It's more likely about the extreme cost (5x the LCOE of solar and wind), exactly as it was in Germany.

And Spain has no need for nukes so why does it need a nuclear industry to provide industrial support for them? It's not Iran, Russia or America.

I bet the US military industrial complex will be salty though, exactly as they were with Germany when their bean counters ordered a nuclear phase out.

> exactly as it was in Germany.

Oh you mean the Germany that had to turn to massive amounts of coal to keep up energy production in order to keep their people from starving because clean energy didn't pan out. Sounds like a great example especially when climate change is an existential threat to the entire human race.

Yeah Germany is doing pretty badly they are up and now at 25% coal [0]. Back when they had 12.6% nuclear energy in the mix, it was only 29% [1] coal. Back in those days Germany used to burn much less coal...

[0] https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&...

[1] https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&...

Your talking point was one of the outputs of that American shamefest I was referring to. They were furious at Germany and so said... what you just did.

The graph of Germany's energy mix over time doesnt quite tell the this story, however:

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/p...

In fact it shows that nuclear power was never that relevant to Germany and that that loud hissy fit was about a change in < 5% of Germany's electricity mix. Why so controversial?

Well, the reason for this political shamefest are a bit murky - possibly military related - but one thing is certain: it had less than nothing to do with environmentalism. That was a cover.

I’m looking at your graph. If you go back to 2010 when Germany had 20 GW of nuclear production, keeping that capacity online could have replaced more than half of the coal power Germany generates today. Meanwhile natural gas has grown from 23.8 to 34.8 GW, significantly more than the meager reductions in coal generation over that period.

Nonetheless solar and wind have taken up the vast majority of the slack from decommissioned coal and nuclear power.

The narrative that coal substituted for nuclear power is a very blatant lie, and motivated more by political/military concerns rather than any concern for the environment.

> The narrative that coal substituted for nuclear power is a very blatant lie

It’s not a lie. Germany has decommissioned 20 GW of nuclear power since 2010, according to the statistics you provided. Over 37 GW of coal power remains online. If Germany kept the nuclear plants online, they could have instead decommissioned an additional 20 GW of coal power. But they didn’t. Which means 20 out of the 37 GW of German coal power is directly substituting for nuclear power.