Biden administration adds exemptions into new climate rules for hydrogen energy

[nmmi]

14. His background is in chemistry. He's in the pharmaceutical industry. His journal is worth a scroll

Last edited Sat Jan 4, 2025, 04:00 AM - Edit history (4)

Journal: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=journals&uid=119031

A recent post related to hydrogen and "so-called" renewables
A solar-hydrogen economy for U.S.A., (December 22)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1127179284

which links to his massive magnus opus on hydrogen
A Giant Climate Lie: When they're selling hydrogen, what they're really selling is fossil fuels.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1127164320

On energy issues, he hates wind, solar, hydro, EV's, batteries, hydrogen. The only one he likes (and likes a lot): nuclear.

This thread has a lot of the why --
A Commentary on Failure, Delusion and Faith: Danish Data on Big Wind Turbines and Their Lifetimes.
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1127154548

From the thread, post#8   https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1127154548#post8
citing Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 (Lancet Volume 396, Issue 10258, 17–23 October 2020, Pages 1223-1249).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673620307522

and this from same thread https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1127154548#post3
Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197

In short, in my words, the number who have died from nuclear energy production (as opposed to military use of course) is a tiny, almost infinitessimal fraction of the 8 million who die annually from air pollution -- most of which is from fossil-fuel air pollution. (And that solar and wind are dependent on fossil-fuel generation to cover their woefully low capacity factors (like 25-30%) and weather-dependent unreliablility; and that solar and wind may not even decrease fossil fuel consumption at all when considering the inefficiencies caused by the added startups and shutdowns and more frequent inefficient operating levels of the fossil-fueled generators in the system).

ETA - He has a number of people on Ignore, so that might be why he's not responded (as of the time of this posting) to some of the comments on the thread. It's not because he lacks for words.

ETA - He posts frequently in the Environment and Energy Group and the Science Group.

A son of his is in a nuclear engineering PhD program last I heard, so someone he can readily check out some nuclear questions with.