You claim that conservation of energy only applies to conversion of energy and not generation. Tell me, do you even know what energy generation is?
Because the collective human knowledge does not know how to generate energy. All we’ve been able to do in our entire history was manipulate it from one form into another. Always with losses, some more than others. Why superconductors are worth the research even though we can only have them exist at hard to maintain temperatures is because they don’t have losses.
Earlier in this you also stated that it is not something from nothing, it is more from less. This is contradicting itself as more from less when referring to energy implies that there is more total energy at the end than there was at the beginning. Which is itself claiming to be able to create and destroy energy.
Remember that every piece of matter has some form of energy in potential form, and some in the form of heat or light etc. The ultimate goal in terms of energy generation is converting it perfectly from one form to another without any losses. Even a hydroelectric power station that uses a natural river is using energy from the sun and gravity to generate electricity. The sun being used to replenish the water reserves and gravity providing the necessary force to spin the turbines which in turn use induction to generate electricity.
You also argue that it working does not mean you can make money from it. Do you know how stupid you’d have to be to not know how to make money from a relatively infinite source of electricity?
Set up a shack and recharge car batteries after rectification and voltage control for money if you can’t think large scale.

You haven't been paying attention to history...
Many an inventor has come and gone with nothing commercial to show for his efforts, not for lack of trying, but for lack of public awareness to support his success.
It's true that we don't control the public media, nor do we control the educational system which teaches you, and many others, what is wrong and what is right, and to be able to tell the difference between the two.
Yet, all of us have been kept ignorant on how flexible is energy.
Energy cannot be created, nor destroyed, yet it can be converted from one format into another format.
Sound advice, yet let's take this one step further...
If we were to disassociate the ingredients of electricity from one another, yet continue to retain these elemental ingredients together in close proximity (retained within the same circuit which spawned this disassociation), then we'd have voltage, alone, plus "voltage divided by resistance", and both within a context of time. We will have satisfied the conversion of energy from one format into another format, for we will have converted watts into volts/amperes (real power converted into reactive power) of a negative unity, power factor.
This "voltage divided by resistance" is what we also call: current. In other words, a change in voltage over time due to the impact which resistance has upon voltage.
This disassociation (conversion) of real power into reactive power of negative unity, power factor is brought about by inverting current's phase relation when compared to the phase relation of voltage. If they can be maintained with 180 degrees of angular difference between them throughout the entire cycle of oscillations, then we'd have the definition for an electrical output of a conventional rotary generator or a battery.
Both of these conventional examples (a battery and a rotary generator) merely convert the energy of an external prime mover into electrical energy issuing from their outputs. A battery converts the chemistry placed inside of it and a rotary generator converts falling water (at a hydro-electric power plant).
But...
Once we've converted real power into reactive power, the Conservation of Energy no longer applies to reactive power. That's the "catch", ie. trick and dirty little secret. This is due to the inability for an inductive or capacitive load to be able to "see" reactive power and, thus, convert it into real power so that it can exit the circuit as: light, or heat, or the motion of electromagnetics in a motor. Only resistance "see's" reactive power. As far as a load coil, for instance, is concerned, the reactive power is invisible until it meets up with resistance and gets corrected for its negative unity, power factor to become positive unity, power factor and exit the circuit.
Because of this inability for a load to "see" reactive power of negative unity, power factor, it clones copies of itself at every half cycle of oscillations. Meanwhile, the prior waves do not die out, because there is no load to impede them. They remain invisible to a load until they are converted back into real power waves. This cloning process is commonly called, by electrical engineers, as: resonant rise, in which the reactive power (of negative unity, power factor) surges upwards towards the destruction of its host-circuit unless checked and regulated from doing so.
We haven't created, nor destroyed, energy. We have expanded, or contracted, reactive power which was originally converted from real power before this reactive power was amplified or diminished. Then, we may convert this finished product back into real power with the consequence that this finished product may be greater than, or less than, the energy which we started with.
Conservation of Energy was not violated in the intermediate, second, step, because we were dealing with reactive power which is not energy. It is also lossless.
Nor has Conservation of Energy been violated in the first or third steps of converting real power into reactive power or converting reactive power into real power.
Like a potter manipulating the clay upon his work bench, we are gods (in the making) for we have the ability to "INDIRECTLY" manipulate energy via this intermediate, second, step involving - not energy, but - reactance.
See how the media, ie. Wikipedia and our teachers, have misrepresented the slight complexity of the situation by over-simplifying it?...by getting us to focus on merely one-half of this puzzle?...the real part?...while encouraging us to ignore the reactant part?
If you study other avenues of propaganda, more often than not, it is far easier to misrepresent something by merely giving us some of the truth while leaving out other parts. In this partial void of complete knowledge, we are capable of manufacturing fables to help stitch the remaining parts of knowledge (that we are aware of) together in an attempt to make wholistic sense of it all.
Yet, we have failed to think for ourselves!
All I had to do was to ignore our teachers, and our common sense, and let simulators teach me by way of their setting an example for me to emulate within my thoughts. And, then, I searched for anyone who would verify my experience. Those teachers are hard to find, because they are so unpopular. But that doesn't make them wrong. Oh, contrare! That makes them even more valuable.
True, there are con artists. But they are as simple-minded as is the public...which is where the problem lies: our lack of "wholistic" perspective on this subject.
I will finish with one more example...
Many times, we are told by Europeans, that we Americans are withheld from knowing all of the facts of our current events. Europeans know more about what goes on inside of our own borders than we know, ourselves. Ask any political critic, and he will tell you this same, sad fact.
A guy on EnergeticForum scanned a newspaper article, which he found in his local, European library, which cannot be as easily found within American libraries if it can be found at all. It was a front page article on the Ammann brothers' demonstration of their EV conversion running around the streets of Denver 100 years ago.

XXXXX

One of the brothers never made it to the United States Patent Office - not for lack of trying, but because he was arrested on charges that he was "stealing energy from the grid." How else do you charge someone with arrest, and maintain our collective ignorance at the same time, but by lying?
He wasn't stealing anything since only the consumers of the electric utility grid at the perimeter of the brothers' several mile range of influence suffered any loss of power due, not to any loss, but to a disturbance (ie. conversion) of the power on the grid into its reactive components but without making up the difference.
Meanwhile, the consumers of the electric utility grid who were located well within the range of influence of the Ammann brothers' demonstration, namely: located in downtown Denver, had no power outage. Why? Because the brothers were supplying them with power from their device.
The correct arrest charge would have been: domestic terrorism, not theft, for the Ammann brothers were supplying energy only to those customers of the grid who were at the center of their range of influence while all of the customers of the utility grid within their range of influence were having their power supply, coming from the grid, disrupted.
To the customers at the center of their demonstration, it didn't matter that their grid was having its phase relations between its voltage and its current disrupted since the brothers' made up the difference.
But at the periphery of this broadcast radius, no appreciable level of power was able to reach these customers to make up the difference for whatever power coming from the grid was disrupted.