Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

And the fuss about the disposal and final storage of radioactive waste will then be solved exactly how and where?
And who will take over the disposal and final storage of radioactive waste for the next 10,000 years?

As already explained in #1230: whether it is 20,000 tons as it is now or 50,000 tons (numbers guessed) of highly radioactive waste, it basically doesn’t matter anymore.

Who will bear the costs of the damage after a reactor disaster like Chernobyl or Fukushima?

Thorium nuclear power plants or fourth-generation nuclear power plants. Just deal with it without prejudice. But it is likely to fail at the latter...

And the fuss about disposal and final storage of radioactive waste will then be solved exactly how and where? And who will take over disposal and final storage of radioactive waste for the next 10,000 years? Who will bear the costs of damage after a reactor disaster like Chernobyl or Fukushima?

Since the waste already exists, this is no longer decision-relevant. These are "sunk costs," even if many do not want to accept that. Disaster: In modern nuclear power plants, while the reactor is toast in a meltdown, it is designed so that, unlike in Chernobyl, highly radioactive material cannot be released. Moreover, neither of the two nuclear power plants would have been approved in the old FRG.

At the old sites, four new reactors each with 1.5 GW. And that's that!

Then in 15 years, alongside the old ones, there will be four new ones standing, which continue to pollute and for a huge amount of money with frequent outages (yes, nuclear power is the most unreliable) cover something in the single-digit percentage range of our energy demand. So I don't need such a (careful pun for people from Baden) Biblis cheese.

Thorium NPP or fourth generation NPP. Just deal with it without prejudice. But the latter is likely to fail...

I have already done that. What came out of it? It does not exist. So it does not help with any problem.

And the fuss about disposal and final storage of radioactive waste will then be solved exactly how and where? And who will take over the disposal and final storage of radioactive waste for the next 10,000 years? Who will bear the costs for the damages after a reactor disaster like in Chernobyl or Fukushima?

Well, the general public will, that’s the beauty of it. If we handle it cleverly, we can let the people in Papua New Guinea earn a bit from it. They can just sink it somewhere on an atoll. That works for packaging waste too.

Then in 15 years, alongside the old ones, we will have four new ones standing that continue to cause pollution and cover something in the single-digit percentage range of our energy demand for insanely high money with frequent outages (yes, nuclear power is the most unreliable). So I don’t need a Biblis cheese like that (careful pun for Badner).

When all nuclear power plants in Germany were still in operation, they covered just over 30% of the annual electricity demand. As a reliable, CO2-free, weather-independent base load.