> I showed they in fact do.

You actually haven't shown that. Coal exit does not mean fossil fuel exit.

And I have not seen an actual plan to get out of fossil fuels, apart from general hand-waving.

And I mean an actual plan, with detailed location of new power storage plants, exact targets for renewables, etc.

Such a plan is currently being prepared for coal. Gas, as a means to cover peaks on short notice, is still needed so, but also much better than coal, especially at significantly lower volumes.

This is a classic case of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. And revamping huge portions of an energy grid, and generation base, is nothing that is done easily or fast.

Edit: Source in German:

https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Fachthemen/Elektrizitaet...

> This is a classic case of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good

No. If you say they're exiting fossil fuels, but they're moving on to gas, your claim is just wrong. Gas might be better than coal, but that wasn't the claim.

Oh dear... They have a plan to exit the dirtiest form fossil fuel, one Germany heavily relies on today. I did not say Germany is gonna move to gas, since I didn't read everything, that was just an assumption.

So, what you say is the current plan to exit coal, which you initially claimed didn't exist, is garbish because the result might include some gas. And hence, there is no such plan, and even if there was, said plan wouldn't be feasible because of reasons.

That is exactly getting a (poorly defined) perfect in the way of the good.

Edit: Just realized I replied to another commenter, so please replace "you" with GP.

Again, this isn't about gas being better than coal. It's that the claim was they're exiting fossil fuels, when they aren't.