> Both effects – the drop in coal and CO2 allowance prices – have made coal an extremely profitable fuel for power generation. Notably, both developments happened in 2011, the year of the nuclear phase-out.
Germany could easily have counteracted this with public policy.
You can't take a post mortem of the effects of government heavily influencing energy policy, then throw up your hands and say "ah, capitalism, what can we do" when it's convenient.
You: Article in fact states that if nuclear were kept online, coal would still be profitable to export
Me: This could have been prevented by public policy
You: Yes, it could have. I don't understand your point, perhaps because English is not your first language (Edit: now deleted)
The linked article also states the aim of the Energiewende has always been to transition away from both coal and nuclear (fission at least) to 100% sustainable energy production.
I was waiting to get to the place in the article where they acknowledge that Germany could have kept their 50 TWh of nuclear online and cut coal by the same amount - a reduction of 20% - but I guess that wouldn't fit in to the narrative they're trying to spin, because they completely ignored der Elefant in das Zimmer.