Environment & Energy

...energy my entire fucking adult life, and I'm hardly young. My contempt for soothsaying is based on something called "experience."

The results are in, not that the soothsaying squad gives a flying fuck about DATA.

This, like the IEA report on the the busbar costs today, in fucking 2025, of the cost of electricity in that coal dependent hellhole Germany, $76.29/MWh (USD), compared to the same cost in France, $23.55/MWh. (USD), DATA , not soothsaying:

Week beginning on June 01, 2025: 430.05 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 427.20 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 403.37 ppm
Last updated: June 07, 2025

Weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa

I produce this DATA again and again, not that there are all that many people who give a shit, most recently here:

New Weekly CO2 Concentration Record Set at the Mauna Loa Observatory, 430.86 ppm

This DATA comes decades into start, in the 1990's, of the endless and tiresome the antinuke soothsaying about the grand so called "renewable energy" miracle that is did not come, is not here, and won't come, no matter how many crystal balls are pulled out and worshipped. Understanding this requires something called "critical thinking," something at which antinukes are not particularly experienced at exercising.

Now of course, contempt for data that doesn't sink in no matter how many times it's presented, does not invalidate it through whining about its repetition. I do recognize that no matter how times its presented it won't get through thick heads, but listen, I've been experiencing the thick heads of antinukes for many decades, even before the world starting burning because of their obtuse obsessions.

I really, really, really don't give a flying fuck about soothsaying, particularly about economics from people who detach the costs of extreme global heating from the cost of energy production. I leave that for the fossil fuel airheads, including advertisers who come here to greenwash fossil fuels as "hydrogen." I include external costs.

I respect the IEA's accumulation of data, but as a person who has been reading the IEA's WEO for decades, way back in in the 1990's, when the grotesque failure of so called "renewable energy" to do anything about the appalling DATA reported at Mauna Loa this morning was not predicted by all the soothsaying therein, I have no use for the IEA predictions, any more than I have use for the soothsaying in 1976 by the moron Amory Lovins about how we could all have solar molten salt tanks in our backyard.

Article | 1976
Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken?
By Amory Lovins

The guy, typical for a soothsaying antinuke, has such a low sense of self respect that he actually posts a link to this garbage on his website. Of course, if one wants to read it on his website, you have to fill out a form so he can ask you for money, but I downloaded this mindless bullshit decades ago from the original source in the social science journal Foreign Affairs. A soothsaying excerpt:

"...perhaps fusible salts..."

What an asshole!

In 1976, when this bullshit came out, in October of that year, the concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide in the planetary atmosphere (the week beginning October 3, 1976) was 328.46 ppm. I don't have much hope for people complaining about nuclear energy to do simple math, even like addition and subtraction, but the reading this morning was 101.59 ppm higher than that value recorded nearly 50 years ago.

Now, complaining about the repetition of data from the Mauna Loa Observatory will not make it go away. It appears that soothsaying in 1976, by a shit for brains self declared "scientist" didn't prevent this outcome either.

I'd love to hear from anyone who knows someone with a "fused salt" solar storage tank in 2025 in his fucking bourgeois suburban backyard.

I'm not a fucking mindless mystic pretending to give a rat's ass about the writings of say, Jim Hansen and Pushkar Kharecha, to moan about the extreme global heating now observed, clearly without having a shred of insight to the problem they discuss or into the other work of those respected scientists laboring to change the world up until their dying breath.

I'm not a clone of the orange slime mold in the White House, claiming that data isn't real or that repeating the data makes it unreal, that is lying.

Instead I'm the father of a developing nuclear engineer, of whom I am extremely proud, who clearly doesn't give a fuck about the stupid penny pinching whining of bourgeois antinuke soothsayers. He's not sitting on his ass buying into dubious predictions using bourgeois selective attention to pennies. He's doing the work, not to lazily embrace bourgeois credulity, but rather to make the world in which he, and all future humanity will need to live, a safe and sustainable world.

I can write him about the approach to the fast fission of americium because he's, um, educated and because he is interested in building a future, rather than predicting one.

He knows, as I know, that nuclear plants can last for periods close to a century, which effects their economics measured over periods of well over half a century, and he believes, as I believe that whining about nickels and dimes because one does not have the moral (or intellectual) depth to invest in future generations out of a sense of something called "decency," is well, to use a truism, indecent. He's not a cheapskate wanting to rob future generations by worshipping wind and solar junk that will be landfill before todays newborns finish college. He wants to leave something for children born in the 22nd century, when both he, and I, and all the shit for brains antinukes moaning and pissing about pennies here and now, in 2025, in a burning world, will be dead.

Got it?

No?

Why am I not surprised?

Have a nice weekend.