Well, by now, it seems like completely the opposite: thanks to nuclear plants shutting down and CO taxes, we are starved of energy.
CFLs were crappy and full of heavy metals, Halogen was half-assed, LEDs were expensive, too blue and too weak.
People were defending their radiant heaters in full force, but everybody underestimated exponential development in a market suddenly put into full force solving this.
By the last stage where 40W bulbs were being phased out, nobody was interested in them anymore, because LEDs were simply better with cheaper TCO.
Solar and battery are still on exponential track down the cost curve (with wind saturating, but still going strong).
Nuclear and fossils are not.
The energy world will look very different 10 years from now.
Without proliferation risks and however you get rid of the radiated mess.
I would be strongly antinuclear if the nuclear industry somehow manages to persuade politicians to shut down wind, solar, and battery technologies, though. But that's very unlikely.
And mushrooms and wild boar in Bavarian forests are still contaminated.
It's a good thing, then, that that's a false dilemma and nuclear and/or fossil fuels are clearly not the only options on the table.
As a reference, Germany already relies on renewables to supply around 60% of their energy needs, and it's production is still ramping up.
There are countries which already started transitioning to renewable energies which not only endured long periods of energy independence from renewable sources alone but also already reported energy production surpluses which even led to null and negative energy prices.
Therefore your baseless assertion regarding shutting down nuclear and coal plants seems to be totally made up and completely unfounded.
Can you provide any basis for your assertion, and point out any rational basis for that so-called "energy starvation" scenario?
Spot market prices don't matter when the users' bill goes up every year.
You mean the kind of service companies like PG&E are already providing their customers?
https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/solar-and-vehicles/gre...
I find this assertion hard to believe. Merkel has been in charge of Germany's federal government for the past two decades, and throughout this period Germany's energy production from renewable sources has skyrocketed from virtually none to the leading energy source, with a share of over 60% of the nation's energy production.
In fact, if anything, Germany's production from renewables has been accelerating.
https://vizzlo.com/gallery/time-series-graph/example/power-g...
Could you provide any source that supports your assertion that the previous government has been stalling renewables?
The production did indeed skyrocket, with the peak of over 50% renewable power in 2020. But in the last 3 years the built-up of new wind generators has stalled. Hitting a peak of 5GW/year in 2017, it went down to below 1 in 2019. This was due to several changes by the government. On the one side they replaced the flat fee which was paid for electricity produced to a complex auction schema, on the other side there were more and more restrictions about where one could build wind generators. Also the amound of solar power was even capped. It seems that the situation has improved somewhat, the build-up of renewables was a bit higher in 2020 than in 2019, but hasn't reached the past peaks again yet.
Aren't you referring to the initial subsidized program where private companies were enticed to invest their own cash in renewable energy sources in exchange for assured profitability during the initial period?