Picking and choosing which power plants you want to say your power is coming from is only relevant on the spreadsheet... not reality.
No it is not. As that is the way how power trading works.
When you import that nuclear power the places you imported it from can't use that nuclear power because YOU took it.
And that place had no need for it anyway otherwise it would not have been on the market ... (*facepalm*)
Which means they have to rely on other power sources.
No, it means they had an overproduction and it was more cost benefit or earning benefit to sell it instead of ramping down a plant.
If I have a nuclear plant running at 85% max and now face a situation where I'm overproducing 20% for 4 hours, it would be pretty dumb to power down the plant. Because in 4 hours when I need the power again I can not ramp up the plant due to neutron poisoning. So it is cheaper for me to sell the power at a loss than losing 6 more hours of power production after the 4 ones I consider to schedule.
Similar for a coal plant, when I know I either can sell surplus for a certain amount of hours or run the plant at inefficient (more expensive) power levels.
What is more, I suspect many of the other countries are double counting non-fossil fuel sources by rephrasing the question or the statistics to say something in one case that outputs one number and then say something that sounds the same but is different and outputs a different number.
Would not work. No idea how you come to so brain dead ideas.
Imagine the simplest grid: a consumer a producer and a power line. The consumer has a meter and knows what he consumed and gets a bill. The producer knows what he fed into the grid, surprisingly the two numbers match, Hence we know if the power plant is a coal plant how much CO2 it produced. Actually we know where the coal is from. Also we know the efficiency of the plant.
And guess what, all grid feed ins, regardless from where and by whom are announced hours if not days ahead by the power producers, so the grid operators know how much "reserve", "balancing" or "compensation" energy they have to provide.
So as I said in another post, there is no "greenwashing". Everyone involved knows europe wide which plant produced how much power at what time of the day. Hence statistics of http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/ and others are accurate down to less than a ton of coal.
The only people who don't all know this are the idiots writing the FUD web sites against renewables in the USA.
(And: grid operation in the USA works exactly the same as in Germany/Europe. You also have preannounced "feed in" schedules and accumulated "grid schedules")
The idea that Europe wide where a coal shifting mafia producing more CO2 than "we publish" is completely idiotic. After all everything is billed, taxed, has tariffs, and is recorded by the WTO.