It's not that ironic. Electrification isn't a "welp, we're done now, yay" thing, it's one of two parallel paths that works together for decarbonization.
1. Electrify all the things
2. Clean up the electrical supply
Obviously if you only look at one of the paths in isolation, it doesn't solve problems ("it's great that everything's electric, but electricity is still high carbon"/"it's great that electricity is clean, but most energy use isn't electric"), but there's no path forward on climate that doesn't involve both.
Why electrify all the things instead of decarbonize all the things? Lots of places use zero carbon nuclear district heating to take advantage of the hot water for building heat. It can be pumped 100 km from the plant as it is at Beznau.
This makes nuclear more cost effective as well since you're using a valuable product (heat) that is otherwise wasted.
How is it a non-starter? Nuclear plants are low-carbon and extremely safe [1]. 100 km is a long way. There are millions of people in the USA living within 100 km of a nuclear plant. Showing people the numbers on nuclear isn't that hard.
I think the answer is simply that if you run the numbers, it's just not economical to use nuclear plants for district heating. It's probably great if you can use district heating for cooling, but generally nuclear plants are very expensive so you want to get as much high-valued electricity out of them as possible.
Of you're building the district heating anyway then a district heating reservoir, a heat pump and some solar collectors plus enough wind and solar for equivalent total gross heat output (in addition to the collectors) is still cheaper.
1. Electrify all the things 2. Clean up the electrical supply
Obviously if you only look at one of the paths in isolation, it doesn't solve problems ("it's great that everything's electric, but electricity is still high carbon"/"it's great that electricity is clean, but most energy use isn't electric"), but there's no path forward on climate that doesn't involve both.