> Norway pulls out of ACER, or renegotiates the agreement
> I would be surprised if some "solution" hasn't been found before December.

This is indeed highly probable and could boost efforts towards a larger cooperation, relieving the burden of 1-to-1 relationships by diffusing risks.

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

We (I'm French) try hard, but couldn't adequately built any new reactor since 1999.

>> 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.

Indeed, however it seems to me that the level of trust gets lower even in those nations(?). See local 'Pirate Party'

> trust is built and maintained by attemting to tell the truth and make reliable predictions. For instance, overselling renewables
> can cause long term harm to this trust relationship.

Indeed, but on this very account trust on nuclear was already dented because many don't see past accidents as 'minor'. This may be wrong, but they sure don't want to be exposed to such risk.

> most politicians don't even have the scientific understanding themselves, so they too are controlled by whatever Zeitgeist

This is a sure way for them to be able to communicate with the electorate, a necessary way to be elected.

> Within educated people, there may exist another Overton windown than what may exist in the general population.

Indeed, however the case at hand is difficult to settle even among them because there are reasons to think that 'renewables' can be sufficient, and therefore to prefer avoiding problems raised by nuclear (risk, waste, dependency to uranium, daunting decommissions...), reasons to think that the level of risk associated to nuclear plants is higher than estimated or would become intolerable if we build many of them...

> there are two "camps", each with their own, non-overlapping Overton windows

There are! And the integrated window defines the very limited spectrum were politicians seeking power are constrained.

> 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

Indeed. Worse: even fully-gov-trusting people can err (or be fooled) this way.

There is no sure source clearlyu indicating what is preferrable, or even (esp. outside of pure mathematics) what is really 'true'.

> I fear that if unrealistic projects are started because the "sound good"
> 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

The risk is real. However since the 2000's the objective reality is "huge investments were put into nuclear, and the technology doesn't deliver what was promised..."

> In the sciences, goverments should not manufacture consent
> some level of government sponsored "education" can be beneficial

I highly doubt so, as it will be quickly distorted (even non deliberately: 'an end justifies any means')

> it is critical that such communication is as fact-based as possible, non-partisan (when possible)

In theory it can be done, but I'm not aware of any historical success.

> if predictions are uncertain, avoids making hard predictions

This induces a tension with the necessary 'motivation'. Politicians avoid "maybe" along with "let's go!".