You have the same considerations with coal waste as well.

>https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/article24874...

Look at how many coal ash spills there have been...and those come with nice forever things like mercury.

At least two of those points don't hold when you're talking about existing plants though. Germany already hosts nuclear weapons courtesy of the US, so where's the proliferation risk from nuclear power? And there's nothing worse for ROI than shutting down the plant.

For the other points I'd say that I'd rather build solar to replace coal plants first before replacing nuclear plants.

> Germany already hosts nuclear weapons courtesy of the US, so where's the proliferation risk?

Proliferation is not a binary 1 or 0.

> For the other points I'd say that I'd rather build solar to replace coal plants first before replacing nuclear plants.

That's a false dichotomy.

> Proliferation is not a binary 1 or 0.

I think climate change poses a bigger existential risk than the nuclear proliferation risk from Germany continuing the nuclear energy production they're already doing.

> That's a false dichotomy.

Sure we can do both, but the reality is we're not doing both. The last time Germany closed its nuclear plants they were replaced by coal plants.