It's not the replacement. The argument that "lignite" plants replaced nuclear power is mostly wrong. Especially not long term. But this argument is highly convenient for people who are delusional over the benefits of nuclear power.
There is a distinct increase of coal-burning plants in the article a couple years ago, suggesting that they are partially a replacement. But what I actually want to highlight is that every nuclear plant closed instead of a closed coal plant shows how much safety is valued by those making decisions.
Because coal plants have been allowed to remain after forced closure of nuclear plants, safety is not the actual reason why nuclear plants are removed in Germany.
Those coal plants aren't operating at peak capacity, or at all, in some case. The suggestion they are replacing nuclear power 1:1 is a highly convenient lie.
The idea that coal power is less safe is bullshit. Nuclear power carries tail-heavy risk, coal plants have much more predictable risk. Nuclear power is only safer if you assume nothing happens that didn't happen in the past few decades and nobody actually deliberately blows up a nuclear power plant. Once you can't assume both, all risk calculations for nuclear power are meaningless.
Operating at less than peak capacity doesn't make burning coal any more healthy, and doesn't make the decision to not retire them any more safety-oriented.
You still don't understand. A coal power plant that doesn't run doesn't produce harmful emissions. And at lower capacity they produce less emissions, proportionately.
And you are still lying about coal being the only replacement for nuclear.
This is a situation incompatible with a policy of increasing safety. Increasing safety means shutting down unsafe sources while keeping or rolling out safe sources, which is the opposite of the short-term trend. So the short-term policy goal was something other than safety.
German TUV director on nuclear power plants:
"The plants are in a technically excellent condition," Joachim Buehler, managing director at TUEV, told Reuters, adding that an extensive check, which is usually done every 10 years, was necessary but could be done within a few months.
