Solar is ahead of biomass and while solar and wind is growing, biomass is not. You're also misreading the graph. Nuclear was never such a huge part of Germany's energy production and killing nuclear was a 25 year long process, Germany let most of the plants run and just did not build new ones

While I agree that getting rid of coal first would have been the better strategy, I don't get this nuclear power fetish and constant bashing of Germany on this while most countries are doing worse than Germany. Nuclear power is extremely expensive, we have as of now no storage solution for nuclear waste in Germany and Germany has no source of nuclear material itself. There are quite a few drawbacks

[–] ShortN0te@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago

Just want to throw in this link. https://energy-charts.info/?l=en&c=DE

Very detailed info on Energy and power usage in Germany

[–] LANIK2000@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

I didn't say nuclear was ever big in Germany. The whole point is about Germany being against it. If you mean the part where I said it was half their energy production, I meant coal+lignite.

[–] LANIK2000@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Nothing generates more than nuclear (like it's not even comparable), it has basically zero emissions and there are countries like Finland who'll happily let you burry it there, tho you ofc don't need to go that far away. You don't need to dispose it nearly as often as coal ash, so it being in another country ain't really that big of a deal.

Ofc solar is also a great option, because of the versatility, sadly German seems to really fucking love wind.