I did provide a fact - industry is leaving because of energy costs. So a rational government would do something to make those costs go down in order to prevent this outflow, but they are shutting down the cheapest...
So let's stop right there. Nuclear was never the cheapest source of energy, and modern facilities now produce some of the most expensive electrical energy, way more expensive than fossil fuels or wind.
You can make your case only in this marginal case of extending the already existing plants and their permits; which is also what I suggested before you decided to label me as some greenist utopia believer. This works out because the big investments in building the NPPs, recruiting staff etc. are behind, the total cost of ownership won't increase. All you need are some modest maintenance operations. But you can't do this indefinitely. At some point, you have to make the decision of building completely new nuclear. Finland did, and it was an economic disaster. You can then speculate that
oh, you did it the wrong way, but for example the goals for safety design have shifted compared to the golden age of "cheap" nuclear in the 1960's to 1980's. That art is somewhat lost, and nuclear is more expensive to build today.
It's not either-or. Germany's energy policy is a combination of right and wrong decisions, successes and failures, irrational political choices and sensible engineering. Germany can be used
both as examples how to do the
green shift, and how
not to do it.
You would grasp all of this in a second if you just looked at Germany's production curves from the last 20 years with your mind open and draw your own conclusions from the data.
It takes a lot of irrational ideology to believe nuclear energy is the cheapest, cleanest, safest and an overall excellent solution to the energy problems, because it's simply not true. Just like it takes a lot of ideology to decide that under any conditions, running the plants for another decade is that big of a no-no.