...but also cerium based cycles (including those involving thermochemical reduction of CO₂ to CO with the water gas shift reaction), the SnCl₂ cycle, the CuCl₂ cycle, the "UT3" (CaBr₂) cycle, several iron cycles, the ZnO cycle...etc...etc...

I've also for fun, thought up a few of my own, one of which I am very proud and will share with my son before I die, hopefully, based on some interesting properties of Zintl salts involving fission products.

I have always thought, that since hydrogen is an important captive intermediate, on which, among other things, the world food supply depends, and a possible intermediate in industrial systems for the hydrogenation of carbon dioxide to the wonder fuel DME, that thermochemical nuclear hydrogen would be a good idea, electrolysis, not so much.

The issue with thermochemical hydrogen cycles, my personal favorite still remaining the SI cycle, about which I've thought a great deal, is materials science; which was the focus, I'm proud to say, of my son's undergraduate and master's degree, before switching to nuclear materials science.

Unfortunately however, rather than further and fund research into thermochemical hydrogen and thermochemical reduction of CO₂ as in the Ce (cerium) cycle, about which I wrote some years back, in 2018, Cerium Requirements to Split One Billion Tons of Carbon Dioxide, the Nuclear v Solar Thermal cases, the world chose to squander, for no real environmental result other than the rapid acceleration of the concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide in the planetary atmosphere, useless solar and wind junk, this to the tune of investment in so called "renewable energy" was 5.689 trillion dollars between 2015 and 2025. The number in the third digit behind the decimal point represents 8 billion dollars.

By contrast, in the same period, driven by the head up the ass indifference to fossil fuels practiced widely the antinuke and "I'm not an antinuke" antinuke cults, the investment in nuclear energy was a paltry 592 billion dollars, in "percent talk" 10.4% of the money squandered on the fossil fuel dependent wind and solar junk, along with some air polluting generation of trucking dependent biomass combustion.

The result of this disastrous decision is written in the planetary atmosphere. In the week beginning January 4, 2015, the concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste in the planetary atmosphere, which, in my opinion was 399.83 ppm.

As reported this morning, that concentration is, well, hell, let's link it directly:

Week beginning on April 26, 2026: 432.44 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 430.29 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 407.86 ppm
Last updated: May 02, 2026

Weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa

Wow!!!!! "Just" 32.45 ppm in a little over 10 years. At least the cows can graze in the shade under solar cells.

I'm sure in the antinuke and "I'm not an antinuke" antinuke cults they're all very proud of this outcome, especially since no one is calling them out on the bullshit they were handing out in the 1990s and early 2000s which went as follows: "If we spent as much money on "renewable energy" as we spent on nuclear, we wouldn't need nuclear." One should note, as I often do, that the didn't say a fucking thing about fossil fuels, since they have zero interest in addressing fossil fuels, always have, always will.

The "renewable energy" nirvana is just wonderful - isn't it - clouds of wild fire smoke filling the air all across North America for weeks at a time, extremely powerful hurricanes, vast droughts, and lots of gloating about how nuclear energy won't save the world, which of course, it won't do as the antinukes did everything in the power to defund, demean, and demonize it.

Yeah, I'm sure they're all very, very, very, very proud of this outcome in the antinuke and "I'm not an antinuke" antinuke cults.

You tell me, since I have a hard time grasping how anyone could be so myopic and ignorant.

Submit your papers to The Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative I’m sure they will see your greater wisdom.