It won't make sense to you. I don't believe you a tiny bit when you say you want to understand it. But yes, there are rational arguments. It is entirely rational not to believe "scientific" risk estimates after a couple too many impossible accidents happened. Estimation risk is real, fat tail risks are a problem, especially with the potential of radioactive fallout. The total projected cost of the Fukushima cleanup is going up year by year btw.

Other rational arguments: The infrastructure is unwieldy and extremely unpopular at best. Germany has no path to solving the nuclear waste issue, partly for political reasons: Nobody wants that (or other parts of nuclear infrastructure, really) in their backyard, and backyards are spaced pretty closely in the old world, and when every citizen has the same voting weight, tough luck. It just doesn't work.

Ukraine is teaching us another point: Nuclear power plants are weak points in the national security, and extremely so in wartime. Even when the enemy shows restraint (Russia strangely does, in that regard) there is an awkward element of hostage taking. Nuclear power is a bet on multiple decades of peace and everything going just right. And if you were really that interested, you could easily find lots more arguments.