But that's not rational. Disabling nuclear power more than negates the effects of investing in wind and solar. Actually wind and solar are worse than nuclear, since the former are highly volatile and can't act as a stable baseline energy source.
Plus, we have the European Power Grid which lets you import and export electricity to neighboring countries and e.g. France is so deeply invested into nuclear, they would always have excess energy (sidenote: due to mismanagement and droughts France heavily needed to import electricity from Germany).
Germany afair set a world record in generating solar electricity around 2012 while it was losing its whole solar industry (150k+ jobs) to China, bc the Merkel gov't suddenly stopped subsidizing them.
Ah, I see, solar and wind being volatile are not a problem because you have other countries to generate power for you, even if it is nuclear (that apparently is bad) or coal. What?
That's absurd. First, it was actually politicians like Manuela Scheswig who promoted Russian gas even though nuclear was better. Second, you can't simply blame "scientists and industry" for the effects of bad policy. If politicians turn off nuclear energy and simply hope that "scientists and industry" would readily figure out how to store vast amounts of energy, then that's naive. There is no justification for basing your policy on wishful thinking about non-existent science fiction technology.
NB: Schwesig promoted Russian gas to improve her local industry. She was the pawn sacrifice of the "leadership" in the whole shitshow.
Renewable energy is only available at certain times, whereas nuclear is as stable as you can get. You can't pause energy generation for nuclear power plants, which is why coal/gas is more effective in this context, as you can start and stop these at will.