IMHO and in many external observers opinion they did it the wrong way, the sane way would be as renewable adoption grows to first phase out carbon, then gas, then nuclear. Gas was forced to phase out (Russia->Ukraine war), and for some reason they are closing nuclear before renewable is common enough, so the only remaining option is carbon.
This government is going to get obliterated in the next election there.
Her way of drifting more and more in that direction has propagated a new right wing extremest party (AfD) to come up as well. A ton of things she did wrong domestically.
The second reason is very popular because the alternative is saying "If we keep or start doing X in 10 years this country will be heaven on earth or a hellscape!" When people hear that even true believers will be a tiny bit skeptical.
On the other hand "Country Y does X and it's a hellscape or maybe heaven on earth!" In that case - there's no "maybe" on the table. The result is right now.
Compare them to nuclear heavy, clean France.
Your perception has been deceived by marketing. Stop following the news. Follow the data instead.
France is heavily importing German electricity, so that does not work out. Sources are many, but here [0] is a random one from January "German Power Exports to France Surge to Highest in 30 Years"
[0]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-04/how-much-...
edit: Edited to remove snark, add source
It looks like you've got an important and relevant point there but if you lead with snark, you'll probably just provoke more flamewar and make the thread more predictable.
A better version of this comment would drop the first couple words and then add information to explain what you're talking about and/or how you know it.
Much of their progress was replacing coal with cleaner natural gas imported from Russia, which they had to reverse. They also had to make up for the old nuclear power plants that were retired without replacements.