The other reason is that nuclear power was overbuilt in the 80's as the elites understood that there wouldn't be a second chance to build reactors in a long time, due to the anti-nuclear referndum.

It has taken almost 20 years of "natural" consumption growth to reach the capacity level nuclear overbuilding generated. No new capacity worth mentioning has been built since 1985, until just now when growth has caught up with capacity and the two 600 MW Barsebäck reactors were prematurely closed.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

Well, let's compare France and Germany. Their per capita emissions should be identical except for power generation.

France: 6.80t of CO2 per capita (about 90 % CO2 free power)
Germany: 10.21t of CO2/capita (about 33 % CO2 free power)

And this in spite of a higher French per capita power consumption!

So power the kind of power generation utilized is obviously one of the most, if not the most , important factor for CO2 emissions. And it is more important in what way the power is generated than what how much power is consumed.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

and the most relevant to your question:

i.e. power plants in the US (which are 50% coal and 20% gas-fired) are responsible for 40% of all carbon emissions.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

If I'm reading it right, that is.