It's not optional. It's an ethical requirement. The future of the planet is at stake. Most of us take that seriously.
Got it? No? Why am I not surprised?
We had a "hydrogen will save us" idiot here for many months, about a year, I think recently, and I went to bat against the fossil fuel greenwasher lots of times.
Hydrogen, as anyone who has a faint familiarity with reality, is just that an effort to greenwash fossil fuels. Hydrogen is overwhelmingly made by the steam reformation of dangerous fossil fuels, about which, again, antinukes couldn't give a shit, It has been so for decades, going back to the first issue of the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, published in 1976, when the concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide was, in the week beginning March 7, 1976, 333.03 ppm.
As of this Sunday, it was reported to be, for the week beginning March 8, 2026, 429.91 ppm.
Volume 1, Issue 1, 1976: International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
I guess all the caterwauling over the last half a century about hydrogen has had no effect on the accumulation of dangerous fossil fuel waste other than to make it worse, which is unsurprising because the manufacture of hydrogen destroys exergy.
I covered this appalling "green hydrogen" fantasy many times here, by appealing to the science that antinukes so despise, for example: A Giant Climate Lie: When they're selling hydrogen, what they're really selling is fossil fuels.
The post contains reference to the laws of thermodynamics, laws that are not subject to change because of ignorance of them. They are physical laws.
Again, the situation is analogous to that of the jerk Robert F. Kennedy Jr., offering nonsensical opinions on subjects about which he clearly knows nothing at all. Nothing.
Nothing will begat nothing.
Have a nice evening.
= new reply since forum marked as read