That's not quite correct, politics and electability of stances on the topic play a big role, even in Germany. In 2001 socdem-green coalition agreed on an "Atom

That's not quite correct, politics and electability of stances on the topic play a big role, even in Germany. In 2001 socdem-green coalition agreed on an "Atomaustieg" that would not allow new plants to be greenlighted and the old ones would be phased out by some time 2015–2020. In 2010 when Merkel first had a sole conservative-liberal coalition, those plants got an extension for another 8 years and even an unpopular "Austieg vom Austieg" (exit from exit) seemed viable. It was only in 2011, as a direct consequence of Fukushima that Merkel's stance changed (or she saw an oppurtunity to push through with it, if that was her personal preference). In my opinion, she saw that an "exit from exit"-stance would have endangered her re-election. So it was a largely political driven decision, regardless of what the educated concensus in Germany was. It took away a main attack talking point of the green party, which was polling at about 25%* in post Fukushima-2011, realms the green party only got back in only 8 years later, in the wake of the climate crisis topic last year. Saying that Germany's handling of the energy sector is purely rational, simply doesn't hold up to the political realities, which can be quite messy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out#German... * http://pollytix.eu/pollytix-german-election-trend/ http://pollytix.eu/pollytix-german-election-trend/