William C. Ramsay argues that German politicians have not been forthcoming with the public regarding the costs of abandoning nuclear power.

Ambassador William C. Ramsay is deputy executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA) and a former United States deputy assistant secretary of state for energy.

This commentary was originally published by the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI).

"In polarised politics, the voter must take on faith the wisdom inherent in the principled political position. Who cannot be impressed by the nuclear catastrophe at Fukushima, especially after living through the fallout from Chernobyl?

But is it reasonable to send the voter to the booth with only half the information? Does the German voter have any idea what it means to shut down its nuclear power in just ten years? Have German politicians made any effort to tell them?

Nuclear plants supply 25% of German electricity with virtually no carbon footprint and with a minimum exposure to foreign suppliers of nuclear fuel cycle services unlike the German vulnerability to disruptions in oil and more recently gas supplies.

...

Wind: Germany has a robust wind energy programme. German taxpayers and rate payers subsidise wind power to the tune of some €5 billion/ year. Investors in wind are guaranteed a rate of 8.2 euro cents per kilowatt hour for 20 years on shore or 9.1 euro cents offshore.

Germany is reaching the point of destabilising its electricity grid with too much wind and insufficient grid interconnection. Furthermore, wind is concentrated in the north and the reactor shut down means the 7.5 GWe of nuclear capacity north of Essen has been reduced to 4GWe - aggravating an already a risky imbalance.

...

Gas: Definitely an option. Gas is already expanding to backstop Germany's large wind programme..