> I really think heated clothing will gain ground.

Maybe, but it seems dystopian to me to have to rely on that in your own home. In places like Norway, where there is plenty of clean energy, I don't think the population will be willing to go there.

Yesterday, our prime minister declared that current energy prices are not viable. The labour movement and farmer organizations (and many others) are demanding that Norway pulls out of ACER, or renegotiates the agreement. During the summer, the problem is not so great, and given the situation in Ukraine, nothing will happen right now. But I would be surprised if some "solution" hasn't been found before December.

https://www.nettavisen.no/okonomi/raseri-mot-hoye-stromprise...

> In France and the US results of real efforts towards this show how difficult it is.

Again, I already consider France to have achieved success, they just need to keep it up.

> I doubt so, because the root cause is here a lack of trust,

This varies from country to country. Scandinavia and parts of northern Europe has traditionally had relatively high trust in government. In other places, governments have no such authority.

In both cases, trust is built and maintained by attemting to tell the truth and make reliable predictions. For instance, overselling renewables (for instance by underestimating the need and/or cost of storage) is dangerous, as it can cause long term harm to this trust relationship.

Similarly for nuclear, if there is a meltdown that kills thousands or hundreds of thousands of people in a plant the government claims to be "safe", trust is broken. If there is a minor incident, the population needs to be educated about the real effects.

> It may be true (even if I doubt so) but this is IMHO out of the current Overton window scope.

This is a good point, and just as important is that most politicians don't even have the scientific understanding themselves, so they too are controlled by whatever Zeitgeist is ruling at any time.

Having this discussion on Twitter, for instance, is basically useless. At least here on HN, even the people with another opinion will argue more from reason than pure emotion or partisanship. Within educated people, there may exist another Overton windown than what may exist in the general population.

To add complication, in the general population, there is even a risk that there are two "camps", each with their own, non-overlapping Overton windows. If enough people lose trust in official government sources, one can end up in scenarios where the majority ends up believing things that are in direct conflict with scientific knowledge. (And this can happen on both sides, simultaneously, for different topics.)

And here is one of my fears. I'm generally supportive of investments in renewables, but I fear that if unrealistic projects are started because the "sound good" to politicians, the weaknesses of such projects will eventually become obvious to the population. And the more some source of authority has tried to downplay such weaknesses, the more likely it will be to get a reaction in the opposite direction. In other words, if huge investments are put into wind power, and the technology doesn't deliver what is promised, there can be a huge backlash that leads to countries starting to build more coal power plants instead of tearing them down.

> Yes, avoiding any "manufacturing of consent".

In the sciences, goverments should not manufacture consent. The scientific debate needs to be free. As for the general public, some level of government sponsored "education" can be beneficial, but as I wrote above, it is critical that such communication is as fact-based as possible, non-partisan (when possible) and that it delivers on predictions (or, if predictions are uncertain, avoids making hard predictions).

> > let the market decide how to distribute the replacement between renewables and nuclear.

> Yes.

:)