There's a lot to unpack here. Correct, they hyped up the dangers. Considering what happened in Chernobyl and Fukushima, I'd argue the we're and are spot on abo

There's a lot to unpack here. Correct, they hyped up the dangers. Considering what happened in Chernobyl and Fukushima, I'd argue the we're and are spot on about what happens when reactors critically fail. In 2011, several of Germanys reactors were in horrendous conditions. The Greens were always advocating for safe and clean alternatives. Thats solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal, but instead of following that path, CDU and SPD decided to buy more gas from Russia. There were multiple periods in the last 16 years where politicians from both parties were actively sabotaging the building of new wind and solar in favour for more coal. Sigmar Gabriel, being a prime example of that. The law proposition was written by CDU/CSU and FDP. Majority public sentiment at the time was to get rid of nuclear energy. The greens specifically called out the lack of renewables in the law. If you think you can just last minute decide to keep nuclear reactors running, then you have no actual idea of how any of this works. 2 of the reactors, Neckarwestheim and Emsland, had only old fuel rods left over. Estimates suggest at best a continuation at 60% capacity for 80 days. Acquiring new ones isn't something you can just do. From order to delivery it takes 12-18 months. Since reactors were being shut down, they simply didn't have the personal to keep them running. There was also no planned upkeep since 2009, which is another major time and cost point. So at best, those reactors would have run for 80 days before having to power up coal again. Instead of spending all that money on mainting old infrastructure, we can just as well massively build and invest into green energy. That would produce more energy, for a lesser amount of money.