> coal should have been replaced by renewables before nuclear, but that discussion is over now

Right. Coal stayed online where it would have otherwise gone away. That was true for close to a decade.

> gas use electricity production is just a minor

And growing. Look at your own chart. The change in natural gas electrical generation is about as large as solar’s entire controbution.

See for yourself

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

Nuclear wasn’t completely replaced. The graphs you link to show that Germany’s electricity generation have dropped to the level it was at in the year 2000, and that’s before the last of the nuclear plants were turned off.

As a result, Germany’s industrial production is falling. Which will be great for the environment if countries who previously imported goods produced by Germany’s clean nuclear power don’t just switch to goods produced by China and South East Asia’s far dirtier electricity.

Of course, China is steadily increasing its own nuclear energy production, so it’ll end up being clean eventually, and likely sooner than us given how efficient they are.

But it’s not like we’re reducing dependency on nuclear power. It’s more like we’re trading the risk of nuclear accident in our own backyards for something else. I tend to think that the something else is the risk that the eastern world’s factories stop accepting the western world’s increasingly worthless paper money, which they’ll be in a much stronger position to do once we’re no longer able to manufacture what we need due to environmental concerns.

> As a result, Germany’s industrial production is falling

The causality here seems debatable.

Cheap Chinese goods which take market share from German goods aren't just cheap because of cheap energy.

It's true that energy intensive industry has been hit hard in Germany. But is also true that the sector has been heavily subsidized for decades. As the carbon mining sector. That was effectively paying the energy cost of those industries with taxes.

In Spain, where we didn's shut down nuclear energy nor have oil or coal, energy intensive industry is also threatening or shutting down (https://www.miningweekly.com/article/alcoa-threatens-to-shut...). The threats are barely hidden "subsidize our costs or else...".

Indeed: if cheap (for the consumer, not for the taxpayer...) nuclear electricity was sufficient France industry would thrive. Reality: it (sadly) is dying.

Here are some key events in Germany's nuclear phase-out: 1998 A coalition government includes the phasing out of nuclear power in its policy

(this was later un-done in 2009 and then redone in 2011 which is the cause of confusion).

IE. Germany got INCREDIBLY lucky that China went hard into renewables and dropped the price of them dramatically. Because they did basically replace or plan to replace all the nuclear plants with coal plants.

it was replaced by coal,gas and exports. With nuclear, much less of them would have been used, as simple as that

The nuclear exit began in earnest in 2011.

Lets have a look at how the German electricity production has shifted over the years:

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

- Fossil gas: 2011 -> 2023 = stable.

- Coal: 2011 -> 2023 = large reduction

At the height of the energy crisis when half the French nuclear fleet was off line due to corrosion issues.

Germany temporarily reopened a few mothballed coal power plants to keep the lights on in France.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-fr...

Man I know this. But the simple undeniable fact is - if nuclear was kept on - even less gas and coal would have been used, it's an obvious thing. Renewables did help ditching some of fossil generation, but with nuclear it would have been even more

And that's different from "it was replaced by coal".

You should probably have started with a correct statement, not a falsehood that you had to rephrase into a correct statement.

in the end it's the same. Replaced with coal&gas = more coal&gas was used than it would have been needed with nuclear on

Which again is a completely different argument than what you started with. The argument was that nuclear power was replaced with coal and gas.

As we've concluded it evidently was not. Both coal and nuclear power has been replaced with renewables.

I would suggest you stop spreading falsehoods.