To expand on my previous point. A nuclear power plant has to be maintained by humans. Humans make mistakes. Accidents will happen. Also, these plants at some point will get old. What can they be replaced with? This is exactly why Belgium can’t shut Tihange down. What is the alternative for them, coal from Hambacher Forst?
The best alternative for them is a modern nuclear plant, built right next to the old one. Which the "activists" won't let them build.
Is the problem of greenhouse gases "solved"? Last I checked, 31% of Germany's considerable energy appetite is filled by burning hydrocarbons. If we are to believe climate change alarmists, this is destroying the planet to a far greater and more permanent extent than some leaky barrels in some German salt mine.
Activists must have some terrible cognitive dissonance in their heads. On the one hand we keep hearing that "we're all gonna die" if something is not done within the next decade. On the other hand, the only thing that can realistically be done in the next decade to combat climate change _for real_ is building a ton of new nuclear power plants and shutting down the coal and natural gas ones. No, solar and wind aren't going to cut it, it's readily apparent if you run some basic back of the envelope, and solar creates an environmental disaster of its own, both now (in China mostly) and in the future, due to the limited lifespan of the panels.
I don't know much about semiconductor but I guess you can store them in a relatively normal warehouse until you figure out a way to do that and recycle the materials without running into problems like converting bigger parts of land into a radioactive wasteland?
I don't think that's a very good comparison.