You mean fossil fuel interests might have been supporting the Greens to end nuclear power? That would be an incredibly implausible conspiracy theory tbh. Lots to criticize about them, of course, but that would be not one of those things

Gas power plants can complement solar/wind power plants since their output can be adjusted quickly. Nuclear doesn't work for this. And gas power plants can be built to consume hydrogen too. That can be produced from overcapacity of solar/wind and stored. Imo not too weird as idea

In addition to the technical substitution there are also political and commercial aspects to consider like a) Germany's decision in 2011 to finally phase out nuclear power and b) market effects that lead to unintuitive/suboptimal behaviour of power providers. 1/2

See quarks.de/podcast/quarks-sci… for a discussion of that specific aspect and a general assessment of nuclear power usage for Germany based on scientific evidence

It seems to me there’s no scientific consensus regarding whether or not nuclear power is the lesser evil. Assessing the risks, as well as the economical and political consequences, seem way too hard for that. In any case, for Germany, that ship has probably sailed for good

I think there is consensus. However if you ask nuclear physics researchers they will give you a diverging, positively biased assessment of risks and prospects of nuclear energy. At the same time, the shift to renewables threatens established revenue streams 1/2

So that lobbyist groups try to paint a different picture, and mechanisms similar to those in discussions on fossil energy sources are in place here (well funded think tanks creating purposely biased material, shifting the discourse, creating false balance, etc) 2/2

I’m not suggesting there’s no drastic lobbying going on. Yet compared to scientific consensus about the climate crisis, where there are no deniers worth listening to, there are serious scientists in favor of nuclear power.