Germany on the other hand is drowning in their own dirty coal and subducts to green party/terrorists
"both hard and lignite [coal usage] decreased from 251.9 TWh to 146.5 TWh for a reduction of 109.4 TWh. So Germany reduced both coal and nuclear at the same time, coal did not grow, and the coal reduction was actually larger than the nuclear reduction."
[0] https://chadvesting.substack.com/p/common-misconceptions-abo...
> The Energiewende made Germany less dependent on Russia than if it had never taken place!
This is moronic, a total apples to oranges comparison. First, coal is much cheaper than gas, so whatever they were paying for Russian coal doesn't necessarily cancel out the gas increase. Second, coal is way easier to transport than gas. The latter needs a pipeline or liquefaction, both of which require extensive capital outlays that make it much more difficult to switch from one supplier to another. Third, coal and nuclear are both base load, while natural gas is used as peakers. The entire argument for nuclear over renewables was that renewables would require more peakers (i.e., gas).
2. In 19 years, they could have moved most of their power generation to nuclear, like France did, *checks notes*, 40 years ago.