[troppl]

> Opposition to nuclear power isn't a political

Sorry, I don't get this. Of course your opposition on something can be based on ideology. That is the case if your opposition is more based on your history and tradition than on current facts.

I personally think that there are enough facts to say that nuclear is not really a great option, but I also think that the Green's opposition is based more on ideology (i.e. because they have been historically against it) than on facts. For me, that is evident when they talk more about nuclear risks in general than about financial considerations.

[bayesian_horse]

The distinction of "history and tradition" and "current facts", as well as "nuclear risks" and "financial considerations" is entirely arbitrary. You assume people are against nuclear power not because they are convinced because of the facts (as they see it). Or are you confusing your opinion with "facts"? That may explain why you think that a different tolerance for risk is not fact-based, because it is counter to your opinion what a reasonable risk tolerance is.

Most of the Germans who would vote against nuclear power have nothing to do with any combination of "Greens", "Socialists", "Hippies" or whatever other pejorative you can come up with. Individuals largely decide this on their own and the consensus was reached.

If you think Greens are opposed to nuclear power because "they always been against it", you just never heard them out and just assume that. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.