It probably doesn't hurt much to start building a couple of nuclear plants and to keep existing ones running a while longer. But it's pretty clear that renewables and storage have won and we should put most of our money behind them.
I remember calculating at some point that having enough battery storage to support my electricity needs for 1 day, costs about the same as the total of electricity I will use in 10 years. And this was with favourable numbers, and only accounts for electricity and not other forms of energy use.
It's certainly clear that we want to have the highest proportion of solar/wind possible. What's not clear is how to distribute variability handling between grid-scale storage, nuclear/hydro, and long distance interconnects.
I haven't done any of the math though. Like I want nuclear to just be cheaper than FF. But shrug.
And eventually, the renewables did get cheaper. It would have been nice to have CO2 taxes decades ago for an earlier transition away from fossil fuels, but that's water under the bridge.
There's no need to stay loyal to nuclear just because one once supported it. It's a technology, not a girlfriend.
Solar is as magical as nuclear plants are. It’s really sad that nuclear plants take so long to build.
Germany is not terribly well suited for solar either. Wind is a bit better from a kWh/m^2 point of view.