They suddenly in few years closed all nuclear which imcreased all need for coal. Its dirty decision 2038 is not enough. If they closed all coal and wait with nuclear to 2038 that would make sense. Coal barons need to sell that stuff quicky before it looses value. I am sure they will somehow artificilially increase cost of coal energy in upcoming years.

The government of Gerhard Schröder set nuclear to be phased out. That was about 20 years ago. "Suddenly" isn't the word that should be used here.

Nuclear never was a very large part of the German grid and currently the nuclear capacity is like 10% of the daily peak load. So while shutting down the nuclear power plants does make a carbon-free grid a bit more difficult, it won't make a huge difference. Most nuclear power plants would have been scheduled for decommission in the late 20ies or early 30is at maximum anyway.

So was the nuclear getting too expensive? Even temporary 10% seems like a good win. I am not sure where they want to get that coal 40%.

Or actually i suspect it will be imported from mostly Czechia which has suspiciously started to reopen coal mines and plants.

The existing plants are getting older, we still don't have any permanent storage nor is any in sight. Finally, it was already agreed in the early 2000s, that Germany should phase out nuclear energy and an end date was set for the mid-20ies. The Fukushima disaster only accellerated the plans for phasing out nuclear.

The energy is supposed to come from reneweable sources. Just from 2018 to 2019 their contribution to the grid jumped from 40 to over 45% due to coal becoming less attractive. There are no plants to net import energy into Germany. Up today we have been net exporters of electric energy. Of course, going forward the European grid will play a larger role, as it is a great way of balancing local fluctuations in wind and sun.

> They suddenly in few years closed all nuclear which imcreased all need for coal.

Since the decision to close nuclear plants was taken the proportion of German electrical generation supplied by coal has been cut in half. So, no, it didn't increase demand for coal.

What happens to heavy-metal-laced (and somewhat radioactive, too) ash from coal, by comparison? I suspect it's similarly big problem, just not such a political scare, more ways to sweep it under rug/export/etc.

We do not have unquestionable alternatives to nuclear in Germany for generating electricity to power an industrial country on a stable rate. The demand for power will additionally grow with adoption of electric cars. For densely populated industrial country in Germany’s climate zone using renewables can be disasterous - we already pay too much for electricity, wind and solar panels are space-inefficient, we does not seem to be able to build grid infrastructure to efficiently support them.

We know and can build secure nuclear power plants - we made great progress there. They will help Germany to shut coal plants faster and buy time to research and develop alternatives, maybe we will get to fusion power plants in our lifetime.

Also, there is a problem that there are no serious healthy discussions about it now in Germany: loud voices prevail, the moderate people are afraid to share different opinions; a single large party in conservative opposition, AfD, does deny human impact on the climate change, so they cannot be a moderate voice of sanity.

May it be that investing in renewables is not a good focus for Germany now, are there better areas that we should focus on to save the planet?

> wind and solar panels are space-inefficient

Wind does not take up much space. You can place them in agricultural areas, at seas or even in mountain highlands.

Solar placed on roofs or over parking spaces does not compete with anything for space either. Even installing it on grasslands is less terrible than it seems, it does not create deserts because enough sunlight gets through between the panels to let planets grow in the shade.

It makes a lot more sense to build gas power plants as a stop gap measure. Built them to support gasification of biomass. Thus you can due feel them with natural gas or biomass as needed. This is much faster to get going and cheaper than nuclear.

With nuclear you spend such an enormous amount of money building it, that there is not going back on the decision afterwards. Nuclear power plants are having enormous cost overruns and they keep the project going because they don't want tens of billions of euros to be for nothing.

I'd say build gas power plants to buy some time to get the grid working better. Some coal plants can be converted to biomass plants.

It is an option to explore, particularly regarding using biomass. I see some concerns about it though:

- CO2 emission of gas power plants,

- dependence on the import of natural gas - it means dependence on Russia.

How is France any different?

France isn't much different, except that most contamination might hit Germany with the prevailing western winds :p. The only real difference is, that France went very strongly into nuclear energy and have some more modern reactors as they continued to build nuclear power plants a bit longer than Germany. But they are facing the same fundamental problems, their plants are aging and some have to be switched off as they just get too old and a maintenance nightmare.

As France is no longer building many reacteors - I think they have one in construction, quite over budget - they will face the same decisions as Germany did.

France is much less densely populated. Like I said, look at a map. Find a place in Germany where you can put a nuclear plant so that closing off an area with a radius of 30km doesn't affect major economical centers. Do the same with France and you will see the difference. Maybe you could litter the state of Brandenburg with nuclear plants. But then again, surrounding your capital would be a bad idea.