"Yes, long term storage has to be "perfect" in the sense that nothing leaks forever. That's a tall order."
Why "forever"? You are aware of the concept, called half life? It means at some point, the waste will be not dangerous anymore. But yes, that will take some time. But if something happens, like an earthquake that makes a previously safe spot unsafe, you can still move it. (And otherwise you could recycle it to reburn it.)
But of course, you can argue the moving of the waste, is so expensive, because of activists. So then activists can better argue, that nuclear is so expensive. Hurey.
"You are still repeating the lie that fossil fuels are the alternative. "
What exactly is the lie here? I am using electricity right now, that is generated largely by fossil fuels. That is not good in the long term, no - but it is working right now. I think framing things as lying when it is just something you disagree with, is not the best discussion style, but rather sharing agendas.
But asking again directly: what is your proposed idea for riskfree implementation of renewables in germany?
"It also has to be acceptable to the population"
Because this is also a great issue here. Wind turbines face heavy resistance for example. And monocultures of corn are not great either. Offshore wind parks bring their own set of problems (mostly environmental, but also corrosive costs), and sun on its own would require massive storage and massive deployment of panels, which also have to be manufactured, which takes energy.
It is just not so easy.
I am very pro renewables. But I rather have nuclear plants for the transition and as backup, than continue burning coal. But I am open for working alternatives.