Reasons for an oil producer to go nuclear.

This same week I read at Bloomberg's Businessweek that Abu Dhabi, the 7th country in the world by estimated oil reserves, is building a civilian nuclear reactor to go-live on 2017. The article mainly focused on the assertiveness of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) going forward with their plans despite the ongoing events at Fukushima. Nothing exceptional here from my point of view, as there is nothing in common between the Fukushima plant and and what  the UAE is building in Braka together with Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO).  What I am most interested about is the fact that one of the oil-richest countries in the world is going nuclear.

Illustration of the future, 4-reactor nuclear plant.

Internal energy demand is growing fast in Abu Dhabi, but it is still marginal compared with all the oil the UAE is exporting worldwide. We know Abu Dhabi, as every other producer, can have oil for cheap, so its domestic oil consumption would not justify the huge investment a nuclear energy facility demands. We could also consider Abu Dhabi not a front runner in climate preservation, and because of their small population density they do not have to be much worried about their fossil fuel emissions neither. 

So what could be the reasoning behind this ambitious nuclear plan started in 2008. Are their oil reserve estimates too optimistic? Do they prepare for a sooner-than-expected post-oil era? Or are they simply trying to keep their energy independence? Not being suspicious here, just trying to make some sense of such an expensive and (unfortunately) controversial decision.

Tuning down inflation

Falling into deflation or stagflation has always been one of the greatest fear for politicians, economists and enterprises. A negative inflation rate theoretically means less money is available, in turn that means less credit and everybody knows what that means in a debt-dependent world like ours. Also deflation is correlated with lower prices, which people tend to associate with depressed economic growth. Whether one agrees with this affirmation or not, during last year's credit crunch it made some sense to be fearing deflation and its consequences,  thus no one worried about currency devaluation and general credit easiness to avoid it all costs.

Now, after the crunch is mostly forgotten and credit channels work again as normal, it begins to look like a flagrant excuse to keep interest rates at all-time lows and to support the worrying commodities rally. 

Strangely, some economists are still asking for a moderately higher inflation as a way to increase competitivity and as a way to cut salaries inadvertently (you cannot lower them without complaints, but you can make them effectively lower by increasing inflation) to boost employment. Everybody knows how to raise inflation, what is difficult is controlling its raise. Raising inflation when official levels are well under 4% would no be a problem by itself, the issue here is that official inflation levels are all wrong.