Opinion Possibility of German deindustrialization & its effect on EU

Parthu

Gessler
Team StratFront
Dec 1, 2017
2,304
5,972
Hyderabad, TG
The way I see it, the current German economic model is chiefly built around manufacturing, and the export of said manufactured goods. This model, at least in its current proportions, was only possible on the back of guaranteed access to cheap, reliable sources of energy i.e. coal and more recently natgas. Renewables are still unable to substitute for the likes of coal/gas when it comes to providing base load...and the Germans effectively threw themselves out of the Nuclear conversation and refuse to stick with coal long-term citing green goals.

Now, they are legitimately looking at cutting themselves off from piped Russian gas full stop. It doesn't look like even if they wanted to continue buying it, the US would ever allow it - if Nordstream 2 deep below the sea is not safe, the overland pipelines traversing through Ukraine, a warzone, (or Belarus, a potential future warzone) are probably not long for this world either.

There are hard limits to how much LNG supply from other sources (US, Mideast) can be scaled up. Even if they do, the economics of liquifying the gas, shipping it across the ocean and re-gasifying it can simply never compete with the costs of a pipeline. A lot of these manufacturing businesses operate on wafer-thin margins...an increase in cost of inputs of this magnitude is likely to cause a lot of damage long term. A lot of production could no longer be viable.

At the least, we're looking at a permanent downsizing of scale. At worst, we're talking almost near-complete deindustrialization (which would take away atleast a third of German GDP and lead to the country becoming a more Services-centered economy like UK). But a lot of Germany's existing Services economy is directly related to or performed in support of the Manufacturing, so the effect is likely to be compounded. There are also a lot of EU countries neighbouring Germany who's own economic well-being is dependent in one way or another on the German manufacturing industry.


The EU in its current form has Germany at its economic heart...soon, that could become France.

I'd like to hear the thoughts of people on the forum regarding the situation & potential outcomes.

++++

P.S. - Let's also talk about the Energy question. I for one refuse to believe that the almost irrational fear that Germany (and most of EU, except France) have for Nuclear is not the result of a multi-decade campaign by Russian actors & influence operations. They're drowning in a sea of Russian gas & they've literally thrown away the one life raft they potentially had to develop an alternative, green, base-load energy source.

The effects of that decision alone is likely to be the most profound when it comes to downstream effects.

@Ashwin @randomradio @suryakiran @vstol Jockey @BMD @Gautam @Picdelamirand-oil @Amarante
 
The way I see it, the current German economic model is chiefly built around manufacturing, and the export of said manufactured goods. This model, at least in its current proportions, was only possible on the back of guaranteed access to cheap, reliable sources of energy i.e. coal and more recently natgas. Renewables are still unable to substitute for the likes of coal/gas when it comes to providing base load...and the Germans effectively threw themselves out of the Nuclear conversation and refuse to stick with coal long-term citing green goals.

Now, they are legitimately looking at cutting themselves off from piped Russian gas full stop. It doesn't look like even if they wanted to continue buying it, the US would ever allow it - if Nordstream 2 deep below the sea is not safe, the overland pipelines traversing through Ukraine, a warzone, (or Belarus, a potential future warzone) are probably not long for this world either.

There are hard limits to how much LNG supply from other sources (US, Mideast) can be scaled up. Even if they do, the economics of liquifying the gas, shipping it across the ocean and re-gasifying it can simply never compete with the costs of a pipeline. A lot of these manufacturing businesses operate on wafer-thin margins...an increase in cost of inputs of this magnitude is likely to cause a lot of damage long term. A lot of production could no longer be viable.

At the least, we're looking at a permanent downsizing of scale. At worst, we're talking almost near-complete deindustrialization (which would take away atleast a third of German GDP and lead to the country becoming a more Services-centered economy like UK). But a lot of Germany's existing Services economy is directly related to or performed in support of the Manufacturing, so the effect is likely to be compounded. There are also a lot of EU countries neighbouring Germany who's own economic well-being is dependent in one way or another on the German manufacturing industry.


The EU in its current form has Germany at its economic heart...soon, that could become France.

I'd like to hear the thoughts of people on the forum regarding the situation & potential outcomes.

++++

P.S. - Let's also talk about the Energy question. I for one refuse to believe that the almost irrational fear that Germany (and most of EU, except France) have for Nuclear is not the result of a multi-decade campaign by Russian actors & influence operations. They're drowning in a sea of Russian gas & they've literally thrown away the one life raft they potentially had to develop an alternative, green, base-load energy source.

The effects of that decision alone is likely to be the most profound when it comes to downstream effects.

@Ashwin @randomradio @suryakiran @vstol Jockey @BMD @Gautam @Picdelamirand-oil @Amarante
We will need to see some approx figures of production and Domestic consumption between Germany, Spain , UK and Japan for this period.

Then we will be able to say something concrete.
 
  • Like
Reactions: screambowl
Germans do not have much population, they can reduce the gas consumption and still make their industries running at higher cost. Some one has to pay and Germany has the money. It's not that Germany is not getting any gas. They have options.
 
The way I see it, the current German economic model is chiefly built around manufacturing,

From your link:

FRANKFURT, Oct 26 (Reuters) - BASF (BASFn.DE) said costs at its European sites must be cut to a "permanently" smaller size because of a triple burden of sluggish growth, high energy costs and over-regulation, with the German industrial giant's boss throwing his weight behind a planned expansion in China.

"These challenging framework conditions in Europe endanger the international competitiveness of European producers and force us to adapt our cost structures as quickly as possible and also permanently," the chemical maker's CEO Martin Brudermueller said in a statement on Wednesday.
Panic in Germany!
I think that the desirable evolution of energy production should be centred on nuclear energy, and that Germany wanted to ideologically drag us into another path centred on renewable energies. But gas is essential for this path because renewable energies are intermittent and need a controllable energy to compensate for the unwanted variations of the renewable production. I had created a blog to talk about these subjects and that's where my nickname comes from, which is a nod to pic-oil while appreciating the encyclopaedic culture of the young philosopher Pic de la Mirandole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paro and Parthu
back of guaranteed access to cheap, reliable sources of energy
Absolutely,
For manufacturing to be competitive cheap raw materials, land & labor is required. If one of them increases other one has to decrease to keep the price competitive. The other option is to get into high margin niche industry like chip manufacturing which is entails a lot of risk. Which obviously is now the domain of few countries like US or south korea.

Its not just manufacturing even the quality of living will suffer if energy costs increase, no more non stop air conditioning or elevator rides.

On the other hand it will benefit US immensely as they are talking about bringing back manufacturing from china. With manufacturing becoming non-competitive in EU , US can fill the gap easily they will would have not only kicked out a competitor but also gained a market.

Now the flip side is that if manufacturing fails to take off in US due to high labor costs, it will be advantage china.


russia has been source of cheap raw materials for EU and the smart alecs have now shot in their own foot.


Shouldn't be surprised if BMW becomes a american company owned by dying US companies like ford or GM and they start selling substandard cars in europe. Schadenfreude , courtesy uncle sam.
 
Germans do not have much population, they can reduce the gas consumption and still make their industries running at higher cost. Some one has to pay and Germany has the money. It's not that Germany is not getting any gas. They have options.
Its not just gas, there is whole lot of raw materials from russia from aluminium to crude oil (plastics industry needs it). Getting raw material from else where will not only increase supply chain risk but also add to the cost.
 
Its not just gas, there is whole lot of raw materials from russia from aluminium to crude oil (plastics industry needs it). Getting raw material from else where will not only increase supply chain risk but also add to the cost.
The reality is almost always between the two proposed extremes. The Germans will definitely struggle, but they have the largest economy in Europe, they will wither it.

But it's time they look for some autonomy in fuel, power and other critical supply chain if they don't want to be overtaken by India within a couple of years.
 
But gas is essential for this path because renewable energies are intermittent and need a controllable energy to compensate for the unwanted variations of the renewable production.

The renewable goal is to switch from gas to hydrogen using the same turbines. So the Germans were playing the long game for renewables.

The only main issue being Germany did not create alternative infrastructure to get gas from elsewhere in order to tame Russia, like LNG terminals.
 
P.S. - Let's also talk about the Energy question. I for one refuse to believe that the almost irrational fear that Germany (and most of EU, except France) have for Nuclear is not the result of a multi-decade campaign by Russian actors & influence operations. They're drowning in a sea of Russian gas & they've literally thrown away the one life raft they potentially had to develop an alternative, green, base-load energy source.
Oh yes.
Russia has opportunistically supported any environmental cause that represented competition for their oil and gas export. Nuclear has long been fought (going all the way back to the USSR) and fracking has been added more recently. We know the German branch of the WWF has received funding from Gazprom.

The big problem for Germany is that the German industry does not rely on gas only for electricity from the grid. Often, they rely on gas directly, either to power their own gas turbines as they have their private power generators, or for heat (furnaces, boilers, etc.) rather than power, or even they use gas as a raw resource instead of burning it as an energy source (mostly the chemical industry of Germany). Due to all that, it will be difficult for Germany to maintain the same level of competitiveness without abundant, cheap Russian gas.

The big problem for the rest of Europe is that, since the EU is an integrated market, most of the industries in the other countries are partly reliant on German production, notably German chemical products. If BASF closes shop, it will have ripple effects. So the transition will be another complication to handle.
Germans do not have much population
By Indian standards, sure. But it's the most populous country in the EU, with about 84 million people. Roughly the same size, population-wise, as Madhya Pradesh for example. The second-largest EU country is France, with 68 million. Then there's Italy, 58 million; followed by Spain, 47 million, then Poland, 38 million.
The renewable goal is to switch from gas to hydrogen using the same turbines. So the Germans were playing the long game for renewables.
Problem with that idea is that hydrogen gas is a much smaller molecule than natural gas, and tends to just leak out. Gas pipelines, unless they have been designed from the start to transport compressed dihydrogen, will leak like sieves. (Also, dihydrogen is a greenhouse gas. So all the hydrogen that leaks will contribute to global warming.)
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Paro and Parthu
Oh yes.
Russia has opportunistically supported any environmental cause that represented competition for their oil and gas export. Nuclear has long been fought (going all the way back to the USSR) and fracking has been added more recently. We know the German branch of the WWF has received funding from Gazprom.

The big problem for Germany is that the German industry does not rely on gas only for electricity from the grid. Often, they rely on gas directly, either to power their own gas turbines as they have their private power generators, or for heat (furnaces, boilers, etc.) rather than power, or even they use gas as a raw resource instead of burning it as an energy source (mostly the chemical industry of Germany). Due to all that, it will be difficult for Germany to maintain the same level of competitiveness without abundant, cheap Russian gas.

The big problem for the rest of Europe is that, since the EU is an integrated market, most of the industries in the other countries are partly reliant on German production, notably German chemical products. If BASF closes shop, it will have ripple effects. So the transition will be another complication to handle.

By Indian standards, sure. But it's the most populous country in the EU, with about 84 million people. Roughly the same size, population-wise, as Madhya Pradesh for example. The second-largest EU country is France, with 68 million. Then there's Italy, 58 million; followed by Spain, 47 million, then Poland, 38 million.
They shouldn't have dumped Nuclear.
 
The renewable goal is to switch from gas to hydrogen using the same turbines. So the Germans were playing the long game for renewables.

The only main issue being Germany did not create alternative infrastructure to get gas from elsewhere in order to tame Russia, like LNG terminals.
Hydrogen is not an energy source: there is no hydrogen resource in nature, hydrogen is an energy carrier, like electricity, energy has to be spent to produce hydrogen. And the logistics of hydrogen are very complicated and costly, as we know from the use of hydrogen in the upper stages of satellite launchers. So it's a bad vector. On the other hand, hydrogen and carbon dioxide can be used to produce synthetic fuels, and if we take carbon dioxide from the air, it is a zero CO2 emission fuel. For the moment, this type of fuel is three or four times more expensive than petroleum-based fuels.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Parthu
Problem with that idea is that hydrogen gas is a much smaller molecule than natural gas, and tends to just leak out. Gas pipelines, unless they have been designed from the start to transport compressed dihydrogen, will leak like sieves. (Also, dihydrogen is a greenhouse gas. So all the hydrogen that leaks will contribute to global warming.)

Hydrogen is not an energy source: there is no hydrogen resource in nature, hydrogen is an energy carrier, like electricity, energy has to be spent to produce hydrogen. And the logistics of hydrogen are very complicated and costly, as we know from the use of hydrogen in the upper stages of satellite launchers. So it's a bad vector. On the other hand, hydrogen and carbon dioxide can be used to produce synthetic fuels, and if we take carbon dioxide from the air, it is a zero CO2 emission fuel. For the moment, this type of fuel is three or four times more expensive than petroleum-based fuels.

India seems to be betting on hydrogen though.

Solar power splits water to produce hydrogen by day and gas turbines will run on hydrogen by night. Cost is controlled via economies of scale and by building these facilities close to each other thereby avoiding transportation costs and risks.

Compare that to today, where oil is drilled in one place, refined in another and consumed somewhere else entirely. The combined logistics cost from scratch to finish is very different for oil. Hydrogen only needs distributed hydrogen production hubs built near the consumers, so cities are basically producing their own fuel instead of importing them. Vehicles will use fuel cells, with hydrogen supplied via trucks, like petroleum, hence existing infrastructure.

Infrastructure is easy and quick to build, it's also a one-time cost and with high energy efficiency. The Toyota Mirai sedan drove 845 miles on 5.65Kg of hydrogen, that's 150 miles or 240 Km per Kg. The goal in India is to bring down cost per Kg to less than $2 at the gate by 2030. Ambani has set his goal to $1. Basically $1-2 for 240 Km, that's 10+ times the fuel efficiency compared to a petrol car in India.

Existing gas pipeline infrastructure can transport hydrogen. And intercontinental pipelines also become unecessary due to local production. Localising energy security also reduces the immense cost spent on protecting international infrastructure.

In India's case, if lowering the price of green hydrogen to $2, from the current price of $4, works out, then nuclear power based on light water reactors will become less important to India due to the risk of external fuel supplies and the high construction costs.

 

La guerre entre la France et l'Allemagne redevient possible

War between France and Germany is possible again
Honestly, Britain leaves the EU and this is the point you two arrive at a year later?
Oh yes.
Russia has opportunistically supported any environmental cause that represented competition for their oil and gas export. Nuclear has long been fought (going all the way back to the USSR) and fracking has been added more recently. We know the German branch of the WWF has received funding from Gazprom.

The big problem for Germany is that the German industry does not rely on gas only for electricity from the grid. Often, they rely on gas directly, either to power their own gas turbines as they have their private power generators, or for heat (furnaces, boilers, etc.) rather than power, or even they use gas as a raw resource instead of burning it as an energy source (mostly the chemical industry of Germany). Due to all that, it will be difficult for Germany to maintain the same level of competitiveness without abundant, cheap Russian gas.

The big problem for the rest of Europe is that, since the EU is an integrated market, most of the industries in the other countries are partly reliant on German production, notably German chemical products. If BASF closes shop, it will have ripple effects. So the transition will be another complication to handle.

By Indian standards, sure. But it's the most populous country in the EU, with about 84 million people. Roughly the same size, population-wise, as Madhya Pradesh for example. The second-largest EU country is France, with 68 million. Then there's Italy, 58 million; followed by Spain, 47 million, then Poland, 38 million.

Problem with that idea is that hydrogen gas is a much smaller molecule than natural gas, and tends to just leak out. Gas pipelines, unless they have been designed from the start to transport compressed dihydrogen, will leak like sieves. (Also, dihydrogen is a greenhouse gas. So all the hydrogen that leaks will contribute to global warming.)
Yep, this was always the case during the Cold War too. Russians had agents throughout Greenpeace, Ban The Bomb and Trade Unions.
 
Infrastructure is easy and quick to build, it's also a one-time cost and with high energy efficiency. The Toyota Mirai sedan drove 845 miles on 5.65Kg of hydrogen, that's 150 miles or 240 Km per Kg. The goal in India is to bring down cost per Kg to less than $2 at the gate by 2030. Ambani has set his goal to $1. Basically $1-2 for 240 Km, that's 10+ times the fuel efficiency compared to a petrol car in India.
Hydrogen is very light but also very bulky: at normal pressure 1g of hydrogen occupies a volume of 11.2 litres, so it has to be put into high-pressure cylinders (700 bars) which are very heavy and in addition their filling consumes energy as well as the decompression which cools the cylinder which has to be warmed up a bit.
 
Its not just gas, there is whole lot of raw materials from russia from aluminium to crude oil (plastics industry needs it). Getting raw material from else where will not only increase supply chain risk but also add to the cost.
The things are mostly revolving around gas only because US doesn't want North stream 2 and Russia wants it. It's all about gas, because the profit in oil and gas is 1000%. The rest of the raw materials can be brought from third countries not a big problem. If you can pay, you can get.
By Indian standards, sure. But it's the most populous country in the EU, with about 84 million people. Roughly the same size, population-wise, as Madhya Pradesh for example. The second-largest EU country is France, with 68 million. Then there's Italy, 58 million; followed by Spain, 47 million, then Poland, 38 million.
Populous and rich as well. More over Poland has the gas as well and can transport it Germany easily for at least next 10 years. Countries like Italy, Hungry, Romania they will suffocate due to the ongoing turmoil.
 
Honestly, Britain leaves the EU and this is the point you two arrive at a year later?
Stop thinking you are the centre of the world, the war in Ukraine is a new fact revealing Germany's mistakes important for the disagreement with France, much more interesting than the Brexit as an explanatory factor.
 
Stop thinking you are the centre of the world, the war in Ukraine is a new fact revealing Germany's mistakes important for the disagreement with France, much more interesting than the Brexit as an explanatory factor.
Sorry but after reading your posts in the 'UK Future Brexit' thread, I thought Brexit was to blame for everything?