There is a reason even Germany is still heavily dependent on coal despite investing hundreds of billions into renewables
It simply does not work without dispatchable energy sources.
Your argument about Germany is obviously BS, basically "it didn't happen yet therefore it can't happen". Solutions must apparently leap fully implemented into the world or else they are impossible, by your logic. Do you apply the same logic to nuclear, since no country gets the majority of its energy from nuclear (not even France)?
Storage can be dispatched, you know (and it's not just batteries.)
> All western civilization is built on 24/24 7/7 available energy (from direct use of petroleum or electricity).
Petroleum != electricity. You were talking about more than just electrical power. No goal post shifting!
But it's a lots slower than newly added power generation by renewables so there are market distortions (cheap uneconomical electric power from renewables is wasting investment in nuclear for example, just stupid) so we have economic warfare between germany and all its producing neighbors (see France/Scandinavia) for example.
You said "a civilization". Is that not a global concept? But regardless, there is no country which gets the majority of its energy from nuclear.
Germany still uses coal, but I wouldn't say they are heavily dependent. They consume ~100TWh per year of coal (20% of total), down from ~300TWh in 2015 (50% of total). They plan to close them all by 2038, and they are on the way to do so even before that.
But coal is a political problem because the are producers, thus a good chunk of voters work in that industry. Political parties that promise to keep coal running could still get many votes.