The German Energiewende has sparked extensive public and expert debates over decades. This research examines these discussions through a discourse analytic lens, utilizing narrative and framing theories alongside various policy process models and actor coalitions. The first section reconstructs two opposing discourses in German Federal Parliamentary debates: one advocating for ambitious energy transition policies and the other favoring the fossil-nuclear status quo. It illustrates how these narratives evolved and partially converged from 1989 to 2011. The second section explores the influence of scientific policy advice, revealing that while studies often took sides, they collectively fostered convergence and consensus. The third section highlights a resurgence of polarization in recent coal reduction policy debates, while also identifying potential avenues for compromise in future negotiations. Overall, the polarization among actors has not hindered the convergence of discourses, and the current intensification of conflict over coal is unlikely to dismantle the established consensus on energy transition. Instead, affected stakeholders may seek financial compensation and shift responsibility away from the national level. Ultimately, the success of Germany's energy transition will hinge on finding effective compensation solutions for impacted parties and aligning national climate policies with broader initiatives like European
