Even if the entire German populace woke up tomorrow in full support of nuclear power, that would not change the immediate issue. We need a lot more electrical energy very soon to phase out combustion as a power source across all sectors (from residential heating to mobility). Waiting for 10+ years for nuclear reactors to be constructed is not a viable solution.
As an example for that "10+ years" timescale, you can look at our direct neighbor France: They are now starting the planning phase on new nuclear reactors that are supposed to go on-line in 2035-2037, so 13-15 years from now. And that's in a country that's a) pretty much all-in on nuclear and b) already experiencing power shortages (that are only offset by the ability to import power from other countries such as Germany).
There was surely a time where constructing nuclear reactors went quicker in Germany, around the 1960s-1970s, but that's because we had an experienced industry at the time. Once you stop building specific things like this for some time, you lose the specialists required to do so.
France is a net exporter of electricity. In fact, it is the largest exporter of electricity in Europe. [1]
At the moment nuclear is the only source that guarantees vast amounts of electricity on demand. I think it's unrealistic to think that wind and solar (at least in Northern Europe) will be enough to meet demand of industrial nations, not least when all vehicles are EV.
By exiting nuclear Germany has both put itself in a corner and committed to continued high emissions (despite their claim that they are going 'green') because they have to keep relying on coal and gas. Ideological dogma is never good.
Nuclear isn't a guarantee at all. Typically, only half of the French reactors are operating. There are a lot of problems:
* a plethora of safety problems, often created due to a lack of maintenance and lax oversight - most famously more than a dozen reactors are offline for years because of corrosion in neglected backup cooling systems
* large reactors require huge amount of cooling water. They usually take water from rivers and release the warmed water right back to it, but rivers often run low in the summer, or are already so warm that rising the temperature any more would kill the river.
* nuclear reactors are hard to regulate below a threshold of about 40% of their peak, which requires base load demand to be reserved just for them if they are to be run.
The last one is almost funny, because the base load problem of nuclear reactors is often somehow portrayed as a benefit. Power production must match power consumption though, so an inflexible power source is a burden. Without the ability to export power to its neighbours, France's reactors would have even less uptime than they have now.
Does a nuclear reactor not run day and night, wind or no wind, in the same way as any other 'traditional' power plant? yes it does. If you build a nuclear plant you know how much you'll get out. You don't with wind farms hence massive margins compared to what turbines are rated for.
With wind you are totally reliant on the weather, which is also why offshore wind tends to work better as apparently wind patterns are more constant and predictable.
Your three bullet points are all strawman arguments.
It's not typical though it is the case at the moment [1] (in French)
The argument is a little disingenuous in any case because temporarily stopping reactors for maintenance, especially planned maintenance (in this case delayed because of Covid), is not at all the same as the inherent uncertainty that sources dependent on the weather (e.g. wind) suffer from.
As said, with nuclear/gas/coal/etc you know what you'll get pretty much day in day out. With wind it's never guaranteed.
