Environment & Energy

...is, as usual, spun up by antinukes.

We have here, in this forum, people who like to carry on about the writings of say, James Hansen, nuclear energy supporter, as if they give a shit about what he says about energy.

As a prominent nuclear energy advocate here, I have repeatedly made the statement that nuclear energy need not be risk free to be vastly superior to all other forms of energy. It only needs to be vastly superior to everything else, which it is.

As it happens, Hansen has never said, nor have I said, that nuclear energy is risk free. What he and I have both said is that nuclear energy saves lives on balance. It follows that fossil fuel marketeers, including those rebranding them as "hydrogen" are arguing for killing people.

Every year, fossil fuel waste, including those promoted by fossil fuel greenwashers here working to rebrand it as hydrogen, kills about 8 million people.

It's called "air pollution," the fossil fuel waste in question.

This, of course, ignores the greater risk of the destruction of the planetary atmosphere, about which antinukes, including "I'm not an antinuke" antinukes pretend to care, not that they can really be taken seriously.

I suppose that we are about to hear that by shutting it's nuclear plants to burn coal, we should expect German cancer rates to fall.

Correct?

I hope to write up this paper in the immediate future, now that the fossil fuel marketeer working to rebrand coal as hydrogen has returned:
Multiscale Mechanistic Insights into Hydrogen Production from Microalgae via Molten Hydroxide-Mediated Thermochemical Conversion Jun Li, Ling Lei, Dian Zhong, Hongyang Zuo, Han Zhu, Kuo Zeng, Haiping Yang, and Hanping Chen Environmental Science & Technology 2026 60 (9), 7054-7066. This is quite literally "green" hydrogen, since it is made from algae, which sounds really, really great, until one realizes that 100% of the authors of the paper are Chinese coal scientists, and the source of heat in the article is the combustion of coal.

Antinukes, in my experience, whining with their selective attention and abysmal ignorance, don't have a problem with coal, as evidenced by the case of the German nuclear phase out driven by selective attention.

I'm waiting - not seriously because I've dealt with this vapid nonsense here for decades and I know what to expect from intellectual Lilliputians criticizing nuclear energy - for an antinuke to announce that there is a form of energy that is risk free.