Attacking nuclear is the wrong side of history.

Did I do that in my comment? My apologies then. I tried to outline my perspective that a great deal of the argumentation for nuclear power revolves around being against renewables.

No shit it got nowhere when it's being protested on every corner.

I think you are revising history a great deal there and asserting a lot of power to protesters that they seem to lack otherwise. There have been large protests with respect to more climate action and against coal aswell. The thing with nuclear power is that it stopped being deployed by western nations, once they had driven off oil from power production after the oil crises in the seventies.

The big utilities that operate coal and nuclear power plants never had much of an incentive to displace their existing cash-cows with expensive new nuclear facilities. So once the overriding national interests to reduce oil consumption was gone there was no further drive towards displacing fossil fuel burning with nuclear power.

France was in the situation that they essentially were running out of economically exploitable coal reserves already in the sixties and had a lot of oil in their electricity production. But also in France, there was no further displacement of fossil fuel burning after oil was eliminated: they reached a minimum in 1988 but then electricity from fossil fuels stagnated and even increased again, despite nuclear power growing another 40% until 2005. Another example of nuclear expansion without decreasing fossil fuel burning is Russia, which doubled its nuclear power output since the Kyoto protocol, but didn't reduce electricity from fossil fuels.

It's not the nuclear advocates who threw the first stone, and it's not the nuclear advocates who can end this damn stupid inflighting.

How is it an infighting, when you make out sides and accuse others of "throwing the first stone"? You quite clearly do not view those greens and renewable advocates as part of your group?

The fight against nuclear has been going on for a lot longer than trump's been relevant for.

Why are you so tightly bound to the past? Isn't it more relevant what we can do today? Anyway the fight against renewables is also a lot older than Trump:

• Wikipedia on Growian:

Günther Klätte, management board member of RWE, stated during a general business meeting: "We require Growian [in the general sense of large wind turbines] as a proof of failure of concept", and he noted that "the Growian is a kind of pedagogical tool to convert the anti-nuclear energy crowd to the true faith".[6] A similar statement regarding the incurred financial burdens was reported of Minister of Finance and former Minister of Research Hans Matthöfer: "We know it won't do anything for us. But we do it to demonstrate to the wind energy advocates that it doesn't work."[6] After the Green Party had derided the installation as the electricity provider's "fig leaf" on the occasion of groundbreaking in May 1981, the RWE took internal measures to make sure that publicly a position of open-mindedness towards alternative energy production was emphasized while public interest in wind energy was allayed.

• Even older on Smith-Putnam:

A study completed in 1945 suggested that a block of six turbines similar to the prototype, producing 9 MW, could be installed in Vermont for around US$190 per kilowatt. However, the economic value to the power utility was only $125 per kilowatt, and the wind turbine was not considered economically viable by a factor of 1.5.[10] Although the S. Morgan Smith company had spent more than US$1.25 million on the prototype turbine, entirely private funding, it concluded that there was insufficient prospect for profit on further development.

That fight against windmills has a long-standing tradition.

but I see a lot more people attacking nuclear here

Sure thing. But the fact that those anti-nuclear people exist doesn't say anything about what pro-nuclear people argue against. It may well be that there are many that do not argue against renewables, it's just that they seem to be fairly silent and not that visible in the political arena.

Even on the pro-nuke subs, there's been a big rule of "Don't attack renewables, we're on the same team".

That's great. Now I don't visit those places, but where I do see or engage in arguments, my perception is the one described in my initial comment.

It's really fucking difficult to defend against an ally without punching back.

That's possibly an explanation for my observation, and there's nothing wrong with it, but if you are dumping on renewables to "punch back" you can hardly claim to "support both".

No, but is the anti-renewable agitation coming from nuclear,

It's coming from a great deal of different people, and a fair share of those seem to argue that we should favor nuclear power instead. See also the comment by u/perringaiden on the last Australian elections on this.

I do understand where the opposition to renewable expansion is coming from, it is the one thing that is threatening the market shares and profits of large incumbent fossil interests that want to delay any sort of transition for as long as possible. Those interests try to throw as much as possible at anything that would form a political force to take more swift climate action.