I think a lot of people don't get the distinction between gas (natural gas as a fuel) and gas turbines which produce a gas from burning a fuel which may be but doesn't have to be natural gas.
Once people get the idea that they can also run on hydrogen or bio-fuels then maybe the Greenies won't scream as much whenever they hear the word gas.
Without intending to sound elitist, a big part of the problem is that the debate has become dominated by the technically ignorant.
That's not aimed at anyone on this forum and it's not to say the general public etc aren't welcome. Just that if anyone's going to argue the case for one way or another way, on any subject, then it's pointless if they don't even comprehend what they're actually arguing for or against.
There's some very sharp people on what I'll refer to as the non-political "green" side of the debate just as there are on what I'll generically refer to as the "engineering" side of the debate. Noting that I'm using those as terms of convenience and not as a reference to the Greens political party or those who necessarily are engineers although it does include them.
More than a few discussions have taken place out of public view with issues explored from different perspectives, options looked at and so on and that's all pretty easy when there's no media attention, there's no politics, there's no war being fought and so on.
So long as everyone understands it and is acting in good faith then it comes down to competing value judgements. One person holds the view that the priorities are A, B, C and D in that order whilst someone else says no actually they consider the priorities to be D, B, C and A in that order. And so on. It's a case of differing opinions as to what's important but nobody who's aware of the facts is going to argue with what building a dam or operating gas turbines actually involves. It's a question of which they'd prefer and why.
Looking at the actual, specific issues there:
Financial cost: Some see it as top priority, others see it as important but "close enough is good enough". I've never come across anyone who said it was totally unimportant, everyone does seem to grasp that society doesn't have unlimited resources and so on and that regardless of all other considerations, energy does need to be affordable.
Supply reliability: There's a few at the green end of the spectrum who hold a view that it's unimportant but they're a definite minority. Even among the "green" side most see supply reliability as a key criteria, typically on the basis that failure would bring major repercussions politically and thwarts the "electrify everything" objective to reduce emissions. Unsurprisingly engineers tend to put supply reliability at the top of the list and see it as non-negotiable.
Conservation: Unsurprisingly some diverse views but broadly speaking, I think it's fair to say that most on the engineering side do "get" the point about nature, wilderness, National Parks and so on although obviously those on the green side tend to be more tied in with it. Where the differences tend to arise is where it sits - some see it as the most important issue of the lot whilst others, unsurprisingly the engineers but also including quite a few on the "green" side of the debate, see it as something that can be compromised
within reason if legitimately necessary in order to meet other objectives they see as more important, specifically:
Climate change: There's the odd total denial from the engineering side, but broadly most seem to accept the idea that changing the composition of the earth's atmosphere won't be without consequence and that it seems a rather dangerous experiment to be doing given there's no backup plan if it turns out badly. FWIW more than a few on the engineering side see it as an extremely high priority, concern is by no means something unique to those at the green end.
National security: Incidentally and perhaps surprising, if there's one thing where greens and engineers tend to agree it's that depending on imported fuel comes with rather large risks and is best avoided. There's the odd "won't happen" argument, which interestingly tends to come from the engineering end of the table, but broadly most do seem to see that as a very definite issue. It could be summed up by saying there's a recognition that geopolitics is a real thing that can change quickly such that peace today is no guarantee of what happens tomorrow but given the consequences of supply disruption, reliance on imports is best avoided.
Take the politics away and there's a lot of common ground and understanding with the differences coming down to value judgements as to what's the most important.
As a case in point, well there's one particular project which would involve building an approximately 1000 MW hydro station to be used for the primary purpose of filling VRE droughts, noting that being storage based it would have the ability to operate at constant full output during those periods then sit there filling up the rest of the time. It's in an area with reasonably reliable rainfall and has enough storage to cope with variations. It would also incorporate a much smaller dam and reservoir immediately downstream of the power station to permit pumped storage operation as short duration storage as well thus avoiding the need for duplication of its capacity for that routine function.
Just one problem - it's in a conservation area so can't be built.
A value judgement but given the land area affected, it's less than 1% of the conservation area to my understanding, versus the scale of benefit my view is it's worth a very serious look from an unbiased scientific perspective.
Others will disagree, arguing that the conservation aspect is more important and that a National Park or similar area is non-negotiable as to its uses which don't include submerging it under a man-made reservoir.
For those opposed on principle, I'll then point out that fossil fuels are the alternative at least right now, it's one or the other, and that's my underlying reason for arguing it's worth a serious, unbiased look to see if it's a less bad alternative.
Note that I'm not arguing for or against. Just pointing it out as one example of something that could be done and which involves a conflict of one value versus another and arguing that it should be considered in view of all the issues and alternatives noting that there's no perfect option, building or not building both come with an impact just a different one.
Trouble is, whilst I'm drawing attention to both sides of an argument there, in the real world tribal politics makes that impossible. End result = constant argument and slow progress.