[matmatmatmat]

With Germany, in particular, I think there was also a lot of pressure from Green parties.

In any case, I would agree it looks like a mistake in hindsight.

[cauch]

AFAIU, the Germany case is complicated: the non-Green government followed half of the Green parties plan (going out of nuclear) but half-assed the other half (compensate by expanding the required renewable sector) that was as important for the Green parties.

There can be tons of explanations for that: going out of nuclear was more popular than building renewables in people's backyard, going out of nuclear was an easier path to follow than develop the renewable sector, the effort of going out of nuclear may have been used as an excuse to say "see, we do green stuffs, no need to do more", the coal/gas generation may have looked an easier or more profitable path for some politicians, the industry had less resistance against going out of nuclear than going out of coal/gas, going out of the nuclear may have been an easy concession to give to the Green and to look good to the public, or even the government had low incentive to succeed in the transition because if it fails they can blame the Green parties ("but it was your plan ... see, Green parties don't have realistic ideas")...

[Xylakant]

The greens also pressured to install solar and wind as replacement, not coal and gas. They raised the issue of energy dependency early and constantly. It’s easy to blame them, but this is not what they asked for.