The preparation of hydrogen from fossil fuels, which dominates the supply in that country, is accompanied by the destruction of exergy, meaning it wastes energy and drives extreme global heating faster.

It's a rather dirty scam.

I never tire of referencing this recent publication, not from the fossil fuel greenwashing team, but from the scientific literature:

Subsidizing Grid-Based Electrolytic Hydrogen Will Increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Coal Dominated Power Systems Liqun Peng, Yang Guo, Shangwei Liu, Gang He, and Denise L. Mauzerall Environmental Science & Technology 2024 58 (12), 5187-5195

The text is clear enough.

From the introductory text:

Any more than EVs are a scam if they are charged from a grid that includes fossil fuels.

All these points of progress come in steps. If the hydrogen blending proves to work acceptably at scale, then that will invite more investments in solar and wind that will be directed toward extracting hydrogen.

The US installed 50 GW of solar in 2024. China installed 277 GW. So let's not attack China. They are WAAAAAAAAAY ahead of us. I would say your comments align perfectly with what the US fossil fuel companies would say.

And not only is China pursuing green goals much more aggressively than the US, this is placing China in a fundamentally superior position economically. If these trends continue, China's costs for energy over the next 30 years will be less than half what Americans have to pay.

We already pay twice what anybody pays for pharmaceuticals and other health care. What happens when energy has that same disparity? Energy and health care make up about 1/3 of our total economy.

This fraudulent substitution is why the planet is flames despite the expenditure of trillions of dollars in the last 10 years on solar and wind garbage.

The solar scam - which has done absolutely nothing to even slow the acceleration of the degradation of the planetary atmosphere uses the unit for power, the Watt, as if it were equivalent to the unit of energy, the Joule.

The capacity utilization of solar garbage - all of which will be landfill before today's toddlers finish college (if there are colleges to finish) - is roughly 25%, if they are sited in an suitable area. Therefore 277 Gigawatts of solar power is the equivalent of 70 GW of a reliable system that operates continuously, but that's only represents the surface. People do not shut all of their electronic devices off when the sun goes down, or the surface is covered with snow, or storms are underway. This means that redundant systems are required which - despite all of the absurd handwaving about batteries, and worse, hydrogen - further exacerbates both the environmental cost and well as the thermodynamic penalty. People who equate energy storage with being "green" simply ignore the laws of thermodynamics, just as they ignore simple physical parameters, the distinction between physical units the Watt and the Joule. The laws of thermodynamics require - they are not subject to change using wishful thinking - that storing energy wastes it.

Now, let's look at what 70 GW of continuous average power represents by recognizing that the Watt is a Joule/sec, and multiplying it by the number of seconds in a year. The tropical day has 86164.0905 seconds in it, the tropical year, 365.24219 days in it, thus a tropical year has 31470761.11 seconds in it. Since we have only two significant figures this means that 70 GW of average continuous power - which we're using despite the fact that solar garbage is not continuously available - this suggest that all of the solar facilities in China produce 2.2 X 10¹⁸ Joules, or 2.2 Exajoules.

Now we have antinukes around here who object to me continuously producing the following table apparently believing that if someone repeats data then the data is no longer true. (This is a reflection of the intellectual and moral paucity of antinukes.)

The table:



IEA World Energy Outlook 2024
Table A.1a: World energy supply Page 296.

I note, with some disgust, that the antinukes are very fond of the soothsaying in the table, but as someone who has been following the World Energy Outlook since the end of the 20th century, I have a jaundiced view of soothsaying. If the soothsaying back in the 1990's had been true there and elsewhere, then, we wouldn't be looking at a burning planet.

From the most recent data from the WEO, solar produced just 8 Exajoules of energy on a planet consuming 642 Exajoules of energy for the last year for which the comprehensive data is available. That China produced a little over 2 EJ of these does not mean China is "green."

In the "percent talk" apologists for the failure of so called "renewable energy" to do a damned thing to slow the accelerating collapse of the atmosphere, solar energy produced 1.2% of the world's energy supply despite vast quasi-religious cheering for it, China, the world's largest emitter of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide, 0.3% of the world's energy.

The world began spending hundreds of billions of dollars per year on solar and wind garbage around 2010. There is no signal to be seen the rise in the rate of accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory:



Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Mauna Loa CO₂ Observatory.

The orange pedophile in the White House will look to destroy this scientific resource, another regrettable consequence of the supremacy of ignorance.

The purpose of the solar and wind scam was never about attacking fossil fuels. In China, solar and wind garbage is not backed up by hydrogen or batteries, despite the slick ads the fossil fuel industry runs here about a "hydrogen miracle." It's backed up largely by coal. So called "renewable energy" - a misnomer because there's nothing "renewable" about tearing the shit of the planet with mines to make this junk or trashing vast stretches of ecosystems to site it - was hyped to attack nuclear energy, something at which it partially succeeded. It certainly succeeded in the United States, which once had the world's best nuclear manufacturing infrastructure which was vandalized by fools and thus destroyed.

This said, to return to China, China now has the world's leading nuclear manufacturing infrastructure, followed by Russia's.

China now has 58 operating nuclear reactors, and 32 under construction and many more planned. When the 32 now under construction are completed, they will have 90 reactors, which given the fact that nuclear plants are the most reliable power production facilities in the world, should produce better than 2 Exajoules of energy without the need for any thermodynamic (and environmental)) nightmares about redundancies, including the hydrogen bullshit handed out here by the fossil fuel industry to greenwash their product.

Those reactors will be operating at the dawn of the 22nd century, when every solar cell and wind turbine now on this planet will have been landfill for half a century.

As for hydrogen, I'm an old man. When I was a young man, hydrogen bullshit struck me as plausible, as did a putative solar miracle that never happened, isn't happening and won't happen. And let's be clear, hydrogen bullshit was around back then, when I was young.

The first issue of the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy was published in 1976.

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy

A hydrogen economy didn't happen "by 1990" or "by 2000" or "by 2010" or "by 2020" and won't happen "by 2030" or "by 2040" or "by 2050." The reason is that hydrogen manufacture wastes energy, has horrible physical properties including an absurdly low critical temperature, extremely low viscosity, and poor material compatibility, notably with steels.

Have a pleasant Sunday.

Renewables meet our energy needs without adding carbon to the atmosphere, and it makes zero difference whether you are talking watts or joules.

The only "scam" here is that we are still subsidizing the fossil fuel industry when both wind and solar are cheaper than ANY fossil fuel source, even without factoring in the externalities.

We should be leading the world in R&D AND DEPLOYMENT of carbon-free, radiation-free energy. (Wind and solar are both nuclear sources, but without the 10,000 year problem of waste disposal) We don't need a single drop of petroleum for energy, a single bucket of coal or a single case of cancer caused by nuclear accidents. We have everything necessary for a complete transition to clean energy -- everything except a way to wrestle control of our government from the fossil and nuke industries.

I should add that wind and solar generation have been cheaper than fossil fuels (even without counting externalities) for almost a decade. But the big issue was how to handle usage peaks and generation dips (when the sun is down or winds are mild). That problem is well within our grasp now with the emergence of Na-ion batteries. These are like lithium batteries, except they are 100% safe and are made almost entirely of very cheap, plentiful elements. We are nearing the point where we can deploy these batteries at scale throughout the grid. It will require billions of dollars of capital investment, but we just saw Musk/DOGE waste almost $30 billion in 90 days. Why aren't we putting that money into solutions that will help EVERYBODY.

Last edited Sun Aug 3, 2025, 03:56 PM - Edit history (2)

To me the implications of the data shown in my post is fairly obvious. My major concern is with the observed crisis of extreme global heating.

If there are people who can't "follow" this, that the trillions of dollars squandered on solar and wind have done zero, zilch, nothing, nada, to address the observed extreme global heating, I cannot help them.

Speaking of zero, my contention is that the amount of fossil fuels that should be combusted, the energy derived from them, should be zero. I'm not OK with saying burning less of them is OK nor am I OK with mining the shit out of the planet and industrialization of vast stretches of wilderness to make industrial parks for so called "renewable energy" (which isn't actually "renewable" ).

Again, if someone can't "follow" these relatively straight forward views, I'm at a loss to help them do so.

As for this "cheaper" bullshit claim, it is only made by selective attention. There is a cool paper - which may be impossible to follow without some basic business math - on what is called LFSCOE, that I was reading this morning:

Use and Abuse of the LCOE: A Market-Based Valuation Framework

If one actually "follows" what is going on in the world - and I claim that I do - one might be aware of the cost of energy in Europe this winter during a recent Dunklefluate event, when all of Europe was bitching and moaning about German energy policies, policies that in my view were ill thought out, destructive to the environment and placed an immoral burden on the poor.

I covered it here:

Germany's Weak Winds Trigger a Record Surge in Gas Fired Power.

The Norwegian Energy Minister States It Bluntly: "It's an absolute shit situation."

Is Germany Responsible for High European Electricity Prices?

German Energy Policies (Directly/Indirectly) Lead to the Collapse of Norway's Government.

I've been at DU since November of 2002. I've heard all the chants about so called "renewable energy" including the "it's cheap" nonsense. All of these delusional half truths have led us to where we are, a burning planet. During my tenure here, as of this writing, the increase in the concentration of dangerous fossil fuel waste from the day I joined DU is 54.84 ppm. I do "follow" these numbers, religiously, because I'm not into handwaving. I actually give a shit.

A burning planet is very, very, very expensive, way more expensive than electricity during Dunkelflaute. So called "renewable energy" has done nothing to address this reality, and the planet cannot afford it.

Have a pleasant afternoon.

Last edited Sun Aug 3, 2025, 06:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Can you put your main point of contention in a single sentence of fewer than 40 words?

It seems to me, your main gripe may be that you don't believe that wind and solar are, in fact, cheaper than burning fossil fuels. That would be completely false, even without including the massive externalities of burning the fossil fuels. If you are trying to make some other point, please state it succinctly so that somebody like me, with obviously inferior brainpower, might understand.

Again, if someone can't follow them, I can't help them. They're straight forward.

NNadir is a zealot. NNadir’s position is not without merit, however it is taken to an irrational extreme.

My stance is that if we are to survive (and that’s a very big “if”) we need renewable energy sources as well as nuclear energy (although I would prefer nuclear fusion to nuclear fission.) A nuclear reactor is really not practical for an isolated village in the Amazon for example, whereas a modest system of solar panels and batteries can revolutionize life there. This “balanced” stance (although widely held by climate scientists and nuclear energy experts) is anathema to NNadir.

If you’re interested in a rational analysis, I highly recommend the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s 100% Clean Electricity by 2035 Study. Sadly, we’re way behind where this (2022) roadmap requires us to be, and (thanks to our current administration) beginning to travel backwards.

NNadir contends that nuclear (fission) is the only acceptable power source; anyone who believes renewable energy is useful is a fool, beneath NNadir’s contempt; any data which might be construed as supporting that position is not worthy of NNadir’s consideration.

Last edited Tue Aug 19, 2025, 02:38 PM - Edit history (1)

I often have doubts about the reading comprehension ability of rote antinukes, given that they can't generally even understand what primary energy is, or understand what the laws of thermodynamics say about energy storage , but apparently my personal views have been accurately stated in this post in this thread cheering fossil fuels being wasted to make hydrogen, a greenwashing thread if ever there was one.

The only acceptable form of primary energy - I certainly know what primary energy is even if hydrogen scammers don't - in my view is nuclear energy. While perhaps it has been stated a bit more harshly than I would like, it is true that I hold a very low opinion of people who haven't noticed that the planet is burning because so called "renewable energy" is useless, inasmuch as it is dependent on fossil fuels, fuels I, as opposed to them, abhor.

Of course since I recognize that advocates of so called "renewable energy" are only interested in attacking nuclear energy and are disinterested in addressing fossil fuels, changes to my opinions about these sorts of people are unlikely. I care that the planet is burning even if they couldn't care less.

Thanks for the summary; thanks for noting as much. I appreciate the kind words.

A suggestion, if I may; Very few people had the patience to listen to Jeremiah. His warnings, although accurate, went unheeded.

...back to the good old days when General Atomic called up the SI cycle and promoted it for use with their gas cooled reactors, reactors that were overall, failures, because the materials science of the time - the 1960's and earlier - were not up to the challenge although Peach Bottom did OK, not great, but OK.

(The British, on the other hand, had commercial success with their AGCRs, with CO₂ working fluids, but did not employ them for thermochemical purposes.)

I am familiar with almost all of the various permutations beyond the SI cycle, although truth be told, the SI cycle remains a favorite for various reasons, chiefly because it utilizes fluid phase materials and thus can be utilized in continuous flow loops in process intensification settings using the high temperatures for exergy recovery. I have crudely estimated thermal efficiencies approaching or even exceeding 70%.

I have understood that the Chinese are actively working on the nuclear driven SI process.

The SI process has been discussed for decades, and perhaps advances in modern materials science - my son's field, nuclear materials science engineering - will make it workable. I certainly discuss it with him whenever I have a chance to do so during our wide ranging conversations..

The ability to make hydrogen with thermal processes - often to secure grants people publish these papers using the very, very, very stupid and destructive solar thermal junk - does not, of course, invalidate the fact that hydrogen, while being a very useful captive intermediate, should never be a consumer product. One needs to be a complete idiot in my view - or as is the case at DU and elsewhere someone attempting to advertise in favor of greenwashing fossil fuels by rebranding them as "hydrogen" - to advocate for hydrogen as a consumer fuel. It's physical and material properties are awful. As it is, hydrogen is a dirty captive intermediate essential for fertilizers, methanol, and petroleum refining, responsible - depending on the source of information - for in "percent talk" about 1% to 3% of carbon dioxide emissions - which now are believed to be on the order of 40 billion tons per year, while we all wait for the so called "renewable energy" nirvana that did not come, is not here, and won't come, meaning that the production of hydrogen may be for responsible for something like a billion tons of CO₂ per year.

These "hydrogen miracle" threads rehashing 50 years of hydrogen bullshit that comes to the fore like a hydra every decade or so, along with all the rest of the fossil fuel greenwashing scams including but not limited to carbon capture and sequestration, and, of course, hyping use the useless so called "renewable energy" crap as a fig leaf for the continued use of fossil fuels.

The only way to deal with fossil fuels that is sustainable is to ban them. That's not going to happen with so called "renewable energy" which is wholly and totally dependent on the use of fossil fuels.

Have a nice day.

Last edited Wed Aug 20, 2025, 05:54 PM - Edit history (1)

However, since you gainsay any use of hydrogen whatsoever (falsely equating it with “fossil fuels”) I thought it relevant to point out that your position is at odds with that of the GIF.

https://www.gen-4.org/resources/reports/system-analysis-hydrogen-production-nuclear-energy

Last edited Thu Aug 21, 2025, 10:50 AM - Edit history (1)

...made in the 1980s and even before.

The use of the word "expected" is soothsaying. Having been exposed to energy soothsaying for decades, I don't credit it at all.

I'm quite sure if I leafed through back issues of the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, which started publication in 1976, and with which I've been familiar since the 1990s, I could find loads of these "Hydrogen is expected to..." statements from the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and beyond. In fact I'm sure I've come across many in this century. They're almost impossible to avoid.

In 2025, which is now despite all these "Hydrogen is expected to..." statements going back half a century, the main use for hydrogen is to make ammonia, methanol and in petroleum refining, the latter which unlike antinukes, I oppose.

Right now despite all the "green hydrogen" bullshit flying around, which I regard as an outright lie, hydrogen is made by exergy destruction everywhere, dominated in quantities well above 95% by fossil fuels. Thus it is contributing to the destruction of the planetary atmosphere.

I fully concede that it is possible, often spending time thinking deeply about these processes, that thermochemical hydrogen cycles using nuclear heat are feasible under conditions of process intensification schemes, wherein electricity would be a side product rather than the main product of nuclear reactor operations. Under these conditions captive hydrogen would represent exergy recovery rather than loss.

These conditions do not exist however despite my ruminations and those of many others smarter than I am and thus hydrogen remains a dirty chemical process, one necessary to prevent world wide famine because of the need for industrial nitrogen fixation but still dirty. Thus the promotion of hydrogen toys here and everywhere elseis an appalling obscenity to my mind.

There's nothing "false" about the fact that hydrogen is overwhelmingly made with fossil fuels. As for the "appeal to authority" argument (the reference to GIF) that again boils down to soothsaying, I reject this common logical fallacy rather regularly as it's well understood to represent poor thinking. I'm more concerned with what's happening now than I am about cute little fantasies, including even my own about exergy recovery, about what could be but isn't.

My fantasies by the way, depend intimately on issues in materials science, resistance to corrosion and heat in particular, and I am very proud to have raised a young man on the research front lines involved with these topics. It's going quite well. He had lunch last week with a guy whose work in materials science papers have had well over 30,000 citations and who has published with my son's boss, who has an h index in the 80s.

Maybe my son will be in a position to help the world recover from the fuck ups associated with the disastrous and deadly success of the antinukes whose ignorance and selective attention has left the planet in flames.

I won't live to see it. I'll die listening to even more fraudulent "green hydrogen" bullshit to be sure, but people like my son and his colleagues will leave me, at the last breath, some modicum of hope for an end to this energy madness.

OK, so, let’s see, you don’t care for predictions from the "Generation IV International Forum.” How about the “International Atomic Energy Agency?”

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Assessing Technical and Economic Aspects of Nuclear Hydrogen Production for Near Term Deployment, IAEA-TECDOC-2075, IAEA, Vienna (2024), https://doi.org/10.61092/iaea.8uf6-pfqz

NNadir is referring to me. NNadir refuses to acknowledge this table from the very same report, or any others for that matter. (I have added highlighting.)

In 2023, Solar PV was cheaper to build and operate, producing electricity at roughly half the cost/MWh of nuclear power, and costs in 2030 projected to be lower still.


IEA (2024), World Energy Outlook 2024, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2024, Licence: CC BY 4.0 (report); CC BY NC SA 4.0 (Annex A)

The result (effectively) is (somewhat) cleaner “natural gas” since it contains less carbon, and a portion of it was (presumably) generated using “renewable” sources. However, there’s a limit to how much hydrogen can be mixed in and used with existing infrastructure (less than 20%) and you can’t simply use pure hydrogen as a drop-in replacement.

You can, however, use "green hydrogen" to generate “green methane” which is fully compatible with existing “Natural Gas” infrastructure.