This is of course not true if anyone in the antinuke cults have identified new major river systems to kill, not that is a single fucking antinuke on this planet who gives a rat's ass about wilderness. This is why they cheered so lould for cheering for well over a thousand square miles of once pristine desert ecoststems rendered into industrial parks to make for wind turbines in California. All the wind turbines in California seldom of ever produce as much energy as The two Diablo Canyon reactors produce on a footprint of around 12 acres surrounded by beautiful untouched Chapparal.
Hydroelectricity, which the founder of the Sierra Club, John Muir, founded his club to oppose, at Hetch Hetchy should have been a warning that the "renewable energy" scammers were trying to sell us, the industrialization of vast ecosystems for no reason.
I note of course that, as usual, there is no attack on unabated fossil fuels. To this benighted set, their ignorance of engineering, thermodyamics and ethics on full display, don't care if we burn more fossil fuels to indulge their moronic fantasies about "green hydrogen." Nor do I express any surprise that the very people who don't give a rat's ass about fossil fuels take any responsibility for the four decades they railed against nuclear energy, doing all they could to destroy its manufacturing infrastructure, now want to complain that it grows "too slow." As I always say, arsonists complaining about forest fires...
It's the amusing when antinukes say they want to "focus" on something given their whole morally criminal mindset is based on selective attention.
By the way the Nature Journal Reference relating to a reflection on the 50 year history of the hydrogen bullshit that rears it's ugly head every decade or so was incorrectly cited, not that antinukes give a shit about going too far from their chanted dogma. I was writing on my phone, as i am now, and as a old guy with fat fingers I don't do well without a mouse. I don't have the fast thumbs of young people.
I might post from the full paper over the weekend, with the correct link. It won't of course prevent the fossil fuel industry from coming here to post slick ads to greenwash fossil fuels as hydrogen, nor will it prevent the gullible poorly educated acolytes from buying into the scam. It will however point out what might be useful for hydrogen which essentially is the purposes it's used now, the manufacturer of carbon based fuels (generally oil refining) and fertilizer.
It will be a separate post. Although I enjoy confronting antinukes on some level to obviate what they're really all about, it can get boring.
It would be fun though to get a list from them about what remaining rivers they think should be destroyed so we can all wax romantic about the hydrogen nirvana. Some such remaining free rivers in Norway were just discussed in such a light. Some people object as I would. I call those who so object "environmentalists," in the same sense I consider myself , a "John Muir" environmentalist."
Keep those bulldozers warmed up.
= new reply since forum marked as read