Nuclear energy is clean

So, you imagine a company for each water pump? That is not how things are run where I live.

Thanks, I didn't know that.

From "Electrochemical synthesis of ammonia as a potential alternative to the Haber–Bosch process" (2019) :

Water electrolysis, combined with an improved smallerscale Haber–Bosch process, seems to be a short-term solution for the generation of ammonia from renewables at a matching scale. There is a major research focus on reducing the NH3 synthesis reaction pressure and temperature, while keeping the catalyst cost and means to follow the intermittent electrical power input. These technologies are anticipated to be developed within next few years. Electrochemical ammonia production is much more distant from commercialization, however, potential benefits of electrochemical ammonia production, such as reduced energy consumption and associated footprint, scalability, lower process pressures and temperatures, the ability to follow the intermittent electrical power input and use nitrogen with reduced purity justify further research.

From "Electrochemical Synthesis of Ammonia: Progress and Challenges" (2021) :

On the whole, a lot of attempts and significant progress have been made, but the electrochemical synthesis of ammonia is still in the infancy stage with great challenges remained to be addressed.

They don't need to be pro-nuclear in order to be green. They just can't be sitting in political debates being on the side of the table that is arguing to keeping gas, oil and coal power plants.

They just need to say: "Lets close this fossil fuel power plant".

If people then ask them about nuclear they can be just as anti-nuclear they want. They will get follow up question about what to do when energy demand exceed that of supply, but that is a separate debate between them and those arguing in favor of nuclear.

To take a example out of Swedish politics this last winter. The right movement wanted to replace an oil power plant by reopening a closed nuclear generator. The oil power plant is operating in the south of Sweden, and the plant is also the single largest contributor of green house gases in that area. To quote from memory, the green representative said "Oil power plants is a natural part of the reserve energy plan in Sweden, and there is nothing strange that it need to burn oil when demand exceed supply".

There is something broken when the highest representatives of the green movement is standing in public debates saying that oil power plants are a natural part of the grid. If that is caused by propaganda then the people who is listening need to stop doing it.

They could have said "No, lets replace that oil power plant with a green hydrogen plant". Or they could have said "No, lets replace that oil power plant with a pumped hydro storage". It would make following discussion about costs a bit more difficult, but they would still be the green movement arguing in favor of the environment. Instead they argued in favor of keeping the oil power plant running.

It really is as simple as that. No propaganda, no plot by a pro nuclear-weapons organization trying to turn the world MAD. Just politics where everything the other side say must be countered. If pro-nuclear want to close fossil fuel plants and replace them with nuclear then the anti-nuclear people want to keep the fossil fuel plants.

Keep the gas, oil and coal in the ground. It used to be slogan of the green movement. It should be again. It is a statement that both pro and anti-nuclear people could agree on if they wanted to.

> No, that isn't correct.

What isn't correct? What's the definition of a large scale conflict then? Anything above 2 neighbors fighting over their fence?

> egardless 'if there is military action that could affect nuclear plants it will involve nuclear weapons and kill us anyway' is a poor argument.

How is that a poor argument. In war you care about what is the most likely to kill you. Nukes are a very real risk when there's 50 000 out there ready to be launched at one moment's notice. Radiations that would kill you in 30 years is the least of anyone's worry. Just like you don't care about a cancer that could kill you 10 years from now if you are run over by a car.

But i never said nuclear would have to be used for 100% of power generation. I was taking issue with statements that nuclear should be avoided, and that wind can be used for 100% of power generation - it can't.

Nuclear is "base load" through and through. Yes it would be awkward to manage spinning nuclear plants up and down if you were targeting 100%, but France manages pretty well with 70% of energy coming from nuclear so it is an actually existing counterpoint.