Is it any thing like the death toll from this list of nuclear "accidents" approximate in any way the death toll from the normal operations of the fossil fuel industry employing dishonest tactics in trying to rebrand itself as hydrogen?
How China makes hydrogen is well known:
Subsidizing Grid-Based Electrolytic Hydrogen Will Increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Coal Dominated Power Systems Liqun Peng, Yang Guo, Shangwei Liu, Gang He, and Denise L. Mauzerall
Environmental Science & Technology 2024 58 (12), 5187-5195
The text is clear enough.
From the introductory text:
... Currently, nearly all hydrogen in China is either produced directly from fossil fuels (55% from coal gasification and 14% from steam methane reforming (SMR)) or as a byproduct of petroleum refining (28%), with only 1% coming from water electrolysis. (2) Producing 1 kg of coal- or SMR-based hydrogen emits roughly 19 and 10 kg of CO2, respectively. (3) In 2020, hydrogen production from fossil fuels in China emitted ∼322Tg of CO2, equivalent to 25% of total CO2 emissions from industrial processes, a number expected to rise with increasing hydrogen demand. (4) Industrial processes include production of nonmetallic mineral products, chemical, and metal products, as well as production and consumption of halocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. (4)
.
The bold, italics and underlining is mine.
EST: Chinese Hydrogen Production Is Making Climate Change Worse.
It is also well known how many people are killed in China each year from air pollution from the combustion of coal, including that used to make hydrogen:
Nature: China's annual air pollution deaths now stand at 1.4 million per year.
The original paper from which this post derives is here:
The contribution of outdoor air pollution sources to premature mortality on a global scale (Nature 525, 367–371 (17 September 2015)
I am perfectly willing to see a list of the death toll from the 70 year history of nuclear energy. In fact, I often invite antinukes - including those pushing the rebranding fossil fuels as "hydrogen" to show that the death toll from nuclear operations have killed as many people as fossil fuels kill every damned day.
By the way, making a rather dubious claim that "nuclear power" is dangerous (which always avoids a failure to compare it to everything else - including extreme global heating about which antinukes couldn't care less, especially fossil fuel rebranding types) does nothing at all to prove that hydrogen is "safe."
There are over 450 full scale nuclear plants that have operated on this planet, for decades, and despite all the bullshit, very few hydrogen powered aircraft or space craft by comparison.
= new reply since forum marked as read