Japan crisis - the worlds economic outlook?

Generali

An interesting piece on the possible impact on the Japanese economy:

http://www.piie.com/blogs/?p=2080

In summary, for those disinclined to read it, not as much as you'd imagine.

Thrugelmir

Generali wrote: »

An interesting piece on the possible impact on the Japanese economy:

In summary, for those disinclined to read it, not as much as you'd imagine.

The 1995 earthquake in Kobe had far more impact on the economy.

edinburgher

The 1995 earthquake in Kobe had far more impact on the economy.

From a Reuters article:

'Hiromichi Shirakawa, chief economist for Japan at Credit Suisse, said in a note to clients that the economic loss will likely be around 14-15 trillion yen ($171-183 billion) just to the region hit by the quake and tsunami.

Even that would put it above the commonly accepted cost of the 1995 Kobe quake which killed 6,000 people.'

julieq

I'd say the panic in the financial markets is a bit overcooked personally, and there may well be some buying opportunities for Japanese shares. Bear in mind that a lot of Japanese manufacturing is in China and consumed outside Japan, so the effect of even a large nuclear accident will be peripheral. We're seeing Japan and the Japanese through a distorting lense at the moment which only really shows devastation, and it's not surprising we're getting the impression things are worse than they are.

The "lesson learned" for the nuclear industry is really just that you shouldn't build nuclear reactors on the Pacific Rim without being fairly careful about safety protocols. It has really very little bearing on most of the rest of the world, but it will be a lever used by pressure groups and nimbys to stop building further reactors. I see that this is already happening in Germany.

Generali

julieq wrote: »

The "lesson learned" for the nuclear industry is really just that you shouldn't build nuclear reactors on the Pacific Rim without being fairly careful about safety protocols.

I agree, possibly with the caveat that perhaps the lesson had already been learned. Everything I've read has been long on speculation and short on fact.

The latest explosion doesn't look so good admittedly.

DervProf

julieq wrote: »

It has really very little bearing on most of the rest of the world, but it will be a lever used by pressure groups and nimbys to stop building further reactors. I see that this is already happening in Germany.

I agree.

Nuclear power seems the way to go. There have been few serious accidents related to nuclear power since it has been used. I'm fairly sure that modern reactors are far more safe than earlier ones.

We fly in airplanes, and they crash sometimes.

We build towns and cities in earthquake zones, and they get hit sometimes.

All these things are risky, but the advanatges outwiegh the risk, so we take our chances.

I'm all for nuclear power stations, as long as they are well designed, and built in areas where natural disasters are highly unlikely.

julieq

Modern nuclear reactors are much safer than old ones. There's a much more systematic approach to functional safety over the past 5-10 years than at any point in the past. But even so the Japanese plant did pretty well under the circumstances. It did shut down the reactions, and the point of failure appears to have been in the pumping system for coolant.

Meanwhile, for a classic piece of German overreaction, you'd be hard pushed to beat the following, from the BBC:

Germany's Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle says that what we are witnessing in Japan is an "apocalypse". He says the international community must do everything it can to help Japan and adds it may shift Europe's approach to nuclear power: "After what happened in Japan it cannot be business as usual. This has consequences not only for Germany's energy policy but it will also have consequences for the international community's stance as well as the debate in Europe, and that's how we will now approach it."

ninky_2

julieq wrote: »

Modern nuclear reactors are much safer than old ones. There's a much more systematic approach to functional safety over the past 5-10 years than at any point in the past. But even so the Japanese plant did pretty well under the circumstances. It did shut down the reactions, and the point of failure appears to have been in the pumping system for coolant.

Meanwhile, for a classic piece of German overreaction, you'd be hard pushed to beat the following, from the BBC:

Germany's Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle says that what we are witnessing in Japan is an "apocalypse". He says the international community must do everything it can to help Japan and adds it may shift Europe's approach to nuclear power: "After what happened in Japan it cannot be business as usual. This has consequences not only for Germany's energy policy but it will also have consequences for the international community's stance as well as the debate in Europe, and that's how we will now approach it."

it's not an overreaction it's an rational reaction. the engineering and science behind the plants in japan is pretty much the best it gets. and as it happens the best it gets has not been good enough.

we've been told by the nuclear industry that nuclear power plants can withstand earthquakes and every conceivable event. but what about the inconceivable (or barely conceivable) events such as this one?

doire_2

According to the news the cost of gas will rise as Japan requires a lot more of it.

StevieJ

ninky wrote: »

it's not an overreaction it's an rational reaction. the engineering and science behind the plants in japan is pretty much the best it gets. and as it happens the best it gets has not been good enough.

we've been told by the nuclear industry that nuclear power plants can withstand earthquakes and every conceivable event. but what about the inconceivable (or barely conceivable) events such as this one?

Reminds me of a tale relating to the laying of a pipeline from Scotland to the North West, when they were doing the consultations someone in Lockerbie (which was on the route) asked what would happen if a plane were to crash onto it, the suggestion was obviously dismissed out of hand.