> IT IS REPLACING. If you had nuclear plants that worked fine (highest CF globally probably after US), some even not reaching 40y (when most are extended to 60-80y) and you retire them instead of retiring coal, it means coal replaced nuclear.
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.
The fact coal generation went down is irrelevant. Coal got down because domestic consumption dropped and Germany switched from net exporting 60TWh/y to being either neutral or net importer in last year.
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.
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.