So first, the headline seems to be based on "primary energy supply" - I assume that includes transportation, vehicles, heating and so on. Even if Germany went 100% renewable/nuclear for electricity they'd still be at ~60% fossil fuels in "primary energy shares" (from spit-balling the figures). I think that comparison was chosen to make the German "Energiewende" look worse, it does better when just looking at energy production.

If we look at electricity shares, then Germany did better albeit still at an undeniably high cost.

And second, as has been discussed in another article shared on HN - Germany bank-rolled a lot of the solar "virtuous cycle" and China's solar industry. Now any following country can just follow suit and achieve the same carbon goals much cheaper, even if they 100% follow what Germans did, because the technology is more familiar and manufacturing is more efficient. Kind of a "first-mover disadvantage". Though I think many Germans are ok with financing many of the advances in renewables.

Edit: I forgot to add, this time period also coincides with Germany's prompt/hasty nuclear exit after Fukushima which was expensive but quite popular.

The two very last graphs on energy production mix show that the US mostly increased natural gas for coal and Germany renewables for nuclear, and then the last few years finally renewables for coal.

There seems to be an acceleration of renewables adoption in the last 3 years and Germany decreed to exit coal-based energy production by 2038 afaik.