Who the heck knows? There has been quite a bit of speculation here and elsewhere. I think I've found a reference that adds real value to the conversation. This diary is an extension of a comment found here.
Arbeitsgemeinschaft Energiebilanzen, a leading German organization for statistic data on energy.It should also be noted that these data are "Vorläufige Angaben, z.T. geschätzt" which, I believe means something akin to "preliminary data, some values are estimates".
Results below the Kos Doodle.
Although I just recently mocked someone unmercilessly for saying, "percentages are confusing" - come on, he had an associates degree in accounting - here I am saying "percentages are confusing." In context, it makes sense. Going from 20% to 25%. Five percent? Five percentage points? 25% increase? 20% less last year than this? But I digress...
Here are "the numbers" in absolute terawatt hours (TWh) from Germany as per the aforementioned reference from 2010 to 2011:
Nuclear was down 32.5 TWh
Soft Coal (brown/lignite) was up 7.1 TWh
Hard Coal (anthracite/bituminous) was down 2.5 TWh
Natural Gas was down 2.8 TWh
Oil was down 1.4 TWh
Hydro was down 1.5 TWh
Wind was up 8.7 TWh
Biomass was up 4.4 TWh
PV was up 7.3 TWh
Usage was down 13.6 TWh
Exports were down 11.7 TWh
So, in total, direct* fossil fuel usage was up by only 0.4 TWh but soft coal increased its percentage by 5% (from 40.7% to 42.7% of FF) - and soft coal is the "really nasty stuff"
Renewables were up 19.2 TWh, but that includes 4.4 TWh of biomass. You can take it or leave it as per your own opinions of biomass.
However, the point still stands that, as far as climate change is concerned, it would have been nicer to see soft coal down 32.5 TWh rather than a low carbon source.
* I say "direct" to avoid the subject of indirect emissions "caused" by the lowering of exports.