The ship has sailed on nuclear for Germany no matter where you stand on the topic and there’s not a lot of valuable discussion left to warrant trotting this point out at every opportunity.
Just check how good France, the nuclear power country in Europe, is doing and how much they have to import energy from e.g., Germany and also nuclear fissile material from Russia (rosatom). Nuclear power needs a massive amount of water and constant maintenance, iow., not really climate-change proof and once neglected - and most HN users will know that infrastructure might sooner or later get neglected if its running anyway ("why should I pay for you if everything works" mentality isn't only a thing in IT), and getting those plants then up and repaired again is a huge work and may reduce power production on some sites close to zero for months to years.
So, no, it's not worth pointing something out that isn't as black as white as a lot of armchair energy experts would like it to make, especially done in such a gloating manner it rather seems just for fishing for upvotes or confirmation, but really adds nothing to the discussion.
So nuclear in France is a failure in the sense that it's made us the greenest country in Europe (along with hydro-rich Sweden) for the past 40 years, one of the largest exporters of energy, and that despite calls to bring it down we're basically in the same state as Germany right now except we don't produce 50% of our energy from coal and gas.
Also, more importantly: if we can agree that nuclear shutdown was a bad decision, then we can work backwards from that and conclude that the people responsible for it shouldn't be trusted with anything more complex than digging ditches.