Not true. Renewables took their place. Nuclear wasn't a huge part of the mix before Fukushima either. The change immediately following 2011 wasn't very large, and much smaller than the power added by renewables. Lots of plots available to see for yourself at [0].
For some reason this story is told wrong in every single discussion on nuclear here on HN.
For the record, I actually agree that the decision to accelerate the shutdown of nuclear power was misguided, since it delayed the shutdown of coal power. It did not, however, lead to an expansion of fossil energy sources.
[0] https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...
[0] https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...
Looks like the guy above me said the same thing, but at the time of writing it wasn't there yet.
To me, regardless of the change in energy mix in the meantime, every extra GW of other renewables would have decommissioned coal generation by some significant factor (maybe not the full 8GW less coal, but quite a bit). Instead those renewables were replacing missing nuclear capacity. The only way I see that decommissioning nuclear didn't result in more coal burning to meet the country's needs would be if it was immediately followed by a huge investment that would have otherwise not occurred.
ETA: Looking again at the link hard coal + lignite 45.5GW in 2011, 43.5GW today - not great! Relative decline is good but climate change demands absolute declines more substantial than this.
I like the idea of solar energy, but I also wonder about how safe it is to use. I'm thinking of events such as the 1815 volcanic eruption of Mount Tambora[0] which reportedly caused a "year without summer[1]".
Presumably, something like this would have a major impact on solar cell energy output, and if we'd significantly depended on solar, would have catastrophic consequences for our society. Unless, of course, I overestimate the effect that volcanic ash could have on solar cells.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambora
And for example, The Netherlands, which is a lot smaller than Germany, consumes half the amount of Germany.
Coming back to nuclear energy, France, a country that is certainly in favor of nuclear energy, has failed to build one since 2002. UK and Finland are trying to build one, with similar lack of success.
So the only option for nuclear energy in Europe seems to be to keep aging power plants running and hope that they don't fail. Not a very attractive future.
ie, what's happening in Europe now[1]
Germany went on a spree, dismantling their nuclear plants after being scared by Fukushima. Fossil fuel plants tool their place. Subsidies to unsustainable alternatives and penalties on polluters made it so it was not profitable to increase energy supply on sources such as natural gas and fossil fuels that could ramp quickly in response to demand.
And the price of natural gas in Europe went parabolic.
[1] https://www.euronews.com/2021/10/28/why-europe-s-energy-pric...