Might sound crazy but its all down to where we get our energy from, which master we serve, positive or negative.

I've explained the difference between mathematically positive and mathematically negative energy, this is something not done by conventional science, because conventional science is heavily dominated by the need to make profit, which is 100% dependent on energy extracted from the planet.

But its very simple, and has to be done, to audit energy use and the effects of it. The whole business of renewables is just nonsense, it bundles all the energy in one bag, and then everything is green but nothing is green, all of it becomes a shit show of who shouts loudest.

How to show this is true, is to point out money is energy, always, physically, in markets it has an energy value in KWhrs.

When money makes money, or when a little energy in some labor yields some energy from the planet (Fruit, wood, oil, grain, etc) is exchanged for a lot more energy in the form of money, that energy gained had to come from the planet, because only the planet can respond to a little energy put in, with a lot more out, for any length of time, the planet is just a kind of battery, trickle charged by the sun, we are constantly discharging it, by all the business for profit, all the proft being made, all of it pushes the temperature up, this is the first driver of temperature, which is multiplied by other things like C02, caused by this iniitial transfer of energy, from things which are not heat, ultimately to heat.

What we are doing there is destroying.

Now it makes sense why hell is hot, yup, its a product of destruction.

The temperature of the environment is actually a measure of destruction, and this is directly related to temperature rise, independent of time.

This is why we keep underestimating how quickly the temperature will rise, because we never notice that the more we try to mitigate the symptoms, always at profit, the faster we accelerate the temperature rise.

Assuming you accept that, can't fault it, then you can move onto signing efficiencies.

The efficiency of hydrogen use, when sourced from solar, has to be the opposite of the efficiency of anything done by any energy extracted from the planet.

Create an energy flow diagram for a process powered from solar. It has an energy flow into the process, and two out, one for the energy put to use, and the other for the energy lost to heat.

If neither we nor nature used any of the input energy, (Since we removed a lot of nature that used to use it anyhow!), it would all go to heat anyway.

Using any of it at all, and converting this to anything other than heat, has to result in the solar powered process having some effect of temperature reduction. It is impossible for it to increase temperature, any more than would have happened if we didn't use it.

Now create an energy flow diagram for a process powered by extracted energy. It has the same format of input and outputs, but in this case, the input energy is coming from things which were not heat. In this case, what is lost goes to heat which would not have existed, if the process didn't exist.

This time, the process has to result in temperature rise.

This is why 20 or 30 percent efficient use of solar is still infinitely better than even 98 or 99 percent efficient use of any extracted energy.

Now look at all the other benefits of hydrogen, it is transportable, shareable, tradeable, in similar ways as fossil fuels, if we liquefy it at room temperature, as I am sure we will very quickly learn to do, like butane, and propane, after we get rid of those and all the other actually stupid, destructive, polluting, EVIL fossil fuels, it has 3x the energy density per kilo than fossil fuels, and will make Concorde fly again, not only from London to NY but this time to brisbane, and other places in Aus.

In addition, hydrogen converts directly to food (See "Solein"), and it filtrates and circulates water. Both of those things potentially go some way towards relieveing the burden of humanity from the conventional food chain.

Finally, the creation of it, done by everyone on a domestic and community basis, will result in a store of hydrogen which will quickly grow to something storing as much enerrgy as we ever took from fossil fuels. This is an energy heatsink. We would have paid back our energy debt to the planet by doing this.

The rule of energy polarity has to be strictly adhered to; hydro, wind, geothermal, anything extracted from the planet has to be mathematically negative, because it subtracts from something finite. In the case of wind, it seems arguable, but who knows what the butterfly effects are, of it, all we know for certain is, it won't be good, because it is a form of destruction, something that has an initial temperature impulse, of converting just a little bit of the energy of the wind, to heat, it will have multipliers which apply.

Why would we bother with wind, if we are getting everything we need from solar, backed by hydrogen?

We all serve a master, the emergent property associated with whichever energy we are using, or want to use.

The question is, how much more will the planet take, of us all serving the negative master?

The essence of this is formalised as a framework, in a conversation with ChatGPT, here:

https://eric-bott.medium.com/the-energy-polarity-multiplier-framework-fb4215b55862

or if you want to donate something towards my efforts, towards achieving the solar indexed system of donation we so badly need, and nature is actually forcing us to, you could always buy the book, and give it a cool review:

https://www.amazon.com/Interview-Ai-Part-Multiplier-Framework-ebook/dp/B0CHGFKQVB