And coal kills more people in a week than all nuclear incidents killed in all history of humanity.
Not even mention that coal power plants release more radioactive materials too.
If you say "German plants", I'll point out coal consumption for power generation in Germany has gone down since the decision to phase out nuclear.
Coal consumption would likely have gone down even more with nuclear still being used, but that doesn't support your claim as stated.
Still waiting on those countries from the previous poster.
If Germany eventually got more renewables, great. That does not retroactively mean that they didn’t replace nuclear with coal. That’s just replacing nuclear with coal and then doing something else afterward.
It’s like if someone left their first wife and got married to someone else, then did that a second time, you wouldn’t say that, based on who they’re married to today, they left their first wife for their third. That intermediate step happened.
Still waiting for examples of countries that did that.
Also, that's not replacing nuclear with coal. Plants age out and are replaced even if one is not replacing one kind with the other. We retire pickup trucks and build sports cars; that doesn't mean sports cars are replacing pickup trucks.
Antinuclear movement in Denmark put a ban on construction and guess what happened later? DK became one of the biggest coal consumers on the planet with newly built coal plants.
France got a bit of antinuclear frenzy too by dismantling 2 Fassenheim units to allow connection of Flamanville. All this instead of retiring the leftover gas/coal capacity.
Spain retired several nuclear units before all coal and gas capacity too.
No it doesn't mean that at all. In particular, in Germany, the total coal generation went down, so it couldn't have replaced anything. What replaced nuclear in Germany was renewables and gas.
Consider your logic: if we had nuclear and retired it instead of shutting down renewables, does that (by your logic) mean renewables replaced nuclear? If not, why not? The structure of your argument seems to be privileging coal over other sources on the German grid.
Since the goal of energy transition is first and foremost decarbonization, if you close a low carbon source while keeping higher carbon sources, you can say that the worst polluter replaced the closed source
The structure of my comment is privileging coal because it has the worst emissions in the context of the ultimate decarbonization goal (among other nasty enviromental impacts from it). That's why it's coal that replaced nuclear and not renewables nor gas.
Coal is still generating a third of whole world power and polluting everywhere a lot.
In the US, coal generation has been falling for twenty years because it's more expensive than wind and solar. Same reason nuclear is being phased out - grid operators can get power cheaper via wind, solar, import/export, and battery storage.