There was no choice. There was no question at that time what to phase out and there would have been no political majority to exit coal. The most important goal of the environmental movement (and which lead to the red/greens government and to the exit decision) was to exit nuclear and to find an alternative to that.
> You really seem unwilling to engage on the point being made here.
Same. You are trying to rewrite history.
2) + 4) + 5) are not irrelevant: these were jobs, industry, tradition, political influence, etc.
You seem to think that decisions on energy politics exists in a vacuum, independent of reality and historic context.
The political discussion to exit coal in Germany only started to get traction a few years after 2010.
It's like asking why the US didn't fly to the more interesting Mars instead of the Moon. There simply was no choice when that decision was made. Constructing a choice in hindsight is just rewriting history.
This isn't really going anywhere, so I'll say my last bit on this and you can feel free to have the last word on the subject if you'd like.
You seem to be identifying the constituencies that exist for the outcome that happened, and seem to be saying that because they existed it simply couldn't have been any other way. This is sort of tautological - in a sense yes, it couldn't have been any other way because it happened the way it did. Nobody made an arbitrary decision on this, nobody flipped a coin. But of course those constituencies weighed various factors, and made choices. That they made a choice does not mean it couldn't have been any other way or was correct. That's a bizarre way to look at history. It would essentially render all analysis and criticism of past decision-making moot. "Well it had to be that way, because the people who made the decisions made the decisions because factors existed that influenced them to do so!" I mean yeah, welcome to every subject in the history of the world.
But the specific question being replied to here was, "how does nuclear energy help with climate change?" from OP, obviously specifically in the context of the article. In that context, it's completely fair and correct to critique the decisions made as I and others have done, and it's frankly completely irrelevant what other constraints there were politically or practically.
And even if we do take those into account, it's fine to be critical of the decisions. You are right, there wasn't a huge appetite to take on coal in Germany until well after there was one to take on Nuclear. And that's something that's rightly criticized. Nobody forced people to embrace their goofy "Atomkraft, Nein Danke" crap.
> how does nuclear energy help with climate change?
and the answer is: it doesn't. Simply because it does not scale to make anywhere near of the needed impact in the next 50 years. Nuclear production will struggle to keep it's current levels for the next two decades. Renewable does expand rapidly.
Draw the trend curves for energy consumption, deployment of production and you'll see that nuclear is a costly mistake. That's just basic mathematics.
"Atomkraft, Nein Danke" was the rational reaction to investing billions into the wrong energy landscape.
> You really seem unwilling to engage on the point being made here.
Same. You are trying to rewrite history.
2) + 4) + 5) are not irrelevant: these were jobs, industry, tradition, political influence, etc.
You seem to think that decisions on energy politics exists in a vacuum, independent of reality and historic context.
The political discussion to exit coal in Germany only started to get traction a few years after 2010.
It's like asking why the US didn't fly to the more interesting Mars instead of the Moon. There simply was no choice when that decision was made. Constructing a choice in hindsight is just rewriting history.