[elric]

This issue is a tad more complex than the silly tropes of "greens oppose nuclear" and "greens claim gas is green". That's not quite what this is about.

Nuclear is very slow to (up|down)cycle. It's very good at putting out a constant rate of power. Pretty cheap power, once it's operational and when conviently ignoring all externalities. However, having boatloads of cheap nuclear on the grid, means that there isn't much room for renewables at the same time. Which means they're often seen as a poor investment. Which means not much capacity gets added. You get the idea.

What the greens want, is as much renewables on the grid as possible, as quickly as possible. You can't use nuclear as backup for intermittent renewables (clouds, lack of wind, etc) because it's too slow. That's why the gas peaker plants are a thing.

Is this an ideal situation? No, of course not. Everything about the energy mix on the grid is a compromise. But it's slowly moving towards a situation where renewables become an attractive investment, which will hopefully lead to more green power.

[xroche]

So the idea is that:

(1) Nuclear is cheap and makes renewable like solar and wind useless

(2) Solar and wind require fossile fuels

My take is that intermittent renewable are a scam and will never help us fighting climate change. More of them is actually bad.