Thanks for pointing out the differences between peaks and averages and electricity and energy. Not many renewabls enthusiasts do that.
Question on bioenergy: You claim that nearly half (44%) is from waste, but the link only refers to biogas. As far as I know liquid biofuels are 100% from crops and how much of wood pellets are from waste is also questionable, given that half the wood harvest is being burned in Germany.

On nuclear power, it is true that 100% of uranium is imported, but 2500 tons at a market value of 180 million Euros is enough for the current 100TWh annual generation.

That is a fuel cost of 0.0018 Euro/kWh. The fuel cost for coal is at least 12 times more. So even with 100% of lignite and 20% of hard coal mined domestically, the average import cost for coal power is much higher for coal than for nuclear.
Also the low cost and enormous density of uranium as fuel makes it practical and cheap to stockpile several years worth of demand if you worry about supply security.

Therefore nuclear power is for all practical purposes, a domestic energy source.
Breeder reactors would obviously remove the dependence on newly mined uranium completely, but only if they are actually used and not converted to sodding amusement parks.

Comparing primary energy use of fossil and renewable energy sources is thus comparing apples and pears. It would make more sense to compare “final energy”, i.e. the form of energy that is used by the end-user.

Assuming that energy consumption is cut 50%, hydro stays the same and nuclear is replaced by additional bioenergy, this would mean that wind and solar would have to generate roughly 10 times more energy in 2050 than today. That would require around 700 GW of PV and wind capacity if you just multiply the current numbers.