I would call it unwise, but there has been no disaster. Electricity production through fossil fuels went down, renewables reached 50% last year while Germany still has one of the most stable electricity network worldwide:

https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/38...

50% of german electric energy production is from high availability sources (nuclear+fossil fuels) and Germany's network is connected to the continental network, so of course the network is stable. It will be hard to get these sources down and maintain that stability. Maybe it can be done with energy storage, but so far it is not built.

Those fears have been discussed endlessly. Just look at the graph I posted to see the change in the last years that is still continuing.

Availability has nothing to do with what you are talking about (it’s much higher for photovoltaics anyway). Out of the 49.5% non-renewables only gas which makes up 12.5 percent of electricity can really be used to follow demand. Coal and nuclear are too slow for that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_factor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant

https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/presse-und-medien/news/2020...

By availability I meant fraction of time that it is available for power generation. This is closer to technical term "capacity factor", which is higher for nuclear energy than for PV energy, so my point stands.

Modern nuclear plants can do load following and they do so in France and in Germany. So why is "nuclear too slow"?

Total pollution is the only factor that matters. Intermittency is irrelevant for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere and fighting climate change.

Intermittency is mostly relevant for 100% zero carbon energy which is a goal that is incredibly far away. At least another 10 years before we even think about it and then another 10 years to do it.

Here in nearby Sweden we are currently giving subsidizes to oil and gas in order to act as "reserve" energy, ie stability. Those fossil fueled plants get paid first once just to keep the engines running, the fuel tanks full and employees ready, and then they get paid a second time if demand start to rise and energy is actually produced.

I suspect Germany does the same thing, but it would be interesting to hear if my guess is correct.

Sweden is also currently investing heavily in connecting power lines with nearby countries in order to increase the capacity to buy energy with countries that produce energy through fossil fuels when needed.

it's basically what happens when decisions are made only based on ratings to get you through the next 4 years, instead of long term strategy.

> has been a total disaster for Germany.

What do you define as 'a total disaster'? Coal fuel consumption is down enormously, supplanted by renewables and a tiny bit of gas generation growth.

While non-hydroelectric renewables have gone up, fossil fuel usage remains largely flat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:...

Germany's CO2 intensity of electricity isn't actually very good. It's worse than the UK, and 7 times more than France.

Your use of that graph is misleading. It's not a graph of CO2 emissions.

The above comment didn't say CO2 emissions, it said that coal use is "down enormously" with a "tiny bit of gas generation growth". The reality is that overall fossil fuel use remains largely the same, coal reductions were matched by natural gas increases.

Likewise, CO2 reductions aren't very large, and is still above average for EU member states: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/co2-emission-i...