definitionally if you’re arguing with me about this then you have no idea what you’re talking about

And this is why I said I don’t think you’re open to an argument. But I’m not actually trying to argue with you about this, to the extent I’m arguing here it’s for the benefit of other people reading who are perhaps a tiny bit less pig-headed than you are. Which is great, because I don’t have to actually persuade you of anything but simply to give other people an alternative perspective to yours.

If Germany had built renewables instead of nuclear, would they have turned off the renewables that were producing the cheapest, cleanest energy ever known, with zero fuel costs and minimal maintenance costs?

Yes, because they’re still tied up in anti-nuclear politics. (hardly a phenomenon unique to Germany)

“Often more expensive” “no longer any real advantages” according to a “professor of renewable energy” who doesn’t actually seem to have anything against them except that somehow he wants to “make way for renewable energy” which he somehow perceives an existing, functional nuclear plant as a hindrance to? Again, politics.

“Provides investment certainty for renewable energy” is likewise a weak / hypothetical / pie-in-the-sky argument - show me where existing nuclear power plants are actually getting in the way of new renewables.

“Replaced them with fossil fuels” natural gas is also, y’know, a fossil fuel. Even the anti-nuclear people cited in one of your articles admit that the lifecycle emissions of a gas plant are 4x as high as a brand new nuclear plant. Coal is even worse, sure, but even absent the Ukraine situation they’d be producing a lot more carbon with a very, very thin justification.