Environment & Energy

Last edited Fri Apr 17, 2026, 05:56 PM - Edit history (1)

...International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, linked here, was in 1976.

Let's see...um...it's um, what, 2026. Can we do some addition and subtraction? 2026-1976 =?

Could it be 50?

How many years in a century? Could that be 100?

50/100 is what? Could it be 1/2?

Half a century? You don't say?

Now, perhaps I'm being confused with a scientifically illiterate rube who hasn't been reading the primary scientific literature for many decades on the subject of energy and the environment.

But I have been involved in understanding energy issues for decades, going back to the 1970s when I was a dumb shit antinuke, through the period when the reactor at Chornobyl blew up, changing my views of nuclear energy from negative to positive, as was the case for this Ukrainian guy: Interview: From Anti-Nuclear to Eco-Pragmatism

Now, as for the year of founding of the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy:

In the week beginning April 18, 1976, the concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide in the planetary atmosphere was 333.43 ppm.

Yesterday, it was:

April 16: 429.36 ppm
April 15: 429.26 ppm
April 14: 429.67 ppm
April 13: 429.68 ppm
April 12: 430.84 ppm
Last Updated: April 17, 2026

Recent Daily Average Mauna Loa CO2

Any idea what 429.36 - 333.43 might be?

Now, I understand fully that dreamy energy rubes assume that other people are not paying attention, mostly because they seem not to know what actual "attention" would be.

I've been reading the International Journal of Energy for more than 30 years, mostly in connection with the many thermal hydrogen cycles that are known.

This said, I'm not a pathetic ass talking shit about hydrogen cars, hydrogen trucks, hydrogen lawnmowers, bullshit upon bullshit. I've worked with hydrogen in the lab; I've personally done hundreds if not thousands of hydrogenations in all kinds of organic synthetic settings. I know hydrogen personally.

Hydrogen is a useful synthetic intermediate critical to the world's food supply to make ammonia by the Haber-Bosch process and in China, the largest industrial practitioner of that process, hydrogen is made overwhelmingly from dangerous coal, followed by dangerous natural gas, and as a side product from dangerous petroleum, substances that anti-nukes couldn't care less about.

As for all this delusional chanting about an "energy transition'" it's just that, delusional chanting, not especially different from that practiced in other faith based settings.

There is no "energy transition."

We are burning more fossil fuels than ever. The use of wind and solar garbage is growing slower than the use of fossil fuels

Here, from the most recent edition, are the figures, in Exajoules, for the primary energy produced from each energy source in the most recent edition: World Energy Outlook 2025:



Page 420.

Chanting about the existence of an "energy transition" is the exact equivalent of chanting Namu Myōhō Renge Kyō to cure pancreatic cancer. Cancer cells don't care about Buddha, and the atmosphere doesn't give a shit about fake "energy transitions."

I have never met an antinuke who gives a shit about fossil fuels, especially since their hydrogen shell game is actually a celebration of fossil fuels, since the manufacture of hydrogen from fossil fuels destroys the exergy of fossil fuels, and if used, unwisely, for toys like hydrogen buses, cars and trucks, simply makes the climate impact of those fossil fuels worse.

It's called the "2nd Law of Thermodynamics," which is not reversible by wishful thinking.

Again:

A Giant Climate Lie: When they're selling hydrogen, what they're really selling is fossil fuels.

Have a nice weekend.