Obviously Germany is the largest CO2 emittent in Europa. It has the largest population, a rather cold climate, the highest GDP and is by far the largest producer of goods, chemicals, machinery and exports lots of those products (=gray energy)
Traditionally Germany burns lots of lignite, because that was available when electrification started in the 20th century. It's nice that Austria, Switzerland, Norway and Sweden use hydro power, but Germany does not posses more hydropower potential than it already uses since decades.
So shutting down the nukes after 2011 and ongioing until 2021 may not be a good decission in light of CO2 emissions, but it was based on a new caclulation of risc and befeit after the Fukushima meltdowns. A doomsday prepper like you that claims that Germany is a failed state and should commit genocide on its Muslim populationis the last country that you want to have nuclear power plants. Failed states with nukes will turn into radiactive failed states quite soon.
Even the high tech nation Japan has huge problems to maintain Fukushima and teh reason why they didn't have to evacuate Tokio has nothing to do with technology, Preparedness or heros fighting the accident, but is mostly based on luck. It was bad luck that the accidents happend, but it was very good luck, that the wind blew in the right direction and that the radioactive contamination has not gotten worse.
A meltdown in a German nuke could be so costly that it would more or less destroy our economy. Is it worth the risc? Hell no.
So shutting down your nukes and also shuttingdown your coal power plants in the same time while switching to electromobility would be quite an achivement.
What we did so far is phase out a significant amount of nuclear power, also the amount of electricity generation from coal is lower than pre 2011, renewables are growing very quickly (mostly wind+solar now) and we aslo increased(!) our electricity production very significantly. All in just a few years.
Yes, shutting down more coal and adding more gas power plants (like US and UK) would have a significant impact and imho that would be a wise idea. The problem so far has been only a finnacial one. Burning coalhas been so much cheaper than burning gas. That's it. UK made a CO2 tax and suddenly coal generation was falling to the levels of the 19th (sic!) century and US had the cheap fracking gas (methane emission during extraction still unknown, maybe the stuff has more greenhouse warming effect than coal!) to replace coal.
Both have only be done because gas was cheaper than coal.
With now increasing CO2 prices in EU CO2 trading system Germany power generation may switch from coal to gas, too. We will see effects in 2019 or 2020.
Electricity is only a part of CO2 production. There is also industrial emissions, emissions from transport, residential heating and emissions from the farming sector. I do not see any leading countries here. Maybe Norway with its electric cars. Easy for them with the ultra high tax rates on conventional cars and more electricity from hydro power than they can use.
Changing the energy system of a country will take 50 years, maybe 100 years. You can not learn much if you just look at a small sector for 5 years.
https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm ... l&year=all
but the ball is now in the field of SPD the other coalition partner who in the past did not accept transit centers. 
