IIRC the bulk is property. German power plants are located in densely populated areas with high property prices. If a plant renders a smallish area unlivable and BMW has to vacate and replace a factory there, BMW will not want to take a loss on that.
If you consider the affected area/MW to wind or solar it's clearly a net win. And there isn't a need to build nuclear plants in more densely populated areas than others.
Germany is well described as a mixture of densely populated and even more densely populated areas, with very few large and sparse areas. (There was a minor scandal a few years ago, after an airplane crash. Each airport has some sort of designated crash site, "dear pilot, if you can't avoid crashing, try to do it there". Some airport's site was near a village, because there was nothing uninhabited nearby.)
Some people appear to tick all three of these:
- My viewpoint is a scientific one
- The liability rules for chemical plants is fine
- The same rules would be too strict for nuclear plants
IMO anyone can combine any pair of those, but considering all three to be true is… very puzzling to me.
I assume you meant some large number and that's probably because you are assuming they need to cover all kinds of exaggerated costs like lawsuits from people who get cancer or keeping radiation levels below the background level in case of a leak.