The reason for that is the green parties, certainly in Europe, got their start protesting nuclear weapons and nuclear energy both, and they were true believers in the cause. That was the 60s/70s.
But in the mean time it's become clear that the biggest climate problem we have is not nukes, it's carbon -- and nuclear energy is really great in that respect: it doesn't produce any at all and it's reliable 24/7, and relatively cheap. It has a massive NIMBY problem, but ok.
So while that's clear to anyone who thinks rationally, for green party types it requires changing their mind, their entire point of view, one they've held for maybe decades: nuclear energy is now good, we need more of that and less of the other.
Some simply will not be convinced no matter that the facts have changed. Some turn to the whole "everybody must now ride bicycles and live off the land".
Have you ever tried to have a rational discussion with somebody who believes in the green cause so strongly they joined a political party? I have, and it's painful -- not unlike trying to convince a religious fundamentalist that there is no god. It's all dogma.
I think your comment is broadly correct, though I should disclose that I am a Green Party member ;-) I think the characterisation is probably a little unfair for British Greens in particular who seem to be a "broad church" - I disagree with the party stance on nuclear, but I don't feel being a member requires a full buy in, any more than with any other party.
And the Green Party in Belgium, which had the audacity to say natural gas is necessary to transition from nuclear to renewables. The cognitive dissonance is incredible.
I don't know the details of whatever claim you are disputing, but basically all sensible plans include some natural gas burning in the short term.
As has France with their nuclear fleet.
So mocking a Green Party for being factually correct, pragmatic and effective in achieving their aims seems a bit cheap.
Sometimes feels like people only like nuclear because it lets them talk smack about Greens. Who are generally well educated people with sensible ideas. So why are we attacking them again?
Indeed, we simply can't do without non-renewables at the moment, nobody can.
Just wait until everybody really does have a ton of renewable energy, and you get headlines like "<area> ran on 100% renewables all week!", and thus it seems obvious we don't need the gas plants anymore. Except, that is, for when there's no wind or sun, then you absolutely need them.
But why would companies keep those plants going, when most of the time nobody buys energy off them? They'll just shut them down, since they'd just lose money keeping them online -- resulting in massive outages at times without wind/sun.
Meaning the government will have to subsidize carbon-belching gas plants just to keep them open.
We already have gas plants that only run for short periods of time. So there's no need to build more or shut down the existing ones. The important part is to stop burning fossil fuels and venting the CO2.
Which is most quickly done by installing renewables and not running the existing gas plants.
I have no real objection to paying money to firms that keep gas plants ready for use. It's the money going to the people who sell the gas that I fret about. And again, the quickest way to reduce that flow is building more renewables, now.
