[epups]

The article makes it sound like it was ultimately a great decision, because now coal use is at historically low levels while renewables have been increasing. What it neglected to mention is that if nuclear had remained there, the share of coal would have directly and proportionally decreased. To achieve a 5% switch from very dirty to clean energy would be a spectacular feat, and the Germans achieved the opposite when closing their still perfectly usable nuclear plants very recently.

[uecker]

Germany did not achieve "the opposite". Use of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions are constantly decreasing. But it is true that keeping existing nuclear plants running longer would have been good idea. But if one wants to complain about the past, why not complain that we collectively did not invest more in renewables earlier? In contrast to nuclear power, which did not become cheaper despite substantial investments, investments in renewables brought prices down substantially.