The Ultimate Energy Source
by James Jaeger

The ultimate source of energy is nuclear FUSION, also known as plasma fusion. FUSION should not be confused with FISSION, the type of nuclear energy used at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. FUSION is the same process that powers stars, our Sun being the closest star.

FUSION is a source of energy that's been in development since the 1950s. With FUSION, one gallon of sea water contains the same amount of energy as 350 gallons of gasoline. Thus, once FUSION technology is deployed, humanity will have an almost unlimited source of energy, energy in three basic forms: electrical power, liquid fuels and heat.

After a long and torturous history, FUSION technology hit a major milestone in 1995. This milestone is called BREAKEVEN. It is expected that the next, and final, milestone will be hit within a matter of years. This milestone is called IGNITION. Both breakeven and ignition will be explained later in this article.

The reason some feel it has been taking too long to develop fusion has not been entirely due to technical challenges. The main reasons have been due to political ineptness, insufficient, sporadic funding and price games being played with the American consumer by OPEC. Once ignition is attained, scientists will have certainty that FUSION is viable. From that point on, the world energy game will change dramatically. It is possible that ignition has already happened, but this fact has not yet been released to the public.

FUSION is a clean energy resource. Unlike other forms of nuclear energy, there are no waste by-products with fusion. In fact, FUSION is so hot, it can be used to "flash" trash and waste products into their constituent atoms. Once reduced to individual atoms, "clean" waste products can be recycled as never before.

FUSION uses hydrogen as its main source of fuel. Water is made up of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. Thus, the world's oceans are in essence the basic fuel needed for FUSION. There is enough seawater on Earth to sustain FUSION reactions for over one billion years.

As mentioned above, not only can FUSION provide HEAT to generate electricity in the classical (way with turbines), but ELECTRICITY can be derived directly from fusion processes. This makes the production of electricity from COAL, NATURAL GAS, NUCLEAR FISSION and HYDRO virtually obsolete. As if this isn't enough, there's more: METHANOL, a liquid fuel, can be manufactured directly from FUSION reactions. METHANOL is a viable substitute for all petroleum products, including gasoline. Thus, FUSION can not only supply all of Earth's ELECTRICAL needs, but all of Earth's LIQUID-fuel needs. A FUSION economy is thus universal, infinitely powerful, unbelievably cheap and clean.

Lastly, FUSION opens the door to a new order of powerful rocket engines. Because of this, manned and detailed exploration of the Solar System, and eventually the stars, become possible.


Modern civilization currently runs on basically two (2) types of energy:


Liquid fuel, which is mostly gasoline, comes from petroleum, also known as oil. Electricity comes mostly from coal however it also comes from natural gas, fission nuclear plants and water power. Here are more specific breakdowns as to where electricity comes from as of this date:

Coal 40%
Natural Gas 19%
Oil 7%
Nuclear 16%
Hydroelectric 16%
Geothermal .65%
Biomass 1%
Wind .31%
Solar .04%

Given the above, one can see that fossil fuels (coal, natural gas and oil) provide 66% of the electricity. Although oil only provides 7% of our electricity, it supplies most of the energy for transportation.

When OPEC tightens the screws, it is the cost of oil and gasoline that become a serious problem. At this writing, the cost of oil is about $135 per barrel and gasoline is bucking $4.00 a gallon. See Earth's Energy Problem at for more information on oil and Saudi Arabia's influence.

Thus the problem of electricity generation is DIFFERENT from the problem of transportation. We have two (2) basic problems:


When you confront high gasoline prices (Problem A), you need to deal with the causes and remedies of Problem A.

When you confront high electricity prices (Problem B), you need to deal with the causes and remedies of Problem B.

If some solution were to come about that could remedy BOTH Problem A and Problem B at the same time, would this not be a "better" solution than a solution that just remedies Problem A or Problem B? Such a solution fortunately exists: FUSION.


Since the world basically runs on electricity, it is convenient to translate every energy source (oil, coal, gas, nuclear, water, wind, solar) into terms of electrical power. Thus, when considering Earth's energy requirements and estimating the magnitude of the problem, it makes sense to translate everything into a common unit, a common term. The terawatt (TW) is that common unit, a unit that allows us to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges across the energy spectrum. Thus a terawatt is a trillion watts of electricity. (For those of you professional scientists who read this, I understand your concern that the terms "energy," "power" and "watts" when applied to electricity are NOT interchangeable, but please bear with me, I am simply trying to get basic ideas across to the lay public.)

Cosmologists place the age of the known universe at 13.7 billion years. They expect the universe to "live" for over a trillion years, given its density and the Hubble constant. Earth is therefore a young growing civilization in a young universe. Such a civilization, therefore, will want to use all the power it can, just like a growing teenager. This is fine, so long as that civilization does not do stupid things like kill its host planet or poison its biosphere in the process. Unfortunately, we are not only young, we are dumb, for we are doing just such a thing. We have been using and relying on fossil fuels, particularly oil, for way too long. Whether or not we have global warming or climate change, it's now time to seek a permanent solution to our energy problems. That permanant solution is obviously FUSION. If we change to anything else, we will soon need to change again. Changing a world's energy infrastructure is an enormous and painful undertaking so Humanity should give itself a break and do it right.

The current population of Earth is using about 16 terawatts of power each year. Each year, this power usage increases. By the year 2025 the Earth will be using about 28 terawatts of power. By 2050 it will use about 53 terawatts and by 2100 it will use almost 200 terawatts of power each and every year. This usage has been extrapolated from the usage curve humanity has actually experienced since the 1790's, so it's reasonably assured -- and given some Malthsian Global Government from the UN or the Club of Rome does not put us back in the Dark Ages.

So at these rates of consumption, how many cumulative terawatts of power will human civilization use in the next, 25, 50 and 100 years? Will we have enough oil, coal and natural gas to meet the demand? Given an understanding of terawatts, here is a new term for you: terawatt-years, abbreviated TWYs. This simply means, that if you have 32 terawatts of oil, you have enough oil to burn it at a rate of 32 terawatts per year for one year, or burn it at a rate of 16 terawatts a year for two years. If you only burn it at the rate of one terawatt per year, 32 TWYs of oil will last you for 32 years. With this in mind, here is an estimation of how much of each energy source we have on Earth.

Known OIL = 202 TWYs
Known COAL = 790 TWYs
Conventional NATURAL GAS = 206 TWYs
Methane hydrate NATURAL GAS = 24,000 TWYs
FISSION without reprocessing = 685 TWYs
FISSION with reprocessing = 50,000 TWYs
FUSION = 100,000,000,000 TWYs

Notice that we have, for instance, 790 TWYs of coal. At the current rate humanity is consuming power, i.e., 16 terawatts per year, as mentioned above, humanity will have enough coal to supply this consumption for 49.4 years (790/16 = 49.4). Since however, we are a young dumb civilization, we will need and require more energy over the decades. Thus, as discussed above, humanity will be using 28 terawatts per year by the year 2025. This means, at that rate of consumption, that same coal reserve of 790 TWYs will only last 28.2 years. By 2100, we will be using 200 terawatts per year. At this rate, the coal will be used up in 3.9 years. Thus, as civilization advances, it uses up its resources at a much faster rate.

Obviously, at 100 billion, FUSION provides, by far, the most number of TWYs of energy. Thus, since we are on the verge of, or have attained IGNITION, why not go for the energy source that's BILLIONS of times more effective? Put our funds and resources here. This is a case where GREED IS GOOD. FUSION can supply a greedy humanity with any amount of CLEAN energy it needs or wants not only into the next century, but for the next BILLION years.

In light of the physical potential of FUSION, and its attainability, those who advocate CONSERVATION -- or ANY other formes of energy -- are unrealistic, if not laughable, stupid morons with an agenda that is not in the best interests of Humanity. Such poeople, pundits, anchors, scientists and politicians should be totally ignored in the public dialog.


Here's what we can get from FUSION:

A. Heat
B. Methanol
C. Electricity
D. Elements
E. Rocket Engines

HEAT generated from FUSION reactions can be used to run steam-powered electrical generators. Heat generated by the plasma is so intense it can also flash any kind of waste into its constituent elements. This is a remedy for Problem B of above.

METHANOL can be used to fuel transportation systems, thus replacing oil and gasoline as the liquid fuels we are so dependent on. This is a remedy for Problem A of above.

ELECTRICITY can be produced directly by special kinds of plasma fusion generators. This is a remedy for Problem B of above.

ELEMENTS can be recycled thus remedying any scarcity of any elements found on the planet, or in the Solar System.

ROCKET ENGINES using fusion impulses are so powerful they can increase the velocity of current day rockets by orders of magnitude, thus making trips to the Moon, Mars and outer Solar System possible in hours and weeks instead of days and years. Further, trips to the nearest stars actually become possible with such engines -- and the fact that we are finding thousands of planets around these stars gives Humanity the potential of discovering endless new worlds to live upon. Thus Malthus, the Club of Rome, the UN and Agenda 21 freaks are totally and completely wrong when they say resources in an infinite Universe are "rare." These people simply don't know science. These are the facts of life that every child of a Type I Civilization should be told, but they are not because they are educated in government schools that want to expand and dominate the state based upon the doctrine of scarcity and wealth stratification.


If fusion can give us unlimited clean energy, we are in a position to develop new, energy-intensive technologies and this will solve unemployment and poverty across the planet. During the turn of the 18th century aviation was inhibited until aluminum became cheap and abundant. Aluminum became cheap and abundant only because Nikola Tesla invented a new way of transmitting unlimited energy -- alternating current from Niagara Falls. Thus new energy placed Humanity in a position to develop new technologies (aluminum and aviation). The same will happen when FUSION and SOLAR are fully depoloyed.

Right now the energy density of SOLAR is not very significant. It provides a little more than .04% of the electricity mix. If nanotechnology pans out, it could create a new order of solar devices that could boost solar energy to as much as 50% of the mix. Such a scenario would be ideal, for humanity would then be able to get 50% of its terawatts from central FUSION and 50% of its terawatts from distributed SOLAR. This not only provides redundancy, but has a nice symmetry between centralized power and distributed power.

Ideally, many would like to see the coal and natural gas left in the ground; the oil used only for certain manufacturing necessities; the rivers undammed so water can flow as nature wants; dangerous fissile materials left undisturbed; holes left undrilled; crops and vegetation respected, not exploited for energy and open lands free of obnoxious windmills. These are all worthwhile goals of ethical environmentalists that are NOT using the cry of "sustainable development" for global domination in some New World Order.

It makes much more sense to develop:

A. Powerful, highly-productive FUSION plants that provide liquid and electrical energy for heavy industry and transportation, and;

B. A compact, high-tech solar collecting device on the roof-top of every HOUSE and SMALL BUSINESS providing electricity and a backup energy grid in case of centralized power outages.

Again, A and B have symmetry, respect nature and provide the energy density for humanity's industrial and technological growth. They also grant security, both through technological redundancy and political decentralization.

Most important: A and B allow human kind to tap into the almost infinite energy of the Universe, thus removing forever this EXPENSE from the production and balance sheet of all goods and services. This energy dividend will lead to a future of abundance and security and a solution to global poverty and over-population.


Imagine getting a PLASMA to float around in a magnetic field where the probability that a deuterium atom will smash into a tritium atom and fuse. This entire event is based on the plasma density (in particles per cubic meter), the temperature (in kilovolts) and the average particle confinement time (in seconds). All three of these multiplied together to give what's known as the Lawson parameter. But the problem is as you increase the plasma density, the pressure rises and it leaks out of the field faster, thus cooling and attenuating fusion. As you raise the temperature, the pressure also increases doing the same thing. If you add just enough heat (through microwave or laser bombardment) to replace the heat lost due to containment leakage, you have attained what's known as BREAKEVEN. The Lawson parameter for BREAKEVEN is 9 X 10^20 KeV-particle-seconds/m^3. BREAKEVEN was attained in 1995 at the European JET tokamak. To get IGNITION, you have to have a Lawson parameter of 4 x 10^21 KeV-particle-seconds/m^3 (or 4 x 10^21 keV-s/m^3 for short). Ignition thus means, any energy loss due to leakage is replaced by heat produced from FUSION in such quantities that external heat sources (microwave and laser bombardment) are no longer necessary. At this point, the fuel becomes the hydrogen found in water. Thus, the FUSION reaction can continue until you run out of water or stop feeding it hydrogen. Again, there is enough hydrogen in a gallon of water, when fused, to provide the same energy output as 350 gallons of gasoline. Thus, on Earth alone, there is enough raw fuel to keep fusion reactions going for 100 billion of years. This new energy source is worth going after and does not have to be far away, if it's properly funded.

Given all these challenges to get the Lawson parameter high enough, I don't see why fusion isn't attempted in zero gravity. If a plasma were super-heated in zero gravity, I would think much less magnetic containment would be necessary, maybe none. If containment were solved, leakage would be solved. If leakage were solved, temperature would be solved. If temperature were solved, density would be solved. If density is solved, fusion probability would be solved. If fusion probability is solved, then greater instances of actual fusion will happen thus greater heat will be generated sustaining the reaction in excess of the loss due to leakage.

The solution to all this (if it must be kept on Earth) may be to drastically increase the voltage to the electromagnetic container, AND simultaneously decreasing its size, thus there will be less leakage and greater density. Less leakage and greater density increase the Lawson parameter by a significant factor. Thus greater probability of sustained ignition and lower cost of construction, i.e., a smaller reactor takes less time and money to build than a larger one.


When one brings up FUSION, you will sometimes hear people say: "What's taking so long, it's been in development for over 50 years."

According to rocket engineer Robert Zubrin, in his book ENERGY VICTORY, it's true, fusion HAS been in development for many years, since 1953 in fact. But as Zubrin goes on to point out, this is more a "gross failure of political leadership" than technological challenges. Here's a summary of that gross political leadership.

Until the oil shock of 1973, the fusion budget was below $35 million in 1950 dollars ($200 million per year in 2006 dollars, which will be used hereafter). Between 1973 and 1983 the annual fusion budget shot up to $800 to $900 billion. Incredible progress was made during this time under the Ford, Carter and first Reagan administrations. Then in 1986, OPEC -- playing the bait and switch game they so often play -- lowered the price of oil back down to $12 per barrel. When this happened the brilliant minds running the government reduced the fusion budget to $300 billion over the course of 1986 to 1998. They in effect cut the fusion budget in half, figuring that our Arab-Islamic "friends" in the Middle East would never screw us on the price of oil again. The budget cut was so drastic, that a new $400 million MFTF-B magnetic reactor built at the Livermore Lab was decommissioned be for it was ever turned on to see what it could do. The only reactor left was the TFTR machine at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab. This reactor was barely funded (in the range of $350 million a year) and then in 1996, Al Gore, the Clinton Administration's leading science policy advisor, cut the fusion budget in half again, thus demonstrating to the world exactly how sincere he really is about Global Warming.

In effect, American energy policy, since 1973, has actually been dictated by OPEC. Every time OPEC lowers the price of oil, the morons in the government lower the budget for FUSION. Every time OPEC raises the price of oil, the morons in the government raise the budget for FUSION.

So here we are today in 2008 and our "friends" in Saudi Arabia are causing OPEC to charge us $136 per barrel and the morons in the American public are still asking: "What's taking so long with fusion, it's been in development for over 50 years."

As of now, there is virtually no FUSION project in the U.S. except for the Fusion Ignition Reactor Experiment (FIRE). The biggest fusion project in the world -- the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) -- was started around 1985 by a bunch of bureaucrats who figured it was better to pool resources and get the Americans, Soviets, Europeans and Japanese working together. Thus in 2005, after 20 years of deliberation, the ITER bureaucrats finally figured out WHERE they were going to build their first reactor . . . France. It's rumored they will soon begin construction and we will have FUSION by the year 2050 or 2100.

According to Zubrin, the problem with the whole FUSION scene is there needs to be some Sputnik-style competition between countries, not so much committee-style cooperation. I would add, the FUSION budget needs to be drastically increased. Perhaps 5 to 10 percent of the military budget should be re-allocated to U.S.-based FUSION projects. Of course, many will balk at this, so let's demand that at least a matching portion of the military budget we spend defending our oil interests in the Middle East be allocated to FUSION research and development, and then when we get FUSION, we can withdraw our forces from that troubled area forever and realize the savings.

In any event, FUSION research and development should be hyper-funded NO MATTER WHAT THE PRICE OF OIL (OR ANY OTHER ENERGY) IS OR BECOMES. Sustainable energy independence starts with FUNDING independence and marching in the correct direction based on the LONG-term, not the hedonist, money-mentality's short-term remedy based on ignorance and greed.

FUSION TECHNOLOGY IS BILLIONS OF TIMES MORE VALUABLE THAN ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY AND IF WE DO IT RIGHT, WE WILL NEVER HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN. HUMANITY WILL THUS SPARE ITSELF THE TROUBLE OF CHANGING ITS ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE EVERY 50 OR 100 YEARS. Changing the energy infrastructure of a WORLD is FAR more difficult than merely sending a man to the Moon (or even to Mars). But it can done: if the proper resources are allocated.


An energy infrastructure based on FUSION and SOLAR technology would be a dream. FUSION can provide heat, electricity and methanol for heavy centralized industry and transportation. SOLAR can provide electricity for homes and light industry.

Imagine pulling up to a Service Station of the future in a world where FUSION provides half the energy. The population could have its choice of vehicles that run on either LIQUID fuels, ELECTRIC fuel or BOTH. A car that ran on both might be called an ELECTRIC-METHANOL hybrid. Such a vehicle would have a flex-fuel engine (that can not only run on methanol, but any combination of methanol, ethanol or gasoline). This engine would turn a generator that produces on-board electricity, electricity that is stored in a high-capacity on-board battery. The electricity would be used on-demand to power two or four electric motors that power the drive chain.

Since the car can STORE electricity in its high-capacity battery, it can also be "filled up" at a MULTI-FUEL STATION. You drive up to the "pump" and you pump electrons into your battery at a super high rate of speed. Your car is thus "filled up" with electricity in say 1 or 2 minutes. This same electricity can be driven back to your home and used to fillup your home's dual Tesla-like batteries.

Since the MULTI-FUEL STATION also sells ethanol, you might simultaneously fill up your tank with ethanol in case you have to ever make electricity locally, i.e., in your car because the next nearest MULTI-FUEL STATION is too far away, OR you simply don't have time stop at one.

Thus, at the same FUEL STATION, you can have electricity and/or liquid methanol, both products of the high-capacity FUSION infrastructure. Both, competing energy sources, at the same commercial outlet. But why stop there. The MULTI-FUEL STATION of the future could also sell gasoline and ethanol. Thus four energy sources, at least two the products of CENTRALIZED FUSION, would be in competition, driving prices even lower.


If a FUSION dividend somehow makes nano-assisted SOLAR viable some day, every house and light industrial establishment could have SOLAR devices on its roof-top. There is no reason these devices couldn't use more of the spectrum than just the visible. They would thus work in sunny as well as cloudy regions.

A system of de-centralized (i.e., distributed) electricity is desirable. First of all, it provides an independent electrical grid to the FUSION-based electrical system. If the government every goes berserk, the lights and computers still stay on at your house.

If the centralized system ever crashes, it can "borrow" electricity from the distributed SOLAR grid until it's back on-line. By definition, the decentralized SOLAR grid could never go down -- and that's the beauty of it.

There is also no reason you could not "fill up" your car with electricity right at your HOME PUMP or OFFICE PUMP. Since the power of the centralized FUSION system isn't present in your home or office, it will probably take much longer, 3 - 9 hours instead of 1 - 2 minutes, but the electricity would be essentially free. After all, it comes from the sun.

Since a home takes much less energy than a car to power, there is no reason one could not purchase electricity from their local MULTI-FUEL STATION and bring it home in their car battery. The car battery could thus fill up the house battery, for those days you are going to need extra power, such as maybe parties or emergencies.


Thus, if the world's technologists focused on these two systems, SOLAR and FUSION, instead of wasting time, money and thought on a myriad of "alternative" systems, we would arrive at a world with abundant, clean, cheap (if not free) energy much sooner.

Such an energy system would provide many investment opportunities for competing technologies as well as continue to use the best parts of the existing energy infrastructure. There is no need to build tens of thousands of "new" service stations all over the country. The service station proprietors would simply ADD products (PUMPS) to their repertoire. The pumps and underground tanks for gasoline already exist. Sure ethanol and methanol are more corrosive than gasoline, so a gasoline tank or two would probably have to be excavated from the ground (at each station) and replaced with tanks that can handle ethanol and methanol. Or perhaps a single tank could be divided in two, thus one that holds both fuels.

Or better yet, why not just build underground tanks that can hold all three at once. Who cares whether the ethanol, methanol and gasoline get mixed in the underground tanks or in your car's tank, it all gets mixed in the car's tank sooner or later in a flex-fuel vehicle.

Instead of pulling huge underground tanks out of the ground and replacing them with corrosion-proof tanks (that handle all three), I bet chemists could come up with some kind of a liquid coating that could corrosion-proof the underground tanks without even exhuming them. Each MULTI-FUEL-STATION proprietor who wants to start carrying methanol and ethanol, simply hires a special company to come by the station with a gasoline truck-size truck filled with the special chemical. The underground tank is simply filled with the special corrosion-proof chemical and then its pumped back into the truck for use at another station. The chemical thus hardens on the inside walls of the underground tank and presto, you have a corrosion-proof tank and new products to sell to the public: alcohol-based fuels.

As far as selling electricity, why couldn't actual pumps simply be replaced with electrical pumps? Since electricity and flammable fuels don't mix, these stations could sell electricity every other hour. Thus the flammable fuels and electricity would never be able to mix. Stations could coordinate. While the station on the north side of the road was open for METHANOL (9am - 10am), the station on the south side of the road would be open for ELECTRICITY (9am - 10am). Then they would reverse.


If progress in controlled FUSION since 1965 has resulted in an advancement of the Lawson parameter by a factor of 10,000 and we are only a Lawson factor of less than 10 as of 2003, then we MUST have achieved ignition by now. I am thus willing to bet some group has obtained sustained ignition of plasma FUSION, but this has not been announced and is probably top secret at this time.

I can see no other reason (other than all the "obvious" reasons the media spews) why the petroleum industry is going so berserk right now and many other strange things are happening?

This might also explain U.S. cockiness the past 5 years, both in terms of wanton printing of Federal Reserve Notes and wanton waging of wars.

When ignition is obtained, it will be the "Patent of the Millennia." You don't think there will be some machination behind the scenes. Look what happened with Tesla when he invented AC and through the DC empire established by the then-powers that be into a whirlwind. When FUSION comes in it will obviously replace the Oil Establishment. I thus maintain neither of the following events will be openly announced until the back room dealings are done:

A. Peak oil.
B. Ignition.

I would hope that if someone has cracked the problem of practical and economical nuclear fusion they will go public as soon as possible, because this is the holy grail of energy. FUSION will be the answer to a lot of problems. But I have no idea what forces may be working against such inventors. My feeling is that A and B have probably already happened as of this writing and probably prior, but it's still secret for many reasons.

There is suddenly an absence of data on the FIRE project as well. It's always the OMISSION of data that pulls an investigation along. We have much OMITTED data with regards to FUSION.

Remember PROPAGANDA is the science of INJECTING false data into society. Truth discovery is the science of discovering OMITTED data.

The corporate media specializes in PROPAGANDA not TRUTH DISCOVERY.


The only "problem" with fusion technology is, once deployed, it will probably render all other energy technologies -- with the sole exception of nanotech-based SOLAR -- obsolete. This is good for the U.S. and the Peoples of Earth -- as it will make the production of all products and services much cheaper and better -- but it may be initially difficult for the Energy Establishment that wants to over-amortize their infrastructure and exploit the markets for profit as much as possible. They may be doing this now, especially if Saudi Arabia's largest field has hit peak oil. See Earth's Energy Problem at This may be why one doesn't hear much about the progress of FUSION technology in the mainstream media -- the oil companies, and other energy companies, spend considerable sums on TV spots. If one does hear about FUSION they often quip: "Oh Fusion, it's still fifty years away." Well I am here to tell you this may not be true. Fusion is so revolutionary, Al Gore and others, have twice cut the funding for it in order to suppress its advancement and placate the corporate energy lobby. For more information on this, and other points, read ENERGY VICTORY by Robert Zubrin as well as one of his earlier books, ENTERING SPACE. A working knowledge of these two books can give one a positive idea on how this dire situation can be turned around.

Today with oil prices hitting $136 per barrel, it should be obvious to all Americans what the OPEC/Saudi Arabia game is: raise the price of oil for as long as possible, then dramatically lower it as soon as investment in alternatives become a threat to the cartel's dominance. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia may have hit peak oil, as investment banker Matt Simmons suggests in his book, TWILIGHT IN THE DESERT. No one knows for sure what the world's oil supply is or whether abiotic oil is a reality. Probably no one will ever know the answer to this question, but the answer is not necessary.


Remember this: The goal is NOT to replace all gasoline with ethanol or methanol. This is impossible. The goal is to replace ONLY Saudi Arabia's output with ethanol AND methanol. Not just ethanol as the media is spewing, but both. And NOT replacing ALL the oil from OPEC -- JUST THE OIL FROM SAUDI ARABIA, the dominating OPEC member-country. There are 10 other countries in OPEC other than Saudi Arabia, however Saudi Arabia controls the price of OPEC oil because they can pull it out of the ground much cheaper than any of the other 10 OPEC members. When the OPEC-member countries meet every year, Saudi Arabia dictates the price of oil. If they say it will be $136 per barrel, it's $136 per barrel, even though it costs Saudi Arabia only $1.50 to pull each barrel from the ground. It costs the other OPEC-member nations much more to pull it out of the ground, thus, if these nations don't obey Saudi Arabia's price quotes and production quotas, Saudi Arabia lowers its prices and forces the other OPEC nations towards bankruptcy. Then they get back in line and charge the price set by Saudi Arabia. So Saudi Arabia, through the OPEC cartel (like the New York bankers through the Federal Reserve System), control the price of oil (as the Fed controls the price of money). Both OPEC and the Fed are anti-free enterprise monopolies. And look at the profit Saudi Arabia makes -- $136 per barrel when it costs $1.50 to produce it -- this is bordering on a criminal monopoly.

The way the mainstream, oil-infested media is attempting to spin any competitor to GASOLINE and OIL -- such as ETHANOL and METHANOL, is exactly this: They tell you ethanol will never replace gasoline and those who think it will are foolhardy. This is a classic straw argument, because this is not, and never was part of the strategy in the first place. They set up a false strategy and then knock it down. Straw argument. What the media is NOT telling you is: there is no attempt to replace ALL gasoline with ethanol, just the production from SAUDI ARABIA. Break Saudi Arabia and you break OPEC. But you can't break Saudi Arabia oil with competition JUST from ethanol. You must bring METHANOL into the picture. The media ALWAYS leaves this out, thus making advocates of an ETHANOL-based economy look stupid or impractical.

Lastly, the media always tries to invalidate the ethanol strategy by stating that ethanol, made from corn and wheat, is driving the cost of food way up. What they fail to say is this: ethanol can be made from a whole list of starchy and high-sugar crops, not just corn or wheat. Secondly, they fail to state such crops can, and should, be purchased from other nations, where there are millions and millions of square miles of farm lands. Also they never state: METHANOL can be made from, not only COAL, but ANY biomass, not just the biomass (crops) humans eat -- ANY bio mass: weeds, leaves, trash, dead trees, plants and crap that strangle waterways, anything that grows, edible or not. Again, methanol can also be made from COAL, the most abundant resource in being in the United States. The U.S. is the PERSION GULF OF COAL. Enough methanol can be made from U.S. coal to completely sink Saudi oil, thus render their influence over OPEN null and void. The media NEVER even utters a word about ANY of this, not even METHANOL. Just ethanol, ethanol, ethanol and how we're using up all the crops and farm land, etc, blah, blah, blah is all you hear out of the oil-infested mainstream media that's "looking out for the folks." And this media blames the FARM LOBBY for getting the government to give it subsidies for ethanol. NONE of this is the full picture. The strategy is: REPLACE SAUDI PRODUCTION WITH ETHANOL AND METHANOL AND GET THIS FROM CROPS AND BIOMASS -- NOT ONLY IN THE US, BUT FROM THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES ALL OVER. This will deal these countries into the game and enable them to grow their economies without being forced to take money from the IMF/World Bank loan sharks and/or grow and export dangerous drugs, such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin. Send dollars to poor farmers in third world nations, don't send petrol dollars to rich OPEC countries, some part of which end up funding Islamofascism against the West.


The TIME article, entitled, "The Clean Energy Scam," (which can be found at,9171,1725975,00.html) is a typical and perfect example of the disinformation campaign being waged against alternatives to oil and gasoline by the mainstream media.

This TIME article mentions ETHANOL about 60 times, OIL about 10 times but it mentions other "clean" energies such as SOLAR, WIND, FUSION and most noteworthy, METHANOL, a viable biofuel, ZERO (0) times. Obviously this debate is between just OIL and ETHANOL (even though there are other clean energy sources).

Methanol isn't even mentioned because METHANOL can come from weed and coal, and this is the ultimate biofuel-competitor to gasoline.

Obviously the mainstream media is using what's known in debate as a "straw argument." They are setting up a false premise and then shooting THAT down so they can appear to be "right." This effectivaly takes attention off the real issues. The false premise is that "ethanol is the answer." Apologists for the Oil Establishment, i.e., the mainstream media, never even MENTION methanol. Carefully read the TIME article and pay close attention to what comes on TV, to verify these outpoints and that they are using a straw argument. Remember, the oil and car companies buy millions of dollars worth of ads from the Time-Warner Empires of the World, so they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, even it it kills the Human race.

If the oil-infested mainstream, corporate-driven MEDIA is waging this much propaganda-war against viable alternatives like ethanol and methanol, imagine what they are going to do as FUSION emerges in the public consciousnesss as humanity's only viable solution.


On 9 June 2008, Bill O'Reilly was the first person on the mainstream media to mention the merits of FLEX-FUEL and METHANOL. He deserves a lot of credit for this. Maybe he actually IS "looking after the folks."


Your oil-infested media is spinning the strategy, omitting important data and adding falsehoods. Get the full, correct strategy by reading ENERGY VICTORY by Robert Zubrin. Then refuse to buy any of the products advertised on your TV or better yet, turn it off completely. Disconnect from sources of propaganda and cultural Marxism.

Contact your congressmen and urge them to research FUSION technology. Send them this primer. Urge them to pass the flex-fuel bill (S-1994) Robert Zubrin suggests in his book, ENERGY STRATEGY, as an emergency measure until FUSION can be fully deployed. It is important to remind them that a flex-fuel solution must allow cars to burn ANY combination of ethanol, methanol or gasoline -- not just gasoline provided by the Energy Monopoly and oil from the OPEC cartel. I repeat: ANY combination of ethanol, methanol or gasoline, NOT just gasoline and ethanol, as the media is disseminating. They don't understand the situation and if the flex-fuel solution doesn't allow methanol to be used in cars, we will not be able to take advantage of the considerable methanol that can be obtained from COAL, any biomass and later FUSION. Methanol produced from coal is a viable alternative to an over-reliance on ethanol (from crops) and gasoline (from OPEC and Canada, etc).

We could be energy independent from Saudi Arabia, hence OPEC, in three years if flex-fuel cars, as above described (and more fully described in Zubrin's book) were mandated by Congress. Brazil has already done this -- become completely energy independent on ethanol in less than 10 years. This is NOT theory. If Congress is not willing to do these two simple things: A) Mandate flex-fuel cars, B) Drastically accelerate funding for FUSION -- it is further evidence they are serving the interests of the Oil Establishment and not the People(2).


If fusion is much safer (from a global terror perspective), wouldn't it be in the world's best interest to replace FISSION plants with FUSION plants? The fact that FUSION is much cheaper, produces more energy less waste, etc., might give places like Iran and North Korea incentives to convert.

Since the world's elite seem to be hell-bent on using terror to scare us all into perpetual war (for gain of their military-industrial-banking complex), and one of their key tactics is to endlessly remind us that countries like IRAN are trying to develop FISSION reactors (which are also capable of refining uranium to weapons grade for bombs) -- maybe this is another reason the world should convert to FUSION.

This way military-industrial-banking elite will either have to segue the world onto FUSION or shut their mouths about terrorist threats -- unless they deliberately want fission so they will have a continuous supply of pretexts to invade countries because "they are terrorists with nuke potentials."


Imagine the opportunities and benefits in a world where multiple liquid fuels and electricity produced from almost infinite FUSION reactions were to compete. Imagine if people could drive electric-cars, liquid-fuel cars or eLiquid-cars.

Remember when one phone company monopolized all phones? What did we have? One color of phone, one or two sizes/shapes, expensive long-distance calls, no wireless or cellular service, no voice-mail, no call-forwarding, no caller-id or a host of other benefits.

Today, the energy industry is in the same state as yesterday's telecommunication industry: a monopoly capitalist darkage.

Competition, free enterprise and diversity must be brought into the picture.

The people must force their government to file anti-trust suits against the oil and car companies if necessary. The apologist mainstream media -- funded by endless oil/automobile advertising revenues -- must be exposed for what it is: a mouthpiece for the Oil Establishment and the Car Establishment, a major part of with is own by the Oil Establishment.

Flex-fuel technology and FUSION will break the back of these monopolies as well as the monopoly currently enjoyed the OPEC cartel currently has on all Americans and citizens of the World.

Petrodollars flooding into OPEC nations -- if attenuated by technologies and infrastructures above discussed -- will de-fund Islamofascism and open up a much cleaner, more powerful world with a broader peace.

I don't know if this is your dream, but it's mine.(3)

(1) Also watch a documentary entitled, FIAT EMPIRE, to see how the Fed's expansion of the money supply effects the price of oil. Congressman Ron Paul is in this film.

(2) See

(3) For more information on ethanol, methanol and fusion, read ENERGY VICTORY by Robert Zubrin, available at Amazon.

Originated: 05 March 2008
Updated: 21 May 2008
Updated & Expanded: 27 May 2008
Expanded: 28 May 2008
Expanded: 29 May 2008
Expanded: 11 June 2008
Touched Up: 03 March 2019

Please forward this to your mailing list. The mainstream media will probably not address this subject because they have conflicts of interest with their advertisers, stockholders and the political candidates they send campaign contributions to. It's thus up to responsible citizens like you to disseminate important issues so that a healthy public discourse can be initiated or continued. Your comments and suggestions are welcome and future versions of this research paper will reflect them.

Permission is hereby granted to excerpt and publish all or part of this article provided nothing is taken out of context. Please give reference to the source URL.

Any responses you proffer in connection with this research paper when emailed or posted as an article or otherwise, may be mass-disseminated in order to continue a public discourse. Unless you are okay with this, please do not respond to anything sent out. We will make every effort, however, to remove names, emails and personal data before disseminating anything you submit.

Don't forget to watch our documentary films listed below so you will have a better understanding of what we believe fuels most of the problems under study at Jaeger Research Institute. We appreciate you referring these documentary films to others, purchasing copies for your library, screening them for home audiences and displaying them on your public-access TV channels. The proceeds from such purchases go to the production of new documentaries. Thank you.

If you wish to be removed from this mailing list go to but first please be certain you are not suffering from Spamaphobia as addressed at


Mission | Full-Spectrum News | Movies by James Jaeger | Sponsor |
Jaeger Research Institute