Anti-nuclear movement, helping the German economy go wrong

This week we have witnessed the incredible announcement by German Chancellor Angela Merkel saying Germany will abandon nuclear power totally by 2022, when it will shut down the last 3 remaining nuclear plants that will be in service on that date. Germany has a total of 9 nuclear plants providing energy to the grid as of now, accounting for 23% of the energy mix. Merkel's bet is to replace nuclear power with renewable energies, a move that is expected to harm the German industry greatly by increasing its energy bill. In fact this will be the second most important factor to hit Germany's industrial competitiveness in a row, the first one being the actual exchange rate of the euro against its clients' currencies. 

Neckarwestheim nuclear plant

Even though Germany is the world's 4th biggest economy and Europe's number one, it is not bullet-proof. The last thing the German industrial sector needs is its energy bill rising non-stop or being unpredictable. Because let's face it, whether you are pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear you know shifting from nuclear power to any other source of energy is an expensive move. 

In the case of Germany, the shift will be made towards renewable energies, which are expected to add up to 35% of the total energy mix in 2022 (up from 13% today). In a country where the industrial sector takes more than 50% of the total energy used, the main problem with renewable energies will not be their price, but its unpredictability causing blackouts. The sun not shining, the wind not blowing or simply a specially cold winter day could cause a blackout on peak-hours. When renewable energies are used to cover domestic demand, this unpredictable behavior can be covered with some natural gas power plants, which are fast enough to be plugged into the grid when needed and disconnected shortly afterwards. But industrial demand is far bigger and more important, so that could mean said natural gas plants have to be on most of the day to avoid power disruptions, which would probably kill Merkel's objective of slashing carbon emissions by 40% in 2022, meaning she would have hurt German industry for nothing.

So what are the reasons for such a sudden rush in leaving nuclear energy behind?

Canada goes the cost reduction way

Canada had its general elections last Monday and while the winner, the actual Prime Minister Stephen Harper from the Conservative Party, was totally expected; the result boosted him to a majority government. With their hands untied from a minority government against the New Democratic Party, Mr Harper's Conservatives are now free to apply the keystone point in their electoral program, taxes and government spending reductions.

Stephen Harper celebrating victory

I have expressed my concerns on excessive government spending worldwide on previous posts, Canada was not an exception there, with 39.7% of GDP going to government expenses every year... Canadians have expressed their concerns with the matter too, strongly supporting the only party that promised to reduce said spending. With this move, Canada joins the trend of slashing government spending, a trend that started in Europe to fight troubled economies like Greece's, but that has gone mainstream since then on developed economies. Finally everybody begins to notice the weight of the state is unbearable as of now, recession has made this blatantly visible.

I will not analyze in detail the politics behind Mr Harper's party, but from a macroeconomic point of view Canada is in a far better position to boost recovery than for example European countries. Canada is one of the few net energy exporters (together with Norway) among developed countries and is also the world's second biggest uranium producer with 20.7% of production. Not only they are exporting energy abroad (which at actual prices is quite a good business) but they are energetically independent as they control the supply for their main energy source, nuclear energy.

This independence means their recovery plans will not be heavily altered by raising energy prices, or tensions in the Middle East for that matter... If the Conservative's deficit reduction plan works as planned and corporate tax reductions really help boost employment I would say it is quite possible for them to be able to beat IMF's expected GDP growth of 2.8% for 2011. I am confident on every economy that successfully covers its energy needs and Canada has been doing it for a long time.

Energetic independence partly shields Canada from the never-ending commodities rally and thus gives it the most desirable ground for economic recovery and growth: a ground where it can focus on its own economic efficiency.

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.

The tsunami reach on the global economy

On previous posts we have done a brief analysis on the devastating effects of the earthquake-tsunami combo on the Japanese economy. To have a more general and complete view of the events, one has to look at the other side of the story too, the collateral effects the damage suffered by Japan will have on the global economy. Over the last days we have heard words of relief from Japan's government and from analysts saying that the bite on Japanese GDP will not be as big as thought on first instance. But, no matter how fast the world's third biggest economy can recover from the disaster, the weight of said economy makes it impossible to dismiss the effects it  will have in the coming months (and is having as of now) on the march of the global economy.

Countries affected

The first wave to affect the global economy was a logic fund repatriation, specially from Japanese banks and insurance companies in need of liquidity to begin with reconstruction tasks at home. This initial repatriation made the yen go higher instead of immediately falling as expected, but this is not something to fear specially for the rest of the world. What some people are fearing is that Japanese mutual funds, hedge funds and instruments alike began to massively withdraw their positions over the rest of the world to take their money back home. If this movement is done gradually no significant damage would be done, Japanese money would simply be substituted by somebody else's money. But if this repatriation was to be done massively it would pose an important threat, specially for emerging markets. Emerging markets usually rely on bigger economies' capital to fund their growth, to the point where a runaway of Japanese money could partly derail short-term growth expectations for some emerging markets. I am not talking China, Russia or Brazil here which are exposed but big enough to not notice a heavy change. I am talking about smaller markets like South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand, South Africa or Chile.