They weren’t in charge of energy policy. In Germany for the last 16 years. They had completely different policy ideas to what was actually implemented.

Blaming the greens is internationally some kind of dumb idea that likes to reduce politics to stereotypes. The real effects will be much more subtle and indirect.

Could still end up with the greens losing votes. Currently it doesn’t look that way at all. (German perspective here.)

In Finland, the Greens actively and vocally opposed nuclear power at least up until recent years. They abdicated themselves from a coalition government in the early 2000's over that government's decision to grant a license for constructing an additional reactor at an existing plant. Rejecting nuclear power was definitely a visible part of their ideology. That part of the stereotype was actually true for a long time.

I don't know about Germany, but it is my impression that opposition to nuclear power was a common theme among the green movement in general for decades.

Obviously their agenda also included investing in renewables, as well as reducing consumption, but that wasn't going to happen fast enough, either for political or technological reasons.

I have voted for the local Greens several times over the last couple of decades even though I disagreed with and was frustrated with the views they held on nuclear power until recently.

I'm also unfortunately familiar with many of the common and overblown negative stereotypes towards the greens in general.

Insofar as nuclear power could have played a part in reducing our dependency on fossil fuels over the lasts couple of decades, though, I don't think it's unfair to say the greens in many countries did a lot to hinder that.

Electric energy =|= thermal energy. Nuclear energy solves the electricity part (which doesn't pose any issue at all), while doing nothing to aolve the thermal energy question. No idea why people, on HN of all places on the internet, fail to realize that simple fact...

Nuclear energy does not solve the heating part only because most of the existing nuclear plants have not been designed to provide heating, where gas heating was already in use.

There are many parts in Europe where the homes are not heated by gas, but by the waste heat from the local power plants, regardless whether they are gas-based, coal-based or nuclear.

Any existing nuclear plant could be converted to also provide heating for the nearby houses, if the infrastructure of plumbing for the transport of hot water would be built.

However, the last part of the heating infrastructure, where the hot water pipes would have to be passed through the house walls and through the walls of all rooms, would be extremely costly in comparison with an electric heater, even if the operating cost would be lower.

So it is very unlikely that such a conversion would ever be done to already existing houses, even if it is possible.

Heat pumps would have much lower installation costs, while still being more efficient than resistive heaters.

Your making the argument that nuclear is not a heating option because gas is cheaper.

If we’re going for the cheapest option, then why not fuck the planet completely and all burn coal?

My argument is that nuclear is a different of energy compared to gas when used for heating. Sonce gas for heating is the tipic at hand, this distinction is quite important. And nowhere did I mention price. I talked about how converting electricity to heat is highly inefficient and will cost nore to heat the same building than gas. Nuclear only factors into that as much as it factors into a given electrical energy generatuon mix.

Converting gas to heat is just as inefficient as converting electricity to heat