> Any wing will agree that Germany's energy policy has been bad.

Very true.

> They shut down their nuclear production and replaced it with lignite.

Not really true and often a bad faith argument. While it is true that some of the output has been replaced with coal, it's a) not everything; having the coal power on unscheduled has been deemed unnecessary (with the benefit of hindsight). b) ignoring the fact that the scheduled shutdown of coal has been rescheduled to be earlier, resulting in net-savings over the original plan (which was admittedly still a massive policy failure).

This is simply false. It's trivial to see from the statistics(https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g...) that the phaseout of nuclear energy was matched by an increase in renewables, whilst lignite and coal production has remained static.

Come on, think. The addition of solar allowed Germany to phase out something. They chose to phase out nuclear rather than the dirtiest form of coal. Do you think that was the wise choice?

No, but times were different back then, weren't they? Chernobyl, Fukushima and all of that?