I haven't downvoted, but I think it might be because calling someone an ideologue because you disagree with them is bad taste.
When you're so rabidly anti-nuclear that you ignore the fact uranium is 1.5 million times as energy-dense as coal, you are an ideologue. Uranium has so much energy per kilogram you could fuel the world's reactors by shipping it via airplane.
There's plenty to criticize about the environmental damage of uranium mining. Carbon emissions is not one of them.
It's my opinion this choice to attack nuclear energy by casting it in whatever critical light is trendy rather than its actual weaknesses demonstrates Morgan is against nuclear energy for ideological reasons that have nothing to do with its actual dangers, hence she is doing little or no risk/reward calculation, and that her future choices will not be based on human energy needs and accurate assessments of nuclear technology and industry.
The arguments they make is that producing electricity and most usage of electricity are bad for our planet and thus we should use less electricity if we want to preserve it (and as a result wouldn't need to add extra nuclear or coal capacity).
This part is often forgotten which results of thinking they want to replace nuclear by coal, which would be absurd.
I imagine it's probably hard to imagine that someone would think that seriously from a US perspective (one of my US based colleague asked "when are you getting AC in Europe??" when here many people are wondering if the Americans are going to stop being crazy with their freezing AC ^^)
Unless they have ideas about how people and society can continue to accomplish all of the things we want to, using less electricity, this is not a serious argument. It's simply ideological fluff, advocating for people to embrace a lower standard of living for nothing in return.
If a person advocates against cleaner sources of energy on the grounds that "we should just be using less energy", then I don't think they are a serious person and they should be ignored. Let them go live their hippie life on a commune somewhere and free up the space for the adults to talk about real solutions.
But there are also plenty of things that can be done to reduce energy consumption without impacting anyone's little confort. Regarding thermal confort the obvious solution is to improve insulation so they wouldn't have to heat or cool as much and might even save money in the long run
The anti-nuclear-power movement started 60 years ago. Imagine what our past would look like now if instead we had replaced all coal and gas with nuclear back then. Is there a chance we would have had more disasters? Sure. But it's impossible to know. What we do know for a fact is that coal and gas emissions are killing the planet.
We have a problem with CO2 emissions and here you are talking about better insulation in homes to reduce power usage. We have a great, direct solution to reduce emissions by orders of magnitude. But no, let's continue to burn gas and coal, just use less of it.
This is why I say anti-nuclear isn't a serious position.
It's not hard to imagine, I'm French and we did replace most things with nuclear back then ^^
The result is that right now we are purchasing (probably coal made) electricity to our neighbors because around 50% of our theorical nuclear capacity is unavailable either for maintenance or because we don't manage to cool them enough with the current heat :)
Nuclear is certainly a good thing overall but not the obvious and only solution to all problems as some would like to believe.
Of course there are many upside to it too (low carbon emissions and not from Russia among the obvious ones)
But it's pretty rare to find balanced and nuanced speech on the topic unfortunately, and I don't find the anti nuclear side to be any worse than the pro nuclear side on this.
Edit: I searched to find a dictionary for word connotations, best I found in a couple mins is https://www3.cs.stonybrook.edu/~ychoi/connotation/
But you are right, it's not a thing you'd really say about somebody you liked.