It's not the replacement. The argument that "lignite" plants replaced nuclear power is mostly wrong. Especially not long term. But this argument is highly convenient for people who are delusional over the benefits of nuclear power.
Because coal plants have been allowed to remain after forced closure of nuclear plants, safety is not the actual reason why nuclear plants are removed in Germany.
The idea that coal power is less safe is bullshit. Nuclear power carries tail-heavy risk, coal plants have much more predictable risk. Nuclear power is only safer if you assume nothing happens that didn't happen in the past few decades and nobody actually deliberately blows up a nuclear power plant. Once you can't assume both, all risk calculations for nuclear power are meaningless.
And you are still lying about coal being the only replacement for nuclear.
But read the article and look at 2020-2022: coal energy generation increased while nuclear decreased:
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_...
This is a situation incompatible with a policy of increasing safety. Increasing safety means shutting down unsafe sources while keeping or rolling out safe sources, which is the opposite of the short-term trend. So the short-term policy goal was something other than safety.
"the short-term policy goal was something other than safety"
https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2023/01/luetzerath-protest...
German TUV director on nuclear power plants: "The plants are in a technically excellent condition," Joachim Buehler, managing director at TUEV, told Reuters, adding that an extensive check, which is usually done every 10 years, was necessary but could be done within a few months.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germanys-gas-crisis-...