I think the main point was that it is bad that Germany produces less energy over the decades. And that manufacturing in Germany might disappear as a consequence, which would be bad for Germany.
You have the causation exactly backwards. Most of Germany's heavy industry disappeared or went offshore since the 1970s, and that's why we don't produce nearly as much energy.
This process predates both the green energy movement and the nuclear power exit. Steel and aluminium manufacturing just needed more power than dozens of buildings filled with office workers.
The US deindustrialised more intensely than Germany (think of rust belt), yet it seems energy production almost doubled since then [0]. I think energy production is more a function of the economy than of industrialisation.
And in the special case of Germany, the relatively small amount of industry that remained domestic kept Germany relevant globally. If Germany looses that, it becomes a fully service-based economy which the anglo-states are much better at (think finance, IT).
> I think the main point was that it is bad that Germany produces less energy over the decades
And I think the counterpoint is that all sorts of processes are vastly more efficient nowadays, so less energy isn't necessarily indicative of bad things. If a factory switches to LED lights, more efficient machines, installs a few solar panels on the roof, starts using electric golf carts for people to move around the factory grounds, upgrades their computers to modern ones, implements smart switches so that everything is really cut off at night, etc. their electricity consumption will be drastically down... and that doesn't mean there will be less output.
just because Germany produces less does not mean there is less energy available...
would be the same as saying that since california does not produce enough energy on its own, its industries are doomed...