The only "ruinous" aspect is that Germany did not prepare on the side of renewable installed capacity (and perhaps storage, although I'm not sure.)
Nuclear is:
* Something like 3x more costly (levelized cost etc.) relative to solar and wind.
* Dangerous I: Yes, still dangerous for the foreseeable future. There are still significant risks, especially with nuclear waste storage, but to some extent with active plants. I'm not an expert on this, but see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accident... with some examples from recent years.
* Dangerous II: Considering the state of infrastructure generally in some world states (e.g. the US) and profit motives, I do not believe the private nuclear industry can be trusted to deliver sufficient levels of safety.
* Dangerous III: Earthquakes, bombardment, and partisan/terrorist attacks are threats even to plants and storage facilities which are otherwise safe. And these occur with relative frequency; just think of the Zhaporizye (sp) plants a couple of months ago.
* Has greenhouse gas emission costs via mining of Uranium and such. Caveat: Not sure how much this compares to wind/solar/geothermal on one hand and coal/carbon-rich gas on the other hand/
* Is promoted to a great extent as a counterpart to nuclear arms programs. For nuclear weapons, you need fissile material, and you produce that in a nuclear reactor. Which then also produces heat, which you convert to power. Not all nuclear plants need to be like that, but again, no trust that these will go away.
Now, I am certainly no expert on the matter, so - convince me otherwise if you can.
Nuclear is:
* Something like 3x more costly (levelized cost etc.) relative to solar and wind.
* Dangerous I: Yes, still dangerous for the foreseeable future. There are still significant risks, especially with nuclear waste storage, but to some extent with active plants. I'm not an expert on this, but see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accident... with some examples from recent years.
* Dangerous II: Considering the state of infrastructure generally in some world states (e.g. the US) and profit motives, I do not believe the private nuclear industry can be trusted to deliver sufficient levels of safety.
* Dangerous III: Earthquakes, bombardment, and partisan/terrorist attacks are threats even to plants and storage facilities which are otherwise safe. And these occur with relative frequency; just think of the Zhaporizye (sp) plants a couple of months ago.
* Has greenhouse gas emission costs via mining of Uranium and such. Caveat: Not sure how much this compares to wind/solar/geothermal on one hand and coal/carbon-rich gas on the other hand/
* Is promoted to a great extent as a counterpart to nuclear arms programs. For nuclear weapons, you need fissile material, and you produce that in a nuclear reactor. Which then also produces heat, which you convert to power. Not all nuclear plants need to be like that, but again, no trust that these will go away.
Now, I am certainly no expert on the matter, so - convince me otherwise if you can.