental investment costs and technological and environmental uncertainties.
  4. Development goals Improved energy efficiency is important in achieving economic and social goals in developing countries, including improved access to energy services, eradicating poverty, improving environmental sustainability, and economic development. Advancing development in these countries in a sustainable way is a shared international goal with benefits for developing countries themselves and for OECD countries alike.

Previous & Ongoing Evaluation Attempts

Institute for New Energy Technologies (INET)

In 2001, Oranizers Adolf and Inge Schneider sponsored The Weinfelden Energy Conference - New Hydrogen Technologies and Space Drives in Switzerland, with speakers Jeane Manning, Konstantin Meyl, J. P. Vigier[244], A.A. Nassikas[245], V.V. Roschin, S.M. Godin[246], Paul LaViolette, John R.R. Searl[247], Thomas Valone[248], Adolf and Inge Schneider, Dietrich Schuster,[249] Hans Weber[250], M. Kanarev[251], Wilfried Fittkau and Hansjörg Landolt.[252][253] A page titled Experimental Energy Links related to this organization provides a collection of information related to new energy.

  • Adolf and Inge Schneider[254][255] had experience planning and marketing conferences. Also this one was very convincingly planned and organized. Nevertheless, the popularity of the Weinfelden conference had come as a surprise. The Schneiders edit and publish the magazine NET-Journal. The next conference was arranged in Bodensee, September 2001[256].
  • Jeanne Manning in the Weinfelden conference, in a talk titled Free Sources of Clean Energy Meetings with Inventers and Investigations of Revolutionary Invention, she told about private experimenters like Edmund Grey with his cold electricity, Johan Grander, Bender and negative resistance, John Hutchison and his batteries, Wingate Lambertson with his WIN device, William Baumgartner, Paul Davidson's antigravity achievements and David Hamel's spacecraft experiments. As a journalist and author, Manning was introduced to new energy scene in 1981 with a magnetic generator of Bill Muller, followed by Paramahamsa Tewari, Marinov, DePalma, Trombly, Troy Reed, Al Francoeur, Alvin Mark Lumeloid and others. Manning I the author of The Coming Energy Revolution: the Search for Free Energy, Angels Don't Play This HAARP: Advances in Tesla Technology, Suppressed Inventions and Other Discoveries, The Granite Man and the Butterfly: The David Hamel Story and Energie.[257]
  • David Hamel[258][259]
  • Konstantin Meyl presentation at INET titled Advanced Concepts for Wireless Energy Transfer Highly Efficient Power Engineering with Scalar Waves.[260][261]
  • Paul LaViolette received his BA in physics from Johns Hopkins University, his MBA from University of Chicago, and his Ph.D. in systems science/astronomy from Portland State University. LaViolette worked at Harvard School of Public Health, the US Patent and Trademark Office, as VP of Academic Affairs, Athens, Greece and as president of the Starburst Foundation[262], a research institute. Paul, featured in Who's Who in Science and Engineering, he was internationally recognized in the interdisciplinary science fields of cosmology, ice core analysis, physics and systems theory, and field propulsion. The author of books: The Talk of Galaxy, Earth Under Fire, Beyond the Big Bang, Genesis of the Cosmos, Subquantum Kinetics and A Systems View of Man (editor), his talk at the 2001 INET Conference was titled: Methods for Energy Generation and Gravity Control. [263] Laviolette's theory of Subquantum Kinetics is a revolutionary physics methodology that was inspired by advances in our understanding of how nonequilibrium reaction systems spawn self-organizing wave patterns. Replacing the fragmented and self-contradictory framework of modern physics, subquantum kinetics opens the door to a truly elegant unified field theory. Electromagnetic, gravitational, and nuclear potential fields all emerge from a single set of nonlinear equations representing subquantum processes postulated to take place throughout all space. It is the first fundamental theory to have its predictions of the nucleon’s energy potential profile later confirmed by particle scattering form factor data.[264]

New Energy Movement

The New Energy Movement was co-founded (along with Alden Bryant) by NASA Apollo Astronaut Brian O'Leary in 2003 as a 501(c)(3) Public Charity. The non-profit's creation was officially announced at a public forum/conference it held on September 25-26, 2004 called "New Energy: The Courage to Change"[265]; speakers at this event included: Martin Burger, John Dash, Jeane Manning, B.A., Mark Comings, Steven M. Greer, M.D., Brian O'Leary, Ph.D., Peter LaVaute, Nick Cook, Win Lambertson, Thomas Valone, Ph.D. and Kenneth M. Rauen. [266]

  • Brian Todd O'Leary (January 27, 1940 – July 28, 2011) had a storied career[267][268] cut short by cancer. He was an American scientist, author, and former NASA astronaut. He was a member of the sixth group of astronauts selected by NASA in August 1967. The members of this group of eleven were known as the scientist-astronauts, intended to train for the Apollo Applications Program — a follow-on to the Apollo program, which was ultimately canceled. O'Leary authored several popular books and more than one hundred peer-reviewed articles in the fields of planetary science, astronautics, and science policy. At Princeton, he was one of the more visible scientists who participated in Gerard K. O'Neill and the L5 Society's plans for an orbiting city. O'Leary became politically active early in his career and participated in a demonstration in Washington, D.C. in 1970, to protest the Cambodian Campaign. Richard Nixon administration officials invited O'Leary and his fellow Cornell professors into the White House to present their grievances and the protest was the lead story of CBS Evening News on May 9, 1970, and depicted O'Leary as a protestor. As a result, O'Leary became Morris Udall's energy advisor during his 1975–1976 campaign for U.S. president, and served under Udall as a special staff consultant on energy for the U.S. House Interior Committee subcommittee on energy and the environment in 1975–1976. O'Leary advised other U.S. presidential candidates, including George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Jesse Jackson, and Dennis Kucinich. In its early days, New Energy Movement spent considerable time working with Washington, DC on policy issues related to the field of new energy, drafting legislation for a new energy bill currently titled the “Energy Innovation Act of 2007.” The door was opened when in September 2006 U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) asked Dr. Brian O’Leary, co-founder of The New Energy Movement, if the leadership of NEM could provide him with a draft of proposed new energy legislation, emphasizing that this is a matter of urgent Congressional priority. Congressman Kucinich remarked that dozens of his colleagues were prepared to be co-sponsors of a new energy bill, and had intentions of introducing it in the next Congressional session starting in January 2007.[269] Costs associated with drafting the legislation, as well as the waning of support from Kusinich and others within Washington shifted the organizations future new energy advocacy approach.
  • Alden Bryant, one of the forefathers of the US Ecology Movement, he's the co-founder of the New Energy Movement along with Brian O'Leary. Bryant is retired, but alive today at well over 90 years of age, a World War II veteran, Alden obtained degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Economics from the University of California at Berkeley. His activist career extends to the 1940s and has been global in nature, spanning numerous governmental, labor and scientific organizations. He has published extensively in the fields of engineering, economics and alternative energy. He co-founded the Earth Regeneration Society, 1983, was primary author of H.R. 4154 Emergency Climate Stabilization and Earth Regeneration Act of 1992, U.S. Congress, and was the main organizer for the entry on "climate, food and jobs." in the AFL-CIO National Convention Platform 1987.[270] On the International front he co-sponsored a meeting at the United Nations headquarters that directly led to the 1992 U.N. Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro, which resulted in the Rio Climate Treaty. A U.S. Congressman recently publicly referred to him as the "number one ecologist in the U.S."
  • Joel Garbon, (former) New Energy Movement President, presented an interesting talk at the GlobalBEM conference entitled "Why we need new energy testing protocols"[271]. Following the presentation in Holland, Joel released the following letters[272][273] announcing a planned vetting initiative, re-initiated by the New Energy Movement.
"We recognize that the single most highly leveraged opportunity for advancement toward solving complex global problems lies in  transforming the way human civilization generates and utilizes energy. New Energy Movement is focused on facilitating this transformation." ~New Energy Movement Mission Statement (at inception)

New Energy Congress

Founded November 2005, the New Energy Congress, now inactive, attempted to be an Internet organized group, a "global association of experts who review the most promising emerging energy technologies".[274]

Institute for Gravity Research (GÖDE Award)

With the GÖDE award for gravity research the foundation has announced in 2004 a price of one million euro for providing substantive and convincing evidence of influencing gravity–a special incentive for innovative research projects that look beyond the horizons of scientific everyday life.

Göde Award for Gravitation Research

The “Göde reward for gravity research” is an innovative prize. The intent of this prize is to influence gravity with presently unknown methods. Applicants must successfully design, construct and complete an experiment with specified performance characteristics. A 20 gram heavy device or the assembly itself, is required to float freely at least 1 minute at a minimum distance of 10 cm from any surface.[275]

Göde offers an interesting page detailing the equipment available for evaluating technologies.[276]

The 1-Watt Challenge and 1.5 kilo-Watt Challenge

Erik Kreig - For years I've heard the claim that many people have come up with machines that pull energy seemingly out of thin air (using heat, magnetic fields, ether, gravity or what ever). Books on urban legends are full of rumors of this. Believers in free energy machines feel that the obvious hoaxes must be separated from the real thing. I offer to pay travel expenses and $10000 (plus additional pledge money) to anyone who can pass the following test:  I also offer a $2000 commission to anyone who talks an inventor into submitting a winning design to me.[277][278]

The challenge being: "the demonstration of a device that can continuously generate, on a stand-alone, self-powered basis, a minimum of at least [1] watt excess average output power". The second link above stipulates a more rigorous challenge: "the device must put out at least 1.5kW of electrical produced resistive heat energy at least 90% of a 24-hour window of time".

Steorn Advertisement in Economist Magazine

In 2006, Irish company Steorn placed an advertisement in The Economist[279] challenging scientists to come and measure their claimed new energy source.[280]

The Hub Lab

Ed Beardsworth, Technical Director of The Hub Lab, was an organization in full swing from May 2008 until Spring 2010. This note is to provide a brief summary of the program's history and developments.

Global Breakthrough Energy Movement

GlobalBEM, the Breakthrough Energy Movement is an independent organization with the primary goal to facilitate the widespread awareness and use of Breakthrough Energy technology and its implications.[281]

In 2012, at the GlobalBEM Conference[282] in Holland, there was significant conversation about "vetting" of breakthrough energy technology claims. Following this conference, Mark Dansie provided a detailed outline on a process to Todd Ridolph of the New Energy Movement in a letter.

Integrity Research Institute Integrity

Thomas Valone, PhD is committed to the revitalizing work of securing our future by investigating, documenting and hosting conferences on emerging energy technology that is  eco-sustaining, breakthroughs in new forms of propulsion and revitalizing discoveries in bioenergetics.[283]

Thorsten Ludwig

Thorsten Ludwig worked at the Technical University of Berlin from 1997 to 2005 and received his Master in Physics in 2001 and completed his Doctor of natural Science in 2005, both summa cum laude. At the Technical University he also made contact to other scientists and engineers interested in new energy technologies. As a result a group including Thorsten Ludwig founded the Berlin Institute for innovative energy and propulsion technologies in 2001. The institute is committed to gather information, evaluate technologies and conduct research and development in the field of new energy technologies. The institute has done projects with catalytic hydrogen production, plasma tech, magnetic motors and solid state energy conversion.[284]

Chava science

"At Chava our primary mission is deliver technologies that create abundance for everyone. We are a commercial company. Our primary aim is to create radically new technologies for generating energy and energy applications... but not just to generate more wealth for the already wealthy. What the world needs now is revolutionary new energy technologies and applications that increase abundance for everyone. If you have any questions; interest in collaboration; technology validation requests; potential product enquiries; or would just like more information - please don't hesitate to contact Our CTO, Mark Snoswell."



(see also dedicated page on LENR).

Coolescence LLC is a privately funded research company located in Boulder, Colorado. The company was originally formed to rigorously examine repeated experimental reports of so-called 'cold fusion' from a number of scientists around the world.  Over the past 10 years the Coolescence team has replicated the most celebrated of these experiments, with no positive results that have not been attributable to measurement artifacts or chemical effects.[285]

WITTS Ministry

WITTS Ministry is the oldest and perhaps the only ministry of its kind. We have introduced a large percentage of modern technology.  We pioneered and introduced everything from motors to lights to computers to CD’s to lasers.  Our ministry dates back to the time of Michael Faraday.[286]

Revolution Green

Revolution Green is a community driven blog and network of backyard researchers operating in most cases on their own dime. Their goal is to publicize the latest news in green energy developments and products along with an interactive blog. Their readers and commentators come from many countries and backgrounds including engineers, political lobbyists and industry leaders. They feature renewable technologies including, wind, solar, hydrogen, hydro, thermal, bio fuels and electric vehicle advances such as battery and storage technology. In addition to this they cover non-conventional energy technologies such as Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), Zero Point Energy, HHO, and many other experimental concepts worldwide. Millions of people are joining the revolution and becoming energy independent and bringing about change that will leave a legacy that we can be proud of for generations to come, not just a bigger mess to clean up. The Green Energy Revolution will also help those 1.6 billion people without electricity that are enslaved to fossil fuels for lighting. New technologies and educational programs will assist in the creation of solutions to replace fossil fuels with low cost solar and water powered technologies.[287]

Infinergy, Inc.

Infinergy started developing onshore wind farms in the United Kingdom in 2003. In-house we possess all the expertise and experience needed to design, develop, build and operate onshore wind farms. Our current focus is the UK, where we consider wind resource to be one of the most promising forms of sustainable energy. In developing wind farms, we are keen on liaising with local communities to be able to design wind farms that are sympathetic to local landscapes. Infinergy is a member of trade organisations RenewableUK and Scottish Renewables.[288] The CEO of Infinergy, Inc is Ivan Kruglak.

The Tesla Science Foundation

Lead by president Nikola Lonchar[289], this is a non-profit organization formed to promote the heritage of Nikola Tesla through raising awareness of his achievements and contribution in our daily lives, including his numerous patents and inventions. Through educational programs, workshops, and public events, we can unite all those who are interested in Tesla and his work.  Annually, the foundation selects a few inventors who have demonstrated innovated technology concepts that exemplify Tesla’s lifelong commitment to Science, Industry, and the Environment. In addition, the Tesla Science Foundation gives awards each year for achievements in technology and/or writing, which are related to Tesla and/or his work. Its mission is to provide assistance to the patent process of new and innovative technologies as well as to include introduction of them to the market by forming an appropriate team of professionals of engineers, attorneys, and business/marketing specialists.[290]


TeslaTech[291], lead by Steve Elswick since at least 1999, this organization hosts an annual conference called the Extraordinary Technology Conference[292], publishes a quarterly magazine and hosts a large library related to advanced energy technology.

Steve Elswick was one of the founders of the International Tesla Society. Over the years Steve served in various capacities as an Officer (Secretary-1989, President-1990, Vice- President-1991-1995) and Director of the Society (1984-1995). For most of the time Steve was actively involved with the Board of Directors, was the Society's primary Editor of its publications (Proceedings - 1 986 &1988, Newsletter 1984-1988, ExtraOrdinary Science Magazine - 1989-1995). Steve also was involved in conducting all of the Society's Conferences (1984-1996) and for a time was the Conference Coordinator (1988-1995). During those years, I put a lot of time and effort into making the Tesla Society the leading organization introducing new and emerging technologies in science, energy, and medicine. In late 1995, I left the Society for reasons I will not go into here. Many of you are aware that it has become impossible to contact the Society by phone, and those that have been to Colorado Springs may have noticed the Museum is no longer there. All members should be aware that they have not received a magazine in over a year (or two?). This is due to the fact that the Tesla Society no longer is a viable corporation.[293]


Panacea-BOCAF is an educational organization which operates as a not for profit entity. Panacea deals with the training, consultation, protection and research into suppressed FREE energy technology and sustainable development.[294]

New Energy Times

Steven B. Krivit is the publisher and senior editor of New Energy Times. He is a recognized subject-matter expert on LENR research and an author, investigative science journalist[295], editor, photographer, and international speaker. His is an author or editor of seven books[296] about or including chapters on LENR. The New Energy Times LENR News Site is the leading source of original reporting, news and investigations about the subject of "Cold Fusion".

Borderland Sciences Research Foundation

Borderlands is a California non-profit (C0254263) research and education organization, founded in 1951 by Meade Layne for the purpose of studying parapsychology and extended consciousness. It has since expanded in scope to traverse as broad path of the grand terrain of the borderland as may be uncovered by human perceptions (and perhaps even further).

The main goal of Borderland Sciences is the curation and distribution of historical papers and books on energy, healing, and consciousness, providing a framework for understanding and continued research, and offering support to scientific minds exploring the unconventional regions of thought we call "borderland".[297]


KeelyNet is a loose network of researchers, experimenters, interested people and groups who communicate freely and share information. We long ago realized the ONLY way we will ever see these advanced technologies used in our everyday lives is by freely sharing our ideas and discoveries. To achieve that end, we collect and correlate information from many sources which provide insights and direction toward making these goals a reality. This information is then freely and openly shared with all in the form of files and through the discussion list. Our hope is to engender novel experiments which might yield phenomena and independently reproducible results.

We try to use the K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid) approach (as in limited 'pop and flash' graphics), after all, this is a content based website intended to inspire, evoke thought and induce people to question what they are told about science, physics and the nature of our reality. Should you have a project, invention or device you might like to have independently duplicated, we suggest you read two documents that might be of use in your quest;

Proof of Principle and Technology Shareware

Only if you are willing to at least provide a basic experiment that others can use to prove your principle will anyone take any claims of success seriously.

John Worrell Keely

KeelyNet is named in honor of 19th century acoustics researcher John Worrell Keely who lived in Philadelphia from 1872 til his death in 1898.

During that time, he was written up in the local newspapers and in various national magazines as well as funded by many wealthy philanthropists. Keely was often targeted by Scientific American and others who could never disprove or duplicate any of his demonstrations or experiments during his lifetime.

On his death, they pounced on his lab, claiming to find massive evidence of fraud in the form of hidden tubes and such in the walls and floor of his lab.

Keely basically took advantage of the natural properties of waves which, when rectified or conjugated take the form of PUSH, BALANCE and PULL. Using resonance and phase conjugation Keely demonstrated a wealth of phenomena which included;

  • instantly exploding 3 drops of water to produce 29,000 PSI,
  • disintegrating quartz crystal using acoustics (rediscovered as shock waves currently being used to reduce garbage to a fine powder),
  • producing rotation by compound sound waves (patented in modern times by Panasonic as ultrasonic motors),
  • tapping into what he calls 'ether flows' to run his engines,
  • producing a glowing blue light in water using acoustics (now rediscovered as 'sonoluminescence'),
  • a compound motor that ran from many frequencies (later ripped off by Tesla as his 'polyphase motor'),
  • demonstrating a pneumatic cannon powered by release and instant expansion of a bizarre plasma vapor,
  • an acoustic based flying machine that levitated and propelled itself in the presence of government witnesses and sundry other discoveries.

We seek to duplicate not only Keely but other alternative researchers claims for the purpose of enhancing and enriching our lives through practical understanding and use of natural forces.[298]

Rex Research

Rex Research was established in 1982 by Robert A. Nelson to archive and distribute "InFolios" -- Information Folios -- of collected Articles about suppressed, dormant, or emerging Sciences, Technologies, Inventions, Theories, Therapies, & other Alternatives that offer real Hope & Choices to help Liberate Humanity from its Stupidity and the evile Pornocracy of Psychopaths.[299]

Swedish Keshe Validation Attempt

In 2015, a Swedish individual attempted to raise funds on Indiegogo to test Keshe's technology. "This crowdfunding campaign was to verify or dismiss the Keshe Foundations claims about their new car battery. Their alleged selfrunning car battery needs to be tested by a third party! If we succeed to raise the money a respectable Swedish technology magazine will evaluate it - and keep it as long as they like."

The Electric Universe

“We live in an electric world. Our cities are visible from space at night, blazing with electric lights. The electricity courses invisibly in the darkness over great distances along thin power lines. We find electricity indispensable. Nature does the same since all matter is electrical. Yet astronomy is stuck in the gas-light era, unable to see that stars are simply electric lights strung along invisible cosmic power lines that are detectable by their magnetic fields and radio noise.' It is now a century since the Norwegian genius Kristian Birkeland proved that the phenomenal ‘northern lights’ or aurora borealis is an earthly connection with the electrical Sun. Later, Hannes Alfvén the Swedish Nobel Prize winning physicist, with a background in electrical engineering and experience of the northern lights, drew the solar circuit. It is no coincidence that Scandinavian scientists led the way in showing that we live in an Electric Universe. Why have they been ignored? The answer may be found in the inertia of prior beliefs and the failure of our educational institutions. We humans are better storytellers than scientists. We see the universe through the filter of tales we are told in childhood and our education systems reward those who can best repeat them. Dissent is discouraged so that many of the brightest intellects become bored and drop out. The history of science is sanitized to ignore the great controversies of the past, which were generally ‘won’ by a vote instead of reasoned debate. Today NASA does science by press release and investigative journalism is severely inhibited. And narrow experts who never left school do their glossy media ‘show and tell,’ keeping the public in the dark in this ‘dark age’ of science. It is often said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” History shows otherwise that entrenched paradigms resist extraordinary disproof. This website is for the curious, those who are eager to discover some reasonable answers about life, the universe and everything (as far as it is possible today) free of old beliefs that have shackled progress for centuries. It requires a beginner’s mind and a broad forensic approach to knowledge that is not taught in any university. The payoff is the spark that lights up lives."[300]

The Thunderbolts Project is the collaborative voice of the Electric Universe movement established in 2004. It is a trademark of the non-profit T-Bolts Group Inc. Its prime mission is to explore the Electric Universe paradigm. Historical and current discoveries in the sciences emphasize the dynamic role of the electromagnetic force in nature, from quantum worlds and biological systems to planetary, stellar, and galactic domains. With the growing Internet presence of The Thunderbolts Project, it places a spotlight on interdisciplinary research, direct observation, and experimental work confirming the pervasive role of the electric force in nature. Founder and director is David Talbott. Chief science advisor is the Australian physicist Wallace Thornhill. Among its many activities, The Thunderbolts Project publishes educational books and videos, sponsors meetings and conferences, and produces a comprehensive website featuring the Thunderbolts Picture of the Day (TPOD), the Essential Guide to the Electric Universe, a public forum and much more. In addition, it promotes ground breaking research, free from all ties to academic, corporate, or governmental institutions.[301]

The Orion Project

Steven Greer's organization mission of our Energy Solutions Plan is to bring the very best inventors in the world of sustainable, non-polluting, “free” energy together, under one roof to achieve a very specific objective. Our ultimate objective is to produce an Energy Generating System (a free energy generator) for the home or business, which will be available to the general global public. Ultimately this will free us from dependence on costly, limited, and polluting fossil fuels and forever transform the current non-sustainable energy paradigm.[302]

The THRIVE Movement

Foster Gamble, The Thrive Movement, after reaching tens of millions of people around the world with a message of free energy through his movie THRIVE, Foster has followed on with numerous public discussions stressing the vital roll vetting plays in the effort to manifest a world changing new energy technology.[303] The movie Thrive links suppression of free energy to a world wide cabal of industrialists and bankers intent on imposing a one world government.

The International Symposium on New Energy

Formed in 1994[304] was the second in a series of conferences sponsored by the Institute of New Energy[305] May 12-15, 1994, at the Denver Hilton South, Denver, CO. The conference featured devices from around the world which were tested at the The Colorado State University Engines and Energy Conversion Laboratory. The Symposium was chaired by Patrick Bailey and Toby Grotz.

Natural Philosophers Database

Compiles information globally on topics such as Aether, Electric Universe, Electrodynamics, Gravity, New Energy, Particle Physics, Tesla and more.[306]

The Anthropocene Institute

The Anthropocene Institute is an incubator for technologies, policies, and market mechanisms to address global environmental challenges: climate change, biological diversity, and sustainability. The Anthropocene Institute provides due diligence to an investor pool in the broad program areas of One Cent Energy...[307]


Free Energy - FREE ENERGY RESEARCH FORUM. We report about Free Energy Freie Energie videos for the forum.[308]

Conservation X Labs

We believe that harnessing exponential technologies, open innovation, and a for-profit entrepreneurship financial model will allow us to dramatically improve the efficacy, cost, speed, sustainability, and scale of conservation efforts.  Although technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship will not alone solve the conservation problems, they can dramatically improve the rate of its success.[309]

Individual New Energy Advocates

Sepp Hasslberger

Sepp Hasslberger has been a leading researcher into new energy technology and continues to blog on the topic.[310]

Gary C. Vesperman

Gary C. Vesperman has one of the longest running lists of new energy technology claims.[311][312][313] This version of Gary's Energy Invention Suppression Cases totals 139 pages.

Byron White III

Byron White has been an active investigator in the new energy field, his work can be found here. For example, this is a 2007 letter to Donald Trump after Trump comments about too much reliance on foreign oil during a September 25, 2007 CNN interview (citation needed).

Patrick Kelly

The purpose of this web site is to provide you with an introduction to a series of devices which have been shown to have very interesting properties and some are (incorrectly) described as 'perpetual motion' machines.[314]

Carl Page

Carl Page is currently President of the Anthropocene Institute. He is a highly sought after entrepreneur, an advisor to technology, internet marketing, and emerging clean-tech companies, as well as a prominent investor in both hi-tech and clean-tech ventures.[315]

Venture Capital

Since the beginning of 2010, 1,139 different Venture Capital investors have participated in at least one deal backing a cleantech company, according to the PitchBook Platform[316]. But as projects failed and others saw slower-than-expected growth, VC activity in the vertical has decreased from its 2011 highs to a much more tepid pace. Capital invested has hovered around $2.25 billion for the past three years, and deal count slipped to just 234 in 2015. Although those are sizeable numbers, they are a long way off from what previous years garnered, representing waning investor interest in the space. It looks as if investment will continue its fall this year (2016), as only 31 deals have been completed to date (thru approximately April 2015), representing $372 million of invested capital.[317]

For a listing of Venture Capital firms within cleantech, click here.

David Niebauer[318] has over 20 years of domestic and international corporate finance experience, with a particular focus on clean energy and environmental technologies. He has represented numerous companies in complex M&A and financing transactions and acts as General Counsel (including IP strategy, protection and licensing) for innovative cleantech companies, including Smart Wire Grid, Brillouin Energy Corporation, and LumiGrow.  David also serves on the Board of Directors of LumiGrow, the New Energy Movement and he is founder and Managing Director of Quantum Heat, a non-profit for the advancement of low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) technology, supporting the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project.[319]

Venture Capital Firms at the further end of Cleantech:
  • Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (KPCB) focuses its global investments in three practice areas – digital, clean tech and life sciences.[320][321] One example of KPCB's investments into the clean tech space is with a company called Bloom Energy[322], which manufactures a solid state fuel cell.[323][324]
  • Breakthrough Energy Ventures (BEV) is an investor-led fund made up of members of the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, guided by scientific and technological expertise and committed to investing patiently in developing new ways to live, eat, travel, and build. Our leadership will be made up of entrepreneurial investors and scientists, and our investments will be guided by solid research as well as by market priorities.[325]
  • Telluride Venture Accelerator - Over the past 4 years, Telluride Venture Accelerator has pioneered the way for the conversation around building real companies in a mountain town. As the first accelerator of it's kind in the world, it has proven that real companies can build and thrive here. Since 2012, 18 startup companies have graduated the program and raised over $1 million dollars with the help of an incredible network of more than 90 mentors. Also, over 87 jobs have been created as a result of affiliated companies. Telluride also has a $6M fund for early stage startups called Telluride Venture Fund which has historically invested in ~50% of all TVA graduating companies.[326]
  • Energy Foundry invests venture capital in today’s most promising energy innovators, and we work with the world’s leading energy companies to build and scale new ventures. Our approach merges venture capital with the perks of partnership, and includes an arsenal of essential tools and relationships to help bring great ideas to market.[327]
  • California Global Innovation Exchange (CAGIX) - Qualified investments in companies solving big problems. Invest in Companies that Solve Global Sustainability Problems.[328]
  • Bloomberg New Energy Finance - Gain a clear perspective on the technologies and financial, economic and policy trends driving the energy transformation. Bloomberg New Energy Finance is online, on mobile, and on the Terminal.[329]
  • Flagship Ventures - Flagship mainly capitalizes bioengineering but did fund Joule Unlimited, which is a CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) to Fuel energy technology company, so this firm could possibly fund more advanced energy concepts.[330]

U.S. Mainstream Companies with Large Energy Innovation R&D or Investment Budgets

Breakthrough Energy Coalition

Led by the likes of Jeff Bezos, Michael Bloomberg, Ray Dalio, Richard Branson, Bill Gates, George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg and other of the highest profile and richest in the world, the elite class have now openly, publicly entered the Breakthrough Energy Movement through this coalition.

Technology will help solve our energy issues, feed the world, and produce goods without emitting greenhouse gases. The urgency of climate change and the energy needs in the poorest parts of the world require an aggressive global program for zero-emission energy innovation. The new model will be a partnership between governments, research institutions, and investors. Scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs can invent and scale the innovative technologies that will limit the impact of climate change while providing affordable and reliable energy to everyone. The existing system of basic research, clean energy investment, regulatory frameworks, and subsidies fails to mobilize sufficient investment in truly transformative energy solutions for the future. We can’t wait for the system to change through normal cycles.

The Breakthrough Energy Coalition is committed to helping accelerate the cycle of innovation through investment, partnership, and thought leadership. Many members of the Coalition are joining Breakthrough Energy Ventures, an effort designed to invest in early stage innovations and help build the new companies that will deliver emissions-free energy, agriculture, and goods to the world. Others are investing in other ways.[331]

Energy Future Coalition

The Energy Future Coalition was formed in 2002 by Timothy E. Wirth, C. Boyden Gray, and John D. Podesta, with support from the Turner Foundation and the Better World Fund (current steering committee includes Richard Branson, The Rev. Richard Cizik, Charles B. Curtis, Tom Daschle, Susan Eisenhower, Daniel C. Esty, Vic Fazio, Maggie L. Fox, Michael V. Finley, Rush D. Holt, C. Boyden Gray, Thea M. Lee, Thomas E. Lovejoy, Adele Morris, Andy Karsner, David W. Orr, Bob Perciasepe, Pete Rouse, Larry Schweiger, Mark Safty, Jerry Taylor, Steve Symms, Rhea Suh, Timothy E. Wirth and Ted Turner)[332], to address three great challenges related to the production and use of energy:

  • The political and economic threat posed by the world’s dependence on oil.
  • The risk to the global environment from climate change.
  • The lack of access of the world’s poor to modern energy services needed for economic advancement.[333]

From the beginning, the Coalition adopted the following statement of principles to guide its actions:

  1. The Coalition will be a diverse, inclusive, and non-traditional partnership of business, labor, nonprofit organizations, and individuals.
  2. The Coalition will be non-partisan.
  3. The Coalition will encourage policy options that emphasize technological innovation without constraining consumer choice.
  4. The Coalition will educate and advocate on the benefits of clean, affordable, and sustainable energy production and use, both in the United States and abroad.
  5. The Coalition recognizes that the transition to a new and sustainable energy economy will take years – indeed, decades – to achieve, and will also pursue shorter-term objectives.

The Coalition is organizing its public policy initiatives around the following premises:

  • The U.S. cannot make major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions unless it transforms its use of coal for electricity and oil for transportation.
  • A clean energy future is an affordable energy future, and the U.S. can lead the way in the development and distribution of new energy technologies that draw on locally abundant resources and that operate cleanly and safely.
  • Energy efficiency is the cleanest and cheapest source of energy for the U.S.[334]
U.S. Department of Energy (D.O.E.) Related Advanced Energy Research & Development

(ARPA-E) The Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, an agency of the U.S Department of Energy, hosts an online portal called the Funding Opportunity Exchange.  One of the many energy related ARPA-E initiatives within this platform is an opportunity to receive funding called IDEAS; applications for funding can be submitted here. ARPA-E also hosts an annual Energy Innovation Summit.

INNOVATION DEVELOPMENT IN ENERGY-RELATED APPLIED SCIENCE ((ARPA-E)IDEAS) This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) provides a continuing opportunity for the rapid support of early-stage applied research to explore innovative new concepts with the potential for transformational and disruptive changes in energy technology. IDEAS awards are intended to be flexible and may take the form of analyses or exploratory research that provides the agency with information useful for the subsequent development of focused technology programs. IDEAS awards may also support proof-of-concept research to develop a unique technology concept, either in an area not currently supported by the agency or as a potential enhancement to an ongoing focused technology program. Applications must propose concepts that are not covered by open ARPA-E focused FOAs and that also do not represent incremental improvements over existing technology. IDEAS awards are defined as single-phase efforts of durations 12 months or less with a total project cost of $500,000 or less and will be issued through Grants.  This FOA is a continuation of the IDEAS Program initially announced in September 2013 and continued for a second year in September 2014. ARPA-E continues to view the IDEAS program as a success and therefore plans to extend this FOA on an annual basis, based on the availability of funds.[335]
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is the largest US Department of Energy science and energy laboratory, conducting basic and applied research to deliver transformative solutions to compelling problems in energy and security. Clean energy—We deliver energy technology solutions for energy-efficient buildings, transportation, and manufacturing, and we study biological, environmental, and climate systems in order to develop new biofuels and bioproducts and to explore the impacts of climate change.[336]

Sandia National Labratory Energy & Climate

Through the Secure and Sustainable Energy Future Mission Area, Sandia National Laboratories seeks to support the creation of a secure energy future for the US by using its capabilities to enable an uninterrupted and enduring supply of energy from domestic sources, and to assure the reliability and resiliency of the associated energy infrastructure. SNL seeks to create an energy future that is also sustainable by using its capabilities to drive the development and deployment of energy sources that are safer, cleaner, more economical and efficient, and less dependent on scarce natural resources. (Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.) [337]

Energy Science Network

ESnet is the Department of Energy's dedicated science network, helping researchers meet their goals from experiment to discovery.[338]

Wells Fargo Innovation Incubator

The Wells Fargo Incubation Innovator (IN²)[339][340] is a five-year, $10 million program designed to facilitate early-stage technologies that provide scalable solutions to reduce the energy impact of commercial buildings. IN² is funded by the Wells Fargo Foundation and co-administered by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).[341] Wells Fargo created the following video on the project.

EPRI - The Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

EPRI (The Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.) conducts research and development relating to the generation, delivery and use of electricity for the benefit of the public. An independent, nonprofit organization, we bring together scientists and engineers as well as experts from academia and the industry to help address challenges in electricity. Our research provides both short- and long-term solutions that enable the transformation of power systems to be more flexible, resilient and connected. Our ultimate goal is to provide society with safe, reliable, affordable and environmentally responsible electricity.[342]

The Energy Department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)

At NREL, we focus on creative answers to today's energy challenges. From breakthroughs in fundamental science to new clean technologies to integrated energy systems that power our lives, NREL researchers are transforming the way the nation and the world use energy.[343]

The (EPRI & NREL) Incubatenergy Network

The Incubatenergy Network is accelerating the transition to a sustainable economy through national coordination of incubator resources supporting entrepreneurs focused on clean energy innovation and deployment.

The Energy Department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) have launched the Clean Energy Incubator Network. The program, funded by the Energy Department, aims to improve the performance of clean energy business incubators, connect critical industry and energy sector partners, and advance clean energy technologies emerging from universities and federal laboratories.[344]

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Institute (RASEI)

RASEI (pronounced RAY-see) is a joint institute between the University of Colorado Boulder (CU-Boulder) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) addressing important, complex problems in energy that require a multidisciplinary, multi-institutional approach. Its mission is to expedite solutions that transform energy by advancing renewable energy science, engineering, and analysis through research, education, and industry partnerships.[345]

New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA)

The NYSERDA sponsored an annual Advanced Energy Conference which brings together a whose-who of energy related companies and institutions together.[346] Advanced Clean Energy (ACE) Exploratory Research Funding (PON 3249) is an ongoing funding opportunity that supports inspired, innovative, and disruptive thinking about technologies and business models that will transform New York State’s energy landscape. The aim of ACE is to provide NYSERDA with useful information to develop focused technology or proof-of-concept research...[347]

The Clean Tech Center

The Clean Tech Center, located in Syracuse, NY develops renewable and clean energy technology companies in New York State. A program of The Tech Garden, it is funded by NYSERDA to develop emerging businesses and commercializing technologies in the following sectors (including): Renewable Energy & Alternative Fuels...[348]

The Center for Evaluation of Clean Energy Technology (CECET)

The Center for Evaluation of Clean Energy Technology (CECET) is an Intertek company dedicated to the advancement of clean energy technology, launched in partnership with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). Through CECET you gain access to expert guidance, technical due diligence, and state-of-the-art laboratory testing facilities to speed up the commercialization of your clean energy technology.[349]


NEXUS-NY is a clean energy seed accelerator. Each year we provide financial, business and educational support to around 10 entrepreneurial teams which are selected through a competitive application process. Program participants are eligible to receive approximately $50,000 of equity-free direct financial support. Our entrepreneurs come from research universities and the general community and share several common traits: They are passionate about their technology and want to start a great company. They want to solve big problems for real customers. They recognize the need to demonstrate their technology and business model through meaningful proof-of-concept prototypes and customer interaction. NEXUS-NY is a program of High Tech Rochester (HTR) and is supported by New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA).[350]

Argonne National Labratory

Argonne is poised to help our nation build an economy fueled by safe, clean, renewable energy and free from dependence on foreign oil.[351] Argonne is developing transformative energy technologies[352] thru Chain Reaction Innovations (CRI),a new two-year program for innovators focused on energy and science technologies.  

IRENA, International Renewable Energy Agency

The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) is an intergovernmental organisation that supports countries in their transition to a sustainable energy future, and serves as the principal platform for international cooperation, a centre of excellence, and a repository of policy, technology, resource and financial knowledge on renewable energy. IRENA promotes the widespread adoption and sustainable use of all forms of renewable energy, including bioenergy, geothermal, hydropower, ocean, solar and wind energy in the pursuit of sustainable development, energy access, energy security and low-carbon economic growth and prosperity.[353]

A relevant videoclip that showcast the approaching of the adoption of Renewable Energy; Corporates, the Private Sector are becoming important capital sources and decision element in this direction.

General Electric / GE Ecomagination

Ecomagination is GE’s growth strategy to enhance resource productivity and reduce environmental impact at a global scale through commercial solutions for our customers and through our own operations. As a part of this strategy, we are investing in cleaner technology...[354][355][356]

Pew (Charitable Trusts) Clean Energy Project

The Pew Charitable Trusts are Accelerating clean energy solutions that improve the economy, national security and the environment.[357]

The NextEnergy Center

The NextEnergy Center and surrounding campus are an epicenter of entrepreneurial activity in Midtown Detroit. The Center itself serves as a living lab for advanced energy and transportation technology development and demonstrations.  Companies, including global energy and transportation innovators, utilities, universities, and government agencies are engaged in collaborative projects at NextEnergy, leveraging our knowledge base, unique testing capabilities and laboratories in an independent and secure environment.[358]

McKinstry Innovation Center

Our Center innovators develop new technologies, products or services in Clean Tech, Education, High Tech and Life Sciences in sync with McKinstry's goal to improve our communities through better health, quality education and environmental stewardship.[359]

COMSA Corporation

COMSA is the second Spanish group not listed in the infrastructure and engineering sector. With more than a century of experience, COMSA Corporación focuses its activity in the areas of Infrastructure and Engineering, Services and Technology and Concessions and Renewable Energies.[360]

ENGIE Laborelec

Which technologies are going to impact the energy business in the coming years? What is their true potential in terms of technical, economic, and environmental performance? How can they bring value to our customers? These are some key questions that the multi-partner Prospective Research and Innovation Program – led by ENGIE Laborelec – is addressing.[361]

Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator (LACI) & SVCI

For entrepreneurs, by entrepreneurs…SVCI is dedicated to building a cleantech economy for California. We utilize state-of-the-art programs, proven tools and connections to partners, mentors and advisors, while providing the kind of oversight and long-term commitment that’s crucial to your success.[362] LACI hosts an annual Cleantech Global Showcase GLOSHO17 in Los Angeles, CA ,

The North Carolina Advanced Energy Corporation

The North Carolina Advanced Energy Corporation is a planning, technical and engineering services firm that provides market-based energy solutions. We work with electric utilities, state, federal and local governments, manufacturers and a wide variety of public and private partners. Advanced Energy offers program design and implementation, consulting, training, testing and research to provide market-based energy-related solutions for our five markets: residential, commercial and industrial, motors and drives, solar and electric transportation.[363]

TNO Innovation for Life

"It is by far the biggest challenge in the coming decades worldwide: the transition from a fossil-fuel based energy system for sustainable alternatives. The coming period will be dominated by hybrid energy systems, where we combined several fossil and renewable sources bets. TNO aims to innovations, both technical and non-technical, the transition to a fully accelerate sustainable energy, "said Mart van Bracht, Managing Director Energy.[364]

Smart Grid Cluster

The Smart Grid Cluster supports economic growth for companies building the future of energy and the grid. We offer a combination of business, technical and financing support services that leverage the Illinois region’s robust corporate and research assets, and drive the continual economic growth of the energy innovation ecosystem.[365]


PowerBridgeNY is a pathway to the future designed to produce the scalable, clean energy solutions that will power the next generation.[366]

Brayton Energy

Brayton Energy is an innovative R&D firm dedicated to making meaningful contributions in the field of environmentally responsible, sustainable energy production.  We specialize in design, prototyping, and testing of turbomachinery and gas turbine systems. Our offices, laboratories and production facilities are at a uniquely informal waterfront office complex in Hampton, NH, approximately 40 miles north of Boston.[367]

The Centre for Advanced Sustainable Energy (CASE)

The Centre for Advanced Sustainable Energy (CASE) is an industry-led sustainable energy research centre. Through the Invest Northern Ireland Competence Centre programme we fund collaborative Research & Development (R&D) in sustainable energy. We bridge the gap between industry research needs and academic research offerings.[368]

RTI International

Efficient, economic, and sustainable energy solutions that address global concerns. From ideation to pilot scale to commercialized systems, we tackle process challenges across the power, chemical, petroleum, gas processing, and transportation industries. Our team’s expertise includes biomass conversion, carbon capture and utilization, natural gas, industrial water, syngas processing, and other advanced energy applications. We use cutting-edge laboratories and scale-up facilities to deliver high-quality R&D for government and industry clients. Contact us to learn more about how our expertise from lab- and bench-scale experiments to pilot plants and large-scale pre-commercial demonstrations can help boost your process development.[369]

International Companies with Large Energy Innovation R&D or Investment Budgets


ABB today is writing the future of industrial digitalization and driving the Energy and Fourth Industrial Revolutions.[370][371]

Asia Pacific Resources Development Investment Ltd

Cheng Kin Ming has parlayed success in real estate and other investments into a portfolio of renewable energy holdings that make him one of the world's largest players in the field.[372] Founded in Hong Kong by Kin Ming Cheng in 2009, APRDI is an investment holding company committed to providing green city solutions through investments in clean energy, new materials and financial sectors.[373]

Hitachi Social Innovation Hub

Hitachi is focusing more than ever on the Social Innovation Business, which includes power and infrastructure systems, information...[374]

Mitsubishi Electric R&D Centre Europe B.V. (MERCE)

MERCE is situated at the heart of Europe's leading R&D community, with two research locations, in France and in the United Kingdom. MERCE conducts research and development of environment and energy technology and communications technology. In North America, Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories (MERL) is a sister R&D of Mitsubishi. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, boasts an incredible line of products in energy and for more than 130 years, has channeled big thinking into innovative and integrated solutions that move the world forward.[375]

Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e)

Eindhoven University of Technology is one of the world’s foremost research institutions in energy research.

Steinbeis-Europa-Zentrum (SEZ) - Women4Energy

The Steinbeis-Europa-Zentrum (SEZ), as a center for Baden-Württemberg, links industry and science in all areas of technology with Europe.[376] As a partner at KIC InnoEnergy, the Steinbeis-Europa-Zentrum is committed to helping women from science, education and businesses to tackle the issue of energy and contribute to more innovations with their skills. In 2012, it was responsible for the founding of the "European Network of Women for Innovative Energy Solutions" (Women4Energy - The Women4Energy - European Network of Women for Innovative Energy Solutions), which was established within the framework of KIC InnoEnergy. The network develops a diversity strategy for KIC InnoEnergy and links women from research and industry to all energy-relevant topics.

Savoie Technolac

Savoie Technolac is the driving force behind an Energy ecosystem that has an international dimension. The center helps its companies to succeed with their international projects, to set up operations in France and puts its network of energy experts at their disposal.[377]

Cleantech Finland

Cleantech Finland is a hub of Finnish cleantech expertize and sustainable innovations. We bring together the great minds, fresh ideas, and best solutions for advanced cleantech business.[378]

The U.S.–China Clean Energy Research Center (CERC)

The U.S.–China Clean Energy Research Center (CERC) is a joint initiative to accelerate research, development, and deployment of clean energy technologies. Advanced energy solutions can tap diverse energy sources, improve efficiency, and accelerate the transition to a low-carbon future. With these objectives in mind, CERC facilitates collaborative research and development, engaging scientists and engineers from world-class universities, top research institutions, and industry leaders.[379]

Asia Clean Energy Summit (ACES)

Asia Clean Energy Summit (ACES) is Asia’s leading event focusing on clean energy technology, policy and finance supported by leading government agencies, research institutes and industry in Singapore. ACES provide a common platform for regional thought leaders in both the public and private sector to collaborate on critical issues and opportunities in harnessing clean energy for the future. As the regional platform to share and co-create innovative clean energy solutions, ACES supports the vision to be a clean energy hub for Asia.[380]

U.S. Universities Laboratories with Advanced Energy R&D

Advanced Energy Research & Technology Center at Stony Brook University (AERTC) 

Clean Energy Business Incubator Program (CEBIP), a program of AERTC, the Advanced Energy Research & Technology Center at Stony Brook University[381] provides assistance and resources for developers of renewable and clean energy technologies. By mentoring entrepreneurs CEBIP helps them establish successful enterprises to bring their technologies to market. Bringing an innovation to market can be a difficult process requiring technical and business guidance, successful acquisition of funding, and continuing to retain a competitive advantage. CEBIP’s goal is to incubate “green technologies by helping to develop and commercialize them, and to create and sustain growth companies.[382]

Center for Advanced Turbomachinery and Energy Research

University of Central Florida (UCF) is home to CATER, a center for research and student training focused on turbomachineries and associated technologies for power generation, aviation and space propulsion.

Center for Advanced Power Engineering Research

CAPER is a membership driven consortium among several universities (Clemson, NC State, UNC Charlotte)[383] and industry partners[384] in the Southeast region of the US.[385] Carbon and other environmental legislation has placed much prThe demand for economically and environmentally sound energy solutions is urgent and global. At the Energy Institute, we build on the University of Michigan’s strong energy research heritage at the heart of the nation’s automotive and manufacturing industries to develop and integrate science, technology and policy solutions to pressing energy challenges.essure on conventional means of generating electricity...New generation sources are being developed...Possible research ideas include: Alternative generation resources.[386]

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Energy Research at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) is leading to advances that can transcend the limitations of current technologies and may enable completely new and vastly more efficient energy systems.

The Energy Institute at the University of Michigan

At the Energy Institute, we build on the University of Michigan’s strong energy research heritage at the heart of the nation’s automotive and manufacturing industries to develop and integrate science, technology and policy solutions to pressing energy challenges. The demand for economically and environmentally sound energy solutions is urgent and global. [387]

University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy (CAER)

The University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy (CAER) investigates energy technologies to improve the environment.

The University of Texas at Austin Energy Institute

The Energy Institute fosters interdisciplinary interactions among colleges and schools across campus, while serving as a portal for external audiences interested in learning more about energy research carried out at The University of Texas at Austin.  At its annual Energy Technology Open Competition, the Longhorn Energy Club at The University of Texas at Austin invites Texas students, faculty and the startup community to share their ideas, win cash prizes, and meet investors and prospective customers across four categories: Oil & Gas, CleanTech, Energy and Water Efficiency, and Software.

The University of Texas at Austin Technology Incubator (IC2 Institute)

The Austin Technology Incubator is the startup incubator of the University of Texas at Austin.  A program of the University’s IC2 Institute, ATI has a 25-year track record of helping founding teams achieve success.

University of California at San Diego Advanced Energy Technology Group Center for Energy Research

Our research focuses on the exploration and application of advanced technologies to improve the economic and environmental attractiveness of emerging energy sources.[388]

Wilton E. Scott Institute for Energy Innovation at Carnegie Mellon University

The Wilton E. Scott Institute for Energy Innovation is a university-wide resea-rch initiative at CMU focused on improving energy efficiency and developing new, clean, affordable and sustainable energy sources. The institute hosts an annual CMU Energy Week in 2017 the event is scheduled for March 27-31.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Institute

The MIT Energy Initiative is MIT’s hub for energy [/ research], [/ education], and [/ outreach]. Our mission is to create low- and no-carbon solutions that will efficiently meet global energy needs while minimizing environmental impacts and mitigating climate change.

Georgia Tech Strategic Energy Institute

The Georgia Tech Strategic Energy Institute integrates energy activities across the nation's largest technology university – from generation to distribution to use. Whether it’s commercializing a technology to address a specific challenge or designing a roadmap for focusing resources, we understand the systems, technologies and context of the ever-evolving nature of energy production and use. The Georgia Tech Strategic Energy Institute and the universities Energy Club sponsor an annual Georgia Tech Energy Expo open to the public, the 2017 expo was hosted February 9 and 10.

The Energy and Environmental Technology Applications Center (E2TAC)

(SPARC) The SUNY Poly: The Energy and Environmental Technology Applications Center (E2TAC) was created in 1998 as an active expansion of the Colleges of Nanoscale Science and Engineering (CNSE) to work with companies in the rapidly emerging energy and environmental industries.[389] The SUNY Poly: Advancing Research & Commercialization Initiative features two incubators with an emphasis on different technologies: the iCLEAN Incubator, which is focused primarily on clean energy technology, and the Tech Valley Business Incubator, which I conThe SUNY Poly:centrated on nanotechnology and biotechnology.[390]

The Rutgers EcoComplex

The Rutgers EcoComplex, is the state's clean energy and environmental research, outreach and business incubation center. It serves as a university-based resource hub and offers industry, academia and governement access to applied research capabilities, unique facilities, business and technical expertise, and incubation services. The resources at the EcoComplex facilitate the Commercialization of new technologies and business concepts that address pressing energy and environmental issues facing New Jersey and the nation.[391]

WERCBench Labs

WERCBench Labs, An Immersive Program for Technology Innovators, is a 12-week immersive program for technology innovators. We’re looking for teams of engineers, scientists, and programmers across all funding stages. We will provide you access to unique production capabilities, including high performance computing, rapid prototyping facilities and small scale production and testing equipment. We will make an investment in your company of $20,000; $10,000 at the start of the program and $10,000 upon successful completion of the program.[392]

Oregon BEST

Cutting-edge research requires cutting-edge equipment and the expertise to operate it. Oregon BEST supports a network of nine shared-user research facilities at Oregon State University, Portland State University, and the University of Oregon. These multi-million dollar labs offer our industry partners access to research tools, faculty expertise, and workforce development opportunities. The labs help Oregon businesses compete while helping universities grow research and educate graduates.[393] The Cleantech Challenge, part of the Oregon Best Fest, is an exciting competition for campus cleantech innovators and entrepreneurs throughout Oregon. Undergraduates, graduates, postdocs, and faculty from Oregon community colleges and universities compete for a total prize pool of up to $50,000.[394]

Arrowhead Technology Incubator (ATI) at New Mexico State University (NMSU)

Arrowhead Technology Incubator (ATI) at New Mexico State University (NMSU) gives scalable startups the team, tools, and resources they need to turn ideas into revenue-generating realities. Primary sector: Water-Energy-Agriculture.[395]

Firstnergy Advanced Energy Research Center - University of Akron

Dr. Steven Chuang's Research Group is devoted to the research and development of energy and environment-related materials and processes, from fundamentals to applications. We carry a broad spectrum of research projects, including CO2 capture and utilization, solid oxide fuel cells, natural gas utilization and storage, Li+/Al batteries, carbon-based functional materials, photocatalysis, etc.[396]

Conn Center For Renewable Energy Research

The University of Louisville is answering Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear's call to lead Kentucky's research efforts in renewable energy research and sustainability issues. In collaboration with the state, UofL established the Conn Center for Renewable Energy Research at the J.B. Speed School of Engineering in 2009. The Conn Center provides leadership, research, support and policy development in renewable energy; advances the goal of renewable energy; and promotes technologies, practices, and programs that increase efficiency for energy utilization in homes, businesses and public buildings.[397]

International Universities with Advanced Energy R&D

The Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technology (INET) of Tsinghua University

(China) The Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technology (INET) of Tsinghua University was founded in 1960...In 2003, a new department within INET has been established to promote researches on new energy formats such as hydrogen, solar energy, fuel cells and biomass.[398]

The École Polytechnique's Universite Paris-Saclay

(France) Meeting the energy needs of nine billion people by 2050 "while limiting greenhouse gas emissions" is the biggest scientific and technological challenge ever faced by humankind. The École Polytechnique's laboratories are working to meet these challenges in its major field of study it titles Energy, Transportation and Environment...[399]

Institute for Plasmas and Nuclear Fusion

(Portugal) Instituto de Plasmas e Fusão Nuclear (IPFN, Institute for Plasmas and Nuclear Fusion) is a research unit of Instituto Superior Técnico (IST) with the status of Associated Laboratory granted by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia. IPFN is one of the largest Portuguese research units in Physics. Our passion is Plasma Physics and Technology!


The challenge is big, but our goal is simple: to achieve a sustainable energy future for Europe. Innovation is the solution. New ideas, products and services that make a real difference, new businesses and new people to deliver them to market. InnoEnergy is supported by EIT, a European Union body.[400] KICkoff Competition is the business idea challenge aimed at promoting the entrepreneurship among young people and picking the best projects to accelerate the European sustainable energy market development.

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) Energy Center

(Germany) The KIT Energy Center with its 1250 employees is one of the largest energy research centers in Europe.

The Institute for Energy Research of Catalonia (IREC)

(Spain) The IREC was created to contribute to the objective of a more sustainable energy future taking into account economic competitiveness and providing society with maximum energy security, with a mission to contribute to sustainable development of society and increasing the competitiveness of enterprises through: innovation and development of new technology products, and targets: Promote energy research and develop high value results for science and technology in the medium and long term.[401][402]

The CIEMAT (Center for Energy, Environmental and Technological Research)

(Spain) CIEMAT as a public research organization in the fields of energy (Renewable energy and energy saving), environment and technology articulates its R & D & i activity around projects of a technological scope in these areas, seeking to serve as a bridge between R + D + And social objectives.[403]

Frontier Research Center for Energy and Resources (FRCER) 

The role of the Frontier Research Center for Energy and Resources (FRCER)is to promote the creation and development of frontier technology to ensure stable supply of energy resources in harmony with the environment.[404]

U.S. Non-Profits, Incubators & Social Institutions with Cleantech Advancement Goals

National Resource Defense Fund (NRDF)

Expanding clean energy protects our health, air, climate, and last wild places. The NRDC accelerated the shift from fossil fuels to clean energy when we pressed the U.S. government to adopt the first-ever national limits on carbon pollution from power plants. We promote policies that make our cars, buildings, appliances, and everyday gadgets more efficient. We help communities fight dangerous fossil-fuel extraction operations in their backyards. And we collaborate with other countries to promote a global vision for—and an accelerated transition to—a clean energy future.[405]

Clean Energy Trust

Clean Energy Trust is a cleantech accelerator that fuels innovation to create a healthier environment and more prosperous future. We launch, fund, and grow early stage clean energy businesses in the Midwest through direct investment, venture development, and advocacy. Clean Energy Trust is a 501C3 public charity. Our unique funding model gives our fund the flexibility to invest in earlier-stage technology than traditional funds. Our philosophy is to be “first money in” and work closely with promising young companies to achieve growth milestones and successful exits. We have developed unique relationships with investors, labs, large corporations, and entrepreneurs to source quality companies for investment. We rely upon a broad pool of scientific and business experts to evaluate their investment potential. To date, CET has awarded over $3.7M in funding to 33 clean energy startups. Startups benefitting from our programs have gone on to raise an additional $112M in follow-on-funding – and have created over 300 jobs. We specialize in commercializing research from labs and universities into the market. We invest between $50 – $500k in seed stage rounds to enable startups to develop a prototype or complete a market milestone to attract further investment. Our staff and Board of Directors are passionate about changing the future of energy and business through innovation, and we hope you join us on this mission.[406]


Accelerating the success of high-impact science and technology startups in Colorado. Innosphere is a high-tech incubator supporting entrepreneurs building high-growth companies in the industries of health innovation, life sciences, software & hardware, and energy & advanced materials.[407]

I-Corps™ Energy and Transportation

I-Corps™ Energy and Transportation offers a customized curriculum to help teams of participating researchers discover the commercial potential of their technology, build a business model, and garner insights from leaders in the energy and transportation industries.[408] I-Corps Energy and Transportation is a commercialization training program for energy and transportation university researchers and nascent startups.[409]


SXSW Eco creates a space for business leaders, policy makers, innovators and designers to advance solutions that drive social, economic and environmental change.[410]

Sustainable Startups

Sustainable Startups is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, founded in late 2013. We have created an entrepreneurial community which brings coachable and engaged people together to foster innovation and community development.[411]

Urbantech Innovation Hub

The $12 million, 23,000 sq. ft Technology Demonstration Center located in San Jose, CA provides work space and resources for emerging technology companies to develop and demonstration their innovations.[412]

Climate Ride

Climate Ride is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that organizes life-changing charitable events to raise awareness and support sustainability, active transportation, and environmental causes.[413]


Powerhouse is the world’s premier incubator and accelerator dedicated to solar. Our Incubator houses the country’s most ingenious solar software startups and our Accelerator invests in them. Our mission is to support the success of solar entrepreneurs.[414]

Pecan Street

Companies working on water, energy and connected home products and services struggle with finding the right space to perform product development and testing. Pecan Street’s product testing lab supports any size company with projects for the residential through small commercial space. The lab’s capabilities are specially configured for testing hardware or software that generates or manages power at the building or device level, communicates wirelessly or integrates energy use data into its operations...[415]

Urban Tech NYC

Urbantech NYC is a comprehensive entrepreneurship ecosystem that catalyzes innovation and supports entrepreneurs making cities more sustainable, resilient, and livable. The platform’s objective is to increase access to talent and resources, provide transparency and fluidity, and promote New York City urbantech ingenuity globally. Energy is their first listed sector of focus.[416]

NYC ACRE - Urban Future Lab

NYC’s Leading Clean Energy Incubator - Rapidly scale and transform your startup into a vehicle for solving the world's greatest challenges. ACRE provides unmatched access to strategic advisement, introductions to industry stakeholders, marketing and branding support, investor networks, and access to a community of like-minded founders. Join us in solving real challenges in energy, water, waste, infrastructure, transportation, and resiliency.[417]  ACRE incubator companies are able to access ConEdison's machine shop and prototyping/testing facilities, upon request.[418]

Greentown Labs

Greentown Labs claims to be the largest clean technology incubator in the United States. We’re a community of bold and passionate entrepreneurs creating energy technologies that transform the way we live, work, and play. At Greentown Labs, we deeply believe in the impact that innovative clean technologies will have on the world, and we know the relentless human energy of a few scientists, engineers and business people can make a big difference. We know because we see it every day at Greentown Labs. The best place in the world to build a cleantech hardware company.[419]

Clean Edge, Inc.

Clean Edge, Inc., founded in 2000, offers a suite of indexes, benchmarking reports, advisory services, and events devoted to the clean-energy economy. With offices in Portland, Oregon and the San Francisco Bay Area, Clean Edge provides industry tracking, analysis, and guidance to corporates, governments, investors, economic development agencies, and NGOs working to transition to a clean-energy, low-carbon future.[420]

Tesla Science Center at Wardencliffe

The Science and Technology Center and Museum would be a place dedicated to science education and to introducing visitors to the rich scientific opportunities on Long Island. This center and museum would complement the educational efforts of the schools within this region as well as the community outreach activities of other prominent science institutions. It would also look to provide possible space for fledgling companies engaged in scientific research. The historic significance of the Shoreham site presents a unique opportunity as it contains the only remaining laboratory where Nikola Tesla, the famous inventor of alternating current electricity and neon lighting, conducted research.[421]

The Tesla Museum was purchased through an amazing crowd funding campaign intiated by Matt Inman at The Oatmeal.


VERDEXCHANGE commits to: 1) connecting the green dots to spur growth of the green economy and the use of clean energy while reducing greenhouse gas pollution; 2) offering commercial entrepreneurs, global investors, environmental stewards, and public officials information and a marketplace for continually learning of innovations, opportunities, and public policies that are driving the trillion dollar global energy and climate change marketplace; and 3) spurring growth of the green economy.[422]


Coalition: Energy is a coworking hub of professionals in energy. Our community includes companies working in clean tech, smart grid technology, energy consulting, and more. With regular events in our space and a calendar full of energy-related events in the greater Chicago area, our members are connected to the center of the energy movement in the Midwest.[423]

CLT Joules

CLT Joules is a not-for-profit accelerator providing entrepreneurs with key connections and tools to develop successful clean energy companies. CTL Joules accelerate high-impact clean energy ventures that improve global sustainability and establish the southeast as a first class destination for energy startups.[424]

CERTs - Clean Energy Resource Teams (Minnesota)

The Clean Energy Resource Teams—or CERTs—are a statewide (Minnesota) partnership with a shared mission to connect individuals and their communities to the resources they need to identify and implement community-based clean energy projects.[425]


The mission of CleanTX is to accelerate the growth of the cleantech industry in Texas through information exchange, thought leadership, and strategic partnerships. Founded in 2006, CleanTX is the nonprofit economic development and professional association for cleantech in Central Texas...[426]

SCIRP - Energy and Power Engineering

SCIRP is an academic publisher of open access journals. It also publishes academic books and conference proceedings. SCIRP currently has more than 200 open access journals in the areas of science, technology and medicine. The SCIRP Energy and Power Engineering landing page can be found here.

New Energy Colorado

New Energy Colorado works to engage citizens in shaping our energy future. We provide education about how our energy system and utilities function today, and what changes are needed to pave the way for a future dominated by energy efficiency, renewables and a smart grid. We work on programs including the Tour of Solar and Sustainable Homes, the Colorado Solar Coalition and in building a community we call Solar CitiSuns. We invite you to get involved in this exciting period of transformation.[427]

Center for EcoTechnology

The Center for EcoTechnology helps people and businesses save energy and reduce waste. We make green make sense. For 40 years we’ve offered proven advice and resources to save you money, make you more comfortable at home, and help your business perform better. As a non-profit 501(c)(3), CET works with partners throughout the region to help transform the way we live and work for a better community, economy, and environment – now and for the future.[428]

New Energy Economy (NEE)

New Energy Economy (NEE) was founded in 2003 to build a carbon-free energy future for our health and the environment. New Energy Economy employs public education, community organizing, targeted litigation methods, and model solar energy projects to shift our energy economy from fossil fuel and nuclear extraction to clean alternatives in pursuit of environmental justice and human and environmental health.[429]

Past Conferences & Workshops

  • Dr. Hanz Nieper's 1st German Symposium of Gravitational Field Energy - The Symposium on Energy Technology in Hannover (November 27, 1980)[430]
  • 1st International Symposium on Nonconventional Energy Technology (October 23-24, 1981)[431][432]
  • 2nd International Symposium on Nonconventional Energy Technology (July 9, 1983)[433]
  • Tesla Centennial Symposium (August 28, 1984)[434]
  • 1986 International Tesla Symposium
  • 1988 International Tesla Symposium (July 28, 1988)[435]
  • 1990 Borderland Sciences Congress (June 14, 1990)[436]
  • 1990 International Tesla Symposium (August 1, 1990)[437]
  • INE Symposium for New Energy (August 1, 1998)[438]
  • Swiss Association for Free Energy Symposium (October 27, 1989)[439]
  • 26th InterSociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference (August 4, 1991)[440]
  • 2nd International Symposium on New Energy (May 12, 1994)[441]
  • First International Conference on Future Energy (April 4, 1999)[442]
  • The Weinfelden Energy Conference (June 24, 2001)[443][444]
  • Conference on Energy & Accountability (November 9, 2002)[445]
  • 39 Questionable Assumptions in Modern Physics (May 2, 2009)[446][447]
  • Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences International Forum 2011 (March 15, 2011)[448]
  • ICCF-18 Applying the Scientific Method to Understanding Anomalous Heat Effects: Opportunities and Challenges (July 21-17, 2013)[449]
  • 2014 1st International Conference on Non Conventional Energy (ICONCE) (January 16, 2014)[450]


Survey of methods and tools to evaluate the availability of renewable resources (i.e., solar, wind, wave, biomass and geothermal energy) has been presented. In particular, potential,theoretical and exploitable energy have been differentiated and investigated for each kind of resource. All these energy sources share the feature of being distributed over the territory and of being measurable only at specific sites. This means that they all need tools to determine their spatial dimension and these may be provided by geostatistical tools or by remote sensed spatial information. In quite the same way, they all require GISs both to process data and to demonstrate their local impacts. Indeed, their presence on the territory generates some form of conflict with other uses, from the subtraction of land otherwise dedicated to food agriculture (as it happened in Mexico in 2007 with the famous‘‘tortilla riot’’) or by perturbing existing landscapes (as claimed by various associations in UK). To correctly support decisions on renewable energy sources, studies should thus deepen the evaluation of these conflicts and take into account not just the exercise of the energy conversion plants, but their entire life-cycle. The University of Sydney’s Integrated Sustainability Analysis report[451], for instance, estimates at something between 20 and 40 kg CO2eq/MWh, depending on the estimated life and capacity factor, the GHG emission due to the building, operating and decommissioning of wind turbines. ‘‘Renewable’’ does not mean‘‘completely CO2 neutral’’ and thus more detailed and comprehensive analysis tools will probably be developed in the near future.An additional important issue is that none of the renewable source analysed would be able to supply the growing energy need of even small isolated areas of the world. It is thus necessary to integrate few of them and choose the best mix of different resources. The objective of choosing a mix of plants that maximizes environmental sustainability as well as economic viability can be somehow be conflicting with the maximization of the energy supply reliability.Methods and tools that deal with the this type of integration are already present in the literature. An example is HOMER computer model[452][453][454]: it is an easy to use tool that simplifies the task of evaluating design options for both off grid and grid connected renewable power systems for remote, stand alone, and distributed generation applications ( It comprises three different modules[455]:

  • A simulation module, at hourly time scale, that compares the electrical and thermal demand to the energy that a mixed renewable/fossil system can supply, and estimates the cost of installing and operating the system over the lifetime of the project. HOMER simulates system configurations with several different combinations of components, and discards all those that do not respect reliability or cost constraints;
  • An optimization module: after simulating all the possible system configurations, HOMER orders feasible configurations from the most to the least cost effective, so that different design options can be compared.
  • A sensitivity analysis module: that repeats optimization for different values of parameters to take into account uncertainties.

HOMER was used to simulate off-grid solutions in India [456] The solution obtained shows that a hybrid combination of renewable energy generators at an off-grid location can be a cost-effective alternative to grid extension and it is sustainable, techno-economically viable and environmentally sound.

Future relevance

The experiments and measurements conducted on each prototype technology will determine the ability of that technology at the time. However, we should be mindful of the fact that technologies improve over time, and the 21st century will see the impact of exponential technologies in many areas. So what does exponential growth look like? Consider an energy technology that currently provides just one percent of total demand. See how quickly it grows year on year. Similarly, predicting long term costs will be difficult, again because of new exponential technologies.

So, perhaps the challenge can only quantitatively compare technologies using current cost estimates, current technological capabilities, and current estimated impacts; even though we know, that in the long-term, the future might well be different to that. How can we insure against that dilemma? It's not obvious, but if we select approaches that are based on long-term sustainable energy sources, and infrastructures that are relevant in the long-term, then we might be on to a winner...


  1. Measurement unit conversion: exajoule
  3. Energy Densities
  4. Wilcock W. (2005). Energy in natural processes and human consumption - some numbers, School of Oceanography, University of Washington
  5. Energy returned on energy invested, Wikipedia
  7. Facts and figures.
  8. World Energy Consumption
  12. Growth of photovoltaics
  14. The Continuing Exponential Growth Of Global Solar PV Production & Installation
  15. Ray Kurzweil: Here’s Why Solar Will Dominate Energy Within 12 Years
  16. IRENA. REthinking Energy 2017: Accelerating the global energy transformation, International Renewable Energy Agency
  17. CAT. How much electricity will a PV roof produce?, Centre for Alternative Technology, Wales, UK.
  18. IRENA (2017). Renewable Capacity Highlights, IRENA (2017), International Renewable Energy Agency
  19. IRENA. Avoided Emissions Calculator, International Renewable Energy Agency
  21. International Energy Agency. Energy Poverty
  27. Sunny Days Ahead For Solar Power
  28. Growth of photovoltaics
  41. Methods for comparing the performance of energy-conversion systems for use in solar fuels and solar electricity generation
  42. What is Innovation?
  60. World Energy Council (2013), World Energy Perspective: Cost of Energy Technologies
  61. Rural electrification systems based on renewable energy: The social dimensions of an innovative technology
  62. Bostock A. (2005). Waste Incineration and its Impact on Health, the Environment, and Sustainability, October 2005, Version 1.3, Acro Logic. Commissioned by Alan Meale, the MP for Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, UK.
  63. Plumer B. (2017). Scientists made a detailed “roadmap” for meeting the Paris climate goals. It’s eye-opening., Vox Media
  64. Plumer B. (2015). Geoengineering is a ludicrous way to deal with climate change. Let's consider it anyway., Vox Media
  65. IPEN. What are POPs?
  76. REN21: About Us
  77. REN21
  78. About the World Energy Council
  81. Bostock A. (2016). Science, NG19X Futures
  82. Lamb E. (2012). 5 Sigma What's That?, Scientific American blog
  83. Times Higher Education (2017). World University Rankings 2016-2017, select Research category
  84. Energy Research Directory
  85. [Solar Keymark Test Laboratories]
  86. Electrical Energy Technology Laboratory
  87. Singapore Clean Energy
  88. Singapore makes progress in testing renewable energy technologies
  89. Solar Energy Research Institute of Singapore (SERIS)
  90. Research Centre for Applied Science and Technology (RECAST)
  91. RECAST (Nepal)
  92. CERN
  93. Energy Laboratories at EPFL
  94. laboratories, Fraunhofer IWES
  95. Energy Technology and Fluid Dynamics: Laboratories
  96. Laboratories
  97. Laboratory of Systems and Applications of Information and Energy Technologies (SATIE)
  98. LITEN
  99. University of Patras: Physics
  100. Offshore Renewable Energy Engineering Centre
  101. European Marine Energy Centre
  102. Pathway to commercialisation: An EMEC guide to research, development and testing of marine energy technology
  103. Renewable Energy Systems Technology
  104. Energy Research Unit
  105. Scottish Energy Laboratory
  106. Scottish Energy Laboratory
  107. Energy
  108. Smart Energy Labs
  109. Power Networks Demonstration Centre
  110. Energy Technologies Research Institute
  111. University of Southampton: Research Group: Energy Technology
  112. Sustainable Thermal Energy Technologies Laboratory
  113. Health and Safety Laboratory: Energy
  114. National Renewable Energy Centre
  115. CCFE Research
  116. science and technology capabilities
  117. Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
  118. Laboratories
  119. Clean Energy Research Lab (Canada)
  120. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  121. Wind Energy Institute of Canada, facilities
  122. National Research Council of Canada, renewable energy research facilities
  123. Fusion Research
  124. Dr. Sun's Nanomaterials and Energy Group
  125. United States Department of Energy national laboratories
  126. National Labs,
  127. Office of Science Laboratories
  128. Map
  129. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
  130. energy research agenda, NREL
  131. National Wind Technology Center
  132. Bioenergy Centre
  133. Center for Photovoltaics
  134. NREL, The Labs
  135. Research Facilities
  136. Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center
  137. Energy and Climate
  138. Quantum Energy and Sustainable Solar Technologies (QESST)
  139. Gas Technology Institute
  140. Hawaii Natural Energy Institute
  141. Energy Systems Laboratory
  142. Northeast Solar Energy Research Center
  143. NC Clean Energy Test Center
  144. National Energy Technology Laboratory: On-site research facilities
  145. NETL
  146. Solar Testing
  147. Clean Energy Institute
  148. Oak Ridge National Lab: Science and Discovery
  149. Oak Ridge National Laboratory
  150. Core Energy Labs and Centers
  151. Solar Technology Acceleration Center (SolarTAC)
  152. batteries and energy storage
  153. Los Alamos National Laboratory: Energy Research
  154. Energy and Environment
  155. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
  156. tools and instruments
  157. Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology
  158. Physical Measurement Laboratory
  159. Material Measurement Laboratory
  160. Building Integrated Photovoltaic Testbed
  161. facilities
  162. Facilities
  163. Facilities
  164. NASA
  180. World Nuclear Association (2017). Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities
  181. Song L. (2011). Decommissioning a Nuclear Plant Can Cost $1 Billion and Take Decades, Reuters article
  182. US NRC. Backgrounder on Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
  183. EC (2017). Energy: Decommissioning of nuclear facilities, European Commission.
  184. US NRC. Backgrounder on Radioactive Waste, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
  185. EPA Defining Hazardous Waste: Listed, Characteristic and Mixed Radiological Wastes, Environmental Protection Agency
  187. [ Evaluation of the Wave Energy Conversion Efficiency in Various Coastal Environments]
  188. Wind Turbine Power Calculations
  189. Wind Power Fundamentals
  190. Wind Turbine Power Coefficient (Cp)
  191. Amazing Innovations in 2016, A review of amazing developments in science and technology in the year 2016, compiled by Innovation Future Specialist.
  192. Bostock A (2017). Innovation Future Gallery, Innovation Future Specialist
  193. Assessment of sustainability indicators for renewable energy technologies, Evans et al, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews: Volume 13, Issue 5, June 2009, Pages 1082–1088
  194. Julia Oberschmidt, Jutta Geldermann, Jens Ludwig, Meike Schmehl, (2010). "Modified PROMETHEE approach for assessing energy technologies", International Journal of Energy Sector Management, Vol. 4 Issue: 2, pp.183-212, doi: 10.1108/17506221011058696
  195. S.D. Pohekar and M. Ramachandran (2004). Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning—A review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews: Volume 8, Issue 4, August 2004, Pages 365–381
  196. Pekka Salminen. Joonas Hokkanen. Risto Lahdelma. (1998). Comparing multicriteria methods in the context of environmental problems, European Journal of Operational Research: Volume 104, Issue 3, 1 February 1998, Pages 485-496]
  197. Bilal A. Akash. et al (1997). Multi-criteria analysis of non-conventional energy technologies for water desalination in Jordan, Desalination: Volume 114, Issue 1, 1 December 1997, Pages 1-12
  198. E. Tsioliaridoua, G.C. Bakosa, and M. Stadlerb (2006). A new energy planning methodology for the penetration of renewable energy technologies in electricity sector—application for the island of Crete, Energy Policy: Volume 34, Issue 18, December 2006, Pages 3757–3764
  199. Mads Troldborg, Simon Heslop, and Rupert L. Hough (2014). Assessing the sustainability of renewable energy technologies using multi-criteria analysis: Suitability of approach for national-scale assessments and associated uncertainties, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews: Volume 39, November 2014, Pages 1173–1184
  200. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Life Cycle Assessments of Energy Technologies
  201. Timothy J. Skone et al (2013). Power Generation Technology Comparison from a Life Cycle Perspective National Energy Technology Laboratory
  202. Daniel Weisser (2007). A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologies, Energy: Volume 32, Issue 9, September 2007, Pages 1543–1559
  203. Weidmann et al (2011). Application of Hybrid Life Cycle Approaches to Emerging Energy Technologies – The Case of Wind Power in the UK, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2011, 45 (13), pp 5900–5907
  204. Varuna, I.K. Bhata, Ravi Prakashb (2009). LCA of renewable energy for electricity generation systems—A review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews: Volume 13, Issue 5, June 2009, Pages 1067–1073
  205. World Nuclear Association, Comparison of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Various Electricity Generation Sources
  206. Joskoaw, Paul L. (2011) Comparing the Costs of Intermittent and Dispatchable Electricity Generating Technologies, The American Economic Review, Volume 101, Number 3, May 2011, pp. 238-241(4)
  208. Susan M. Schoenung and William V. Hassenzahl (2003). Long- vs. Short-Term Energy Storage Technologies Analysis: A Life-Cycle Cost Study: A Study for the DOE Energy Storage Systems Program, Sandia National Laboratories
  209. Ronald DiFelice (2015). We Need a Better Way to Compare the Performance of Energy Storage Technologies
  210. Florian Klumpp (2016). Comparison of large-scale energy storage technologies, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Energy: ISSN 1751-4223 | E-ISSN 1751-4231: Volume 169 Issue 4, November, 2016, pp. 148-160
  211. Comparing Waste-to-Energy technologies by applying energy system analysis, Münster and Lund, Waste Management: Volume 30, Issue 7, July 2010, Pages 1251–1263
  212. Moss, R.L., Tzimas, E., Kara, H., Willis, P., & Kooroshy, J. (2011). Critical Metals in Strategic Energy Technologies. Assessing Rare Metals as Supply-Chain Bottlenecks in Low-Carbon Energy Technologies (EUR--24884-EN-2011). Netherlands
  213. Dr. Patrick Devine-Wright (2007). Reconsidering public attitudes and public acceptance of renewable energy technologies: a critical review, Manchester Architecture Research Centre, University of Manchester
  214. Carrera and Mack (2010). Sustainability assessment of energy technologies via social indicators: Results of a survey among European energy experts Energy Policy: Volume 38, Issue 2, February 2010, Pages 1030–1039
  215. Cost of electricity by source
  217. Utility Week (2016). Levelised cost of energy ‘ill suited’ for comparing technologies
  218. Australian government (2014). Asia-Pacific Renewable Energy Assessment
  219. Comparing The Costs Of Renewable And Conventional Energy Sources, Energy Innovation Policy and Technology LLC
  220. World Energy Council (2013). World Energy Perspective: Cost of Energy Technologies
  221. Renewable Energy Sources: Cost Comparison
  223. John F. Clarke. Author links open the author workspace.J.A. Edmonds (1993). Modelling energy technologies in a competitive market, Energy Economics: Volume 15, Issue 2, April 1993, Pages 123-129
  224. Anthony D. Owen (2004). Environmental Externalities, Market Distortions and the Economics of Renewable Energy Technologies, The Energy Journal: Vol. 25, No. 3 (2004), pp. 127-156
  225. Solar Trade Association (2015). Comparing the cost of electricity generation from Hinkley Point C with solar and flexibility mechanisms
  226. Sascha Rexhäusera and Andreas Löschel (2015). Invention in energy technologies: Comparing energy efficiency and renewable energy inventions at the firm level, Energy Policy: Volume 83, August 2015, Pages 206–217
  227. Ted (2016). Ted's Guide to Ideas, Innovation Future Specialist (UK)
  228. Committee on U.S.-China Cooperation on Electricity from Renewable Resources, Policy and Global Affairs Division, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES AND CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES CHINESE ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING (2010). THE POWER OF RENEWABLES: Opportunities and Challenges for China and the United States: Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts of Renewable Electricity Generation, National Academies Press
  229. IAEA (1999). Impacts of Electricity Generation Systems: Procedures for Comparative Assessment, TECHNICAL REPORTS SERIES No. 394, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, VIENNA, 1999
  230. World Energy Council (2004). Comparison of energy systems using life cycle assessment, A Special Report of the World Energy Council, London.
  231. Rohr et al (2015). Potential Occupational Exposures and Health Risks Associated with Biomass-Based Power Generation, Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015 Jul; 12(7): 8542–8605. Published online 2015 Jul 22. doi: 10.3390/ijerph120708542
  232. Ecological footprint, Wikipedia
  233. WWF (2016). Living Planet Report 2016
  234. List of environmental issues, Wikipedia
  235. Life-cycle assessment, Wikipedia
  236. Sustainability Measurement, Wikipedia
  237. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, United Nations.
  238. System of Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting, Wikipedia
  240. WHO (2008). Evaluating household energy and health interventions: A catalogue of methods ISBN 978 92 4 159691 6
  241. NIOSH. INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
  242. World Health Organisation. Indoor air pollution and household energy
  451. Lang P. Cost and quantity of greenhouse gas emissions avoided by wind generation; 2009
  452. Lambert T, Gilman P, Lilienthal P. Micropower system modeling with HOMER. In: Farret FA, Simoes MG, editors. Integration of alternative sources of energy. John Wiley & Sons; 20050471712329
  453. Lilienthal PD, Lambert TW, Gilman P. Computer modeling of renewable power systems. In: Cleveland CJ, editor. Encyclopedia of energy Volume, vol. 1. Elsevier Inc.; 2004.p. 633–47. NREL Report No. CH-710-36771
  454. HOMER Pro Features
  455. Methods and tools to evaluate the availability of renewable energy sourcesAthanasios Angelis-Dimakisa, Markus Biberacher
  456. Sen and Bhattacharyya (2014). Off-grid electricity generation with renewable energy technologies in India: An application of HOMER, Renewable Energy: Volume 62, February 2014, Pages 388–398