Nuclear power is very unpopular in Germany. People don't like nuclear infrastructure in their back yards. And it's far from an irrational fear. And yes, there is a part about "We don't want nuclear weapons", so there is one less incentive to stomach the cost and issues and bulldoze over concerns.
At the moment we can have political arguments about keeping one or two online. Don't mistake that for a desire or ability to build new ones...
Planning to shut them down (without adequately speeding up replacements) was a mistake. But it's also a mistake to now decide to keep them (just 3! plants) running
Really, to want nuclear power you need a high risk appetite. You label everyone who doesn't have that appetite as irrational. That's dishonest.
So there is no risk involved, with betting on fossil fuels and the dictators who sell it? (and the health risk from coal)
And reneawbles are just not there yet, to cover 100% and they still have a long way to go. My personal favourite would have been desertec, but that did not come very far. And there is a big political risk there as well. Morocco is a dictatorship, but stable and the rest is quite instable. Maybe the southern EU countries would get enough sun, to achieve a "desertec" in the EU, but it is a risk as well, to bet on it. Governments change. Opinions change. Prices change. Blackmailing is a thing in politics.
In short, do you have a solution, that is quite riskfree which does not involve coal and does not make us dependant on dictators?
"perfectly long term storage can be found"
And why does it have to be perfect? It has to be good enough, that nothing leaks. Otherwise it can be moved and it could also be recycled.
You are still repeating the lie that fossil fuels are the alternative. Actually, renewable energy is the only way left because nuclear power takes decades to ramp up. Not only do nuclear power plants take years or decades to plan and build according to plan, they almost always go way over time and budget.
Both fossil fuel and renewable have a huge advantage in terms of risk over nuclear power (apart from not nuking populated areas): Nuclear power plants irrevocably commit their society to a couple of decades of risk. Unless you pull the plug early and eat the horrendous cost.
Why "forever"? You are aware of the concept, called half life? It means at some point, the waste will be not dangerous anymore. But yes, that will take some time. But if something happens, like an earthquake that makes a previously safe spot unsafe, you can still move it. (And otherwise you could recycle it to reburn it.)
But of course, you can argue the moving of the waste, is so expensive, because of activists. So then activists can better argue, that nuclear is so expensive. Hurey.
"You are still repeating the lie that fossil fuels are the alternative. "
What exactly is the lie here? I am using electricity right now, that is generated largely by fossil fuels. That is not good in the long term, no - but it is working right now. I think framing things as lying when it is just something you disagree with, is not the best discussion style, but rather sharing agendas.
But asking again directly: what is your proposed idea for riskfree implementation of renewables in germany?
"It also has to be acceptable to the population"
Because this is also a great issue here. Wind turbines face heavy resistance for example. And monocultures of corn are not great either. Offshore wind parks bring their own set of problems (mostly environmental, but also corrosive costs), and sun on its own would require massive storage and massive deployment of panels, which also have to be manufactured, which takes energy.
It is just not so easy.
I am very pro renewables. But I rather have nuclear plants for the transition and as backup, than continue burning coal. But I am open for working alternatives.
You don't understand the downsides of nuclear power. It's not even possible to build new plants in time to stop global warming. Even assuming those plants could be build on time and within budget. Which almost never worked, historically.
Of course that would be possible. It is a matter of investment and prioritizing. But of course, the biggest problem would be "people like you" (to use your black and white terminology) that would block everything and add extra regulations that do not bring more security, but blockage out of principle.
But like I said, going 100 nuclear would not be my plan. I see them as a transition and backup on the way to 100% renewables.
What would be your plan? If you would have it your way and all the nuclear plants would have to stop tomorrow. How would you replace them? With what? Can you give a concrete answer here? And it seems you also want to stop all the coal plants. Great. But how to replace them in reality? Can you share concrete numbers and technologies you would use and not just agenda?
I don't like to have a coal or nuclear plant in the backyard either. But I also don't like blackouts.
And that movement was strong back then, because chernobyl happened, the clouds came over here and to this day, it is recommended against eating mushrooms from the forest regulary.
Then Fukoshima revitalisied that traumata and in the heat of the moment, the decision was made.