New Energy Age Survey: Questions 1 & 2

Posted by Maximilian Staedtler in Electric Cars & Auto Industry, RP: New Energy Age on February 7th, 2010 |  No Comments

As part of the research for my research paper “On the Threshold to a New Energy Age“, I conducted a survey in order to find out how “prepared” people are for the transition to a new age of energy generation and use as well as to gather opinions on current trends in energy issues.

This is the first post on the question-by-question analysis of the survey results:

Question 1: Do you own a car?

This was the first surprise for me when analyzing the outcome of  the survey. More than half the people I surveyed own a car.

Given that the vast majority of survey participants lived in or close to major cities in the United States and Asia, I did not expect many of them to actually own a car. Check out my post Survey Results for more information on the breakdown of survey participants by location.

Furthermore, I found out that most Singaporeans (except one) and Japanese I surveyed did not own a car. Many of them did not even have a driver’s license.

Question 2: Do you plan to buy a new car within the next 5 years?

About one third of respondents indicated they had plans to buy a new car in the next five years. Again, I was surprised by the higher-than-expected share of people planning to purchase a new car in the medium term. However, I have to add that a considerable number of those who indicated in the previous question they did not own a car were planning to buy their first car soon. This might have pushed the number up a bit.

In addition, I asked the third with plans for buying a new car whether they thought it would be a conventional car with a combustion engine or a car with a different propulsion technology. This is how they replied:

Although the overwhelming majority of almost 80 percent replied they were going to buy a car with a combustion engine, it is remarkable that more than 20 percent see themselves buying a car with either an electric motor or some other technology.

Whether combustion engine or not, there are many different power sources available next to gasoline or diesel. Bioethanol and hydrogen are two alternatives for the common combustion engine. Electricity generated from any energy source (nuclear, solar, wind, wave or geothermal energy; energy from burning oil, coal, gas and biological matter) can be stored in the batteries of electric cars to power the electric motor. Another option would be to replace the battery with a fuel cell that converts hydrogen into water and oxygen. The byproduct - electricity - could then be used to power the car.

The Question-by-Question Analysis continues tomorrow. In the meantime, you can take a look at the “Energy Survey” page at http://www.whatmattersweblog.com/energy-survey/


Survey Results

Posted by Maximilian Staedtler in Economy, Electric Cars & Auto Industry, Energy, Environment, Globalization, RP: New Energy Age on February 6th, 2010 |  1 Comment

As part of the research for my research paper “On the Threshold to a New Energy Age“, I conducted a survey in order to find out how “prepared” people are for the transition to a new age of energy generation and use as well as to gather opinions on current trends in energy issues.

In the coming days I will publish the results of the question-by-question analysis. The questionnaire contained 14 questions. 73 people took part in my survey. More than three quarters of participants came from the United States. I interviewed the remaining quarter in Japan, Singapore, Germany and Portugal.

All questionnaires had been distributed and returned between April 2009 and September 2009.

You can find the survey results on the Main Menu page “Energy Survey”:

http://www.whatmattersweblog.com/energy-survey/

Check out the  ‘RP: New Energy Age’ Category for the downloadable version of my 50-page research paper and further commentary on the survey results:

http://www.whatmattersweblog.com/category/rp-new-energy-age/

 

Click on the images for higher resolution.


who can save us from climate disaster?

Posted by Maximilian Staedtler in Economy, Energy, Environment on January 30th, 2010 |  1 Comment

Who can save us from climate disaster? Well, probably those whom you’d the least suspect to care about climate change.

Even if one in ten Americans turned into a tree-hugger, sold their car, moved downtown and commuted to work on a bicycle, that wouldn’t have any impressive, lasting impact on global emissions of greenhouse gases.

American oil consumption might fall a bit - which would be something positive for the country since less money would be shipped to OPEC and instead kept local - but the resulting downward pressure on oil prices would only encourage the rest of the world, most notably quickly developing nations such as China and India to increase energy productivity at a slower pace and consume even more energy in the short term.

Moreover, the entire transportation sector’s contribution to climate change is lower than that of deforestation as New York Times columnist and author Thomas L. Friedman explained in his article Trucks, Trains and Trees:

Imagine if you took all the cars, trucks, planes, trains and ships in the world and added up their exhaust every year. The amount of carbon dioxide, or CO2, all those cars, trucks, planes, trains and ships collectively emit into the atmosphere is actually less than the carbon emissions every year that result from the chopping down and clearing of tropical forests in places like Brazil, Indonesia and the Congo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/opinion/11friedman.html

Apparently, there  are no easy ways of fighting climate change. And trying to talk hundreds of millions of Americans, Europeans, Chinese and Indians into driving less, eating less meat and switching to energy-saving lamps won’t help a lot either.

But there are ways of effectively bringing down global emissions without having to preach green. As soon as ordinary people are offered a possibility to save money by heating, cooling, driving more efficiently, a huge market will take shape. Businesses will be making money, jobs will be created, the economy will grow as more money is kept local instead of being shipped abroad to pay for energy bills, and the byproduct will be a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

Many people don’t care a lot about their contribution to CO2 emissions. A gas that nobody can see or smell. Neither were many willing to switch to a more expensive energy-efficient hybrid in an attempt to preserve the habitat of polar bears. Nevertheless, people would change their habits if they could clearly see the economic benefits for themselves. Most drivers care more about how much they pay at the pump than about their cars’ CO2 emissions. But gasoline consumption and CO2 emissions go hand-in-hand.

Therefore it is important to support companies developing technologies which can help people make little changes to their everyday lives and thereby save dollars and emissions.

Introducing electric cars to the market in large numbers would be a major step forward as the immediate benefits on the economy and the environment were obvious. With zero tailpipe emissions, electric cars would be greatly appreciated by city dwellers.

It is true that it will take several years until efficient vehicles running on alternatives to gasoline become competitive with conventional cars. A way to accelerate the process would be to force up the prices of fossil fuels through taxes and other disincentives. We’re not paying an honest price for oil since the costs of the economic and environmental consequences of our oil consumption are not included in the price. However, oil prices will inevitably shoot up again and make alternatives competitive as growing demand meets tight supply.

And once the point at which alternativ energy sources and new enery-saving technologies are competitive with existing technologies and energy sources, the market will bring those new technologies  to scale and reduce production costs, eventually reducing emissions of carbon dioxide. Middle-class Chinese and Indians would soon follow and embrace new, more efficient technologies. Struggling to power their thriving economies, any means of reducing energy waste is welcome.

Therefore we need the capitalists to take on the challenge. Their job is to figure out the smartest and consequently most profitable way of doing something. When it comes to the energy challenges of the 21st century, only a market approach can effectively deliver the emissions reductions necessary to avoid the unmanageable consequences of climate change. The politicians’ job is to support companies working towards smart energy solutions by creating an environment that allows businesses - big and small - to invest huge sums in research, production and marketing.

You might also be interested in my post The True Cost of Oil


Twelve Years After Kyoto

Posted by Maximilian Staedtler in Economy, Energy, Environment, myVIEW on January 25th, 2010 |  No Comments

kyoto protocol - twelve years after

Can politicians lead a global transition to a low-carbon economy of the future? I have my doubts.

More than 12 years after the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol on December 11, 1997, no measures have been implemented to effectively reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases. Despite the perceptible surge of green enthusiasm among world leaders. It looks like all key players have recognized the importance of fighting rising average temperatures since everybody is talking about climate change, emissions, efficiency and renewable energy. The world community seems to have gotten serious about climate change since the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 which led to the Kyoto Protocol and finally to the Copenhagen Summit last month. However, the sad truth is that while in the 1990s, global carbon dioxide emissions were increasing at about 1 percent per year, emissions were growing at around 3.4 percent per year between 2000 and 2008 - when the Kyoto Protocol was already in effect. Why? Well, the Kyoto Protocol did not demand any emissions reductions from developing nations, neither was it ratified by the United States, then the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world.

Rio did not save the climate, neither did Kyoto nor Copenhagen. So how about the summit in Mexico later this year?

To be honest, I doubt that world leaders will be able to achieve much more in Mexico than they did in Copenhagen. And even if a binding treaty could be achieved, it is questionable whether that would have any measurable effects on global emissions of greenhouse gases.

Hardly any country can be expected to work towards major reductions in its emissions output “only” to help fighting climate change. Given difficult economic circumstances in many regions of the world, few governments will be able to convince their people to accept imposed limits on emissions of a gas that nobody can see or smell. Another issue is that even if a couple of major industrialized countries were able to bring down their emissions by 20 percent until 2020, the growing emissions of emerging economies would nullify these savings immediately.

Consequently, we need a new approach to come anywhere near the reductions necessary to avoid the unmanageable consquences of rising average temperatures.

People need to realize that climate change is not the only reason why a new strategy for energy generation and use is needed.

First, saving energy makes sense to whatever country, industry, party you belong. Saving energy means reducing costs, increasing profits and gaining competitiveness. There is enormous potential for efficiency increases throughout all sectors of the economy. Avoiding costly overcapacities by shrinking peak demand and increasing off-peak demand through real-time pricing mechanisms can help to stabilize the electricity grid, enable the integration of renewable energies and avoid the construction of unnecessary power plants.

Second, renewable energy  as well as increased efficiency can help net-oil-importing countries to ship less money abroad. Domestic energy generation is always superior to imported energy since money can be kept local. Money kept local translates into local jobs and local tax revenue.  

Third, new energy technologies will inevitably be the next great global industry. Given growing populations, rapidly expanding middle classes in emerging countries, increased living standards and growing resource demand in tandem with ever scarcer resources will make the 21st century an era of high energy prices. Any technology helping countries and companies to save expensive energy and produce more without having to import more energy will sell in huge quantities. Leading the development of new energy technologies will result in massive investments, job creation and  growth.

 Without doubt, the long-term trend in energy prices is up. This means we will spend more and more money on oil imports and we will lack this money elsewhere.

Understanding the numerous benefits of embracing new ways of producing and consuming energy apart from reducing emissions is important. The infrastructure decisions we make today will determine the energy use and emissions of tomorrow and the coming decades. Investing in smarter and more efficient technologies today will save money, energy and emissions tomorrow.

Promoting emissions reductions for the sake of trying to protect the polar bears and penguins does not work. Promoting selfish energy policy aimed at generating as much energy as possible at home and using it as efficiently as possible to gain a competitive advantage over foreign competition and the OPEC cartel is the right approach.


Plug into the Smart Grid with GE

Posted by Maximilian Staedtler in Energy on January 17th, 2010 |  No Comments

You want to learn more about the smart grid? I’ve just come across a funny way to do this.

1.) Go to http://ge.ecomagination.com/smartgrid/#/augmented_reality

2.) Print out their Solar Panel Marker

3.) Wave it in front of your webcam and see a smart grid simulation pop out of your screen

4.) If you chose the wind turbine simulation, try blowing into your computer’s microphone

You might also be interested in this insightful introduction to the smart grid by the U.S. Department of Energy:

http://www.oe.energy.gov/DocumentsandMedia/DOE_SG_Book_Single_Pages.pdf

 

These days I’m working on a research paper with the title “On the Threshold to a New Energy Age - America’s shift towards renewable energy as a consequence of the energy crisis and climate change” . The paper will be published right here on whatmattersweblog.com


China: A developed, green economy by 2050?

Posted by Maximilian Staedtler in China, Economy, Electric Cars & Auto Industry, Energy, Environment, Globalization on January 12th, 2010 |  1 Comment

I’m pretty sure that by mid-century, China will be a developed country with an efficient economy generating a huge share of its energy needs of renewable energy sources. That’s my prediction.

Next to China, there are two other prospective candidates: Indonesia and Brazil. These three countries are growing fast despite the aftermath of the Great Recession of 2009, they’re investing billions in huge infrastructure projects, they have an enormous supply of laborers and they’re investing in education and knowledge-based sectors of the economy. Furthermore, the three countries also have a sizable supply of natural resources, though China needs to import most of the resources it needs due to its rapid pace of economic development.

China’s influence on geopolitics and the world economy is massive and impossible to overlook. In 2009, China became the world’s new export champion after surpassing Germany and simultaneously, China surpassed the United States as the world’s largest car market.

The ongoing global recovery is in large parts due to the giant Chinese economic stimulus package. Chinese growth is pulling the world economy out of recession. As British Foreign Secretary David Miliband put it, “after 1989, capitalism saved China. After 2009, China saved capitalism.”

Just recently, China and the ASEAN nations of Southeast Asia created the world’s third largest free trade area after NAFTA (Mexico-U.S.-Canada) and the EU.

This year, China might well overtake Japan as the world’s second-largest economy. 

Now Goldman Sachs is forecasting that China is set to overtake the United States as the world’s largest economy by 2027, if present growth rates can be sustained.

Since China’s population by 2027 will be roughly five times the population of the United States, that would mean China’s per capita GDP had to rise to 20% of the per capita economic output of an average American. That is a plausible scenario, however, I doubt that this will happen before 2050.

There is this saying “There is nothing permanent except change” which suggests that most predictions based on the condition of the continuation of current trends are prone to fail.

Inevitably, China will one day become the world’s largest economy. However, this will only happen when China learns to tap the intellectual capacity of its people rather than their raw labor force. Education, the protection of intellectual property, space for creative thinking and a less controlled and restricted economic environment are the preconditions of a transition that would enable China to take on today’s leading knowledge-based economies.

Rather sooner than later, China will reach a point at which its current model of growth won’t work anymore. The environmental challenge China is facing, the inflating real estate bubble and overproduction are major obstacles on China’s path to the top.

More interesting charts: http://www.whatmattersweblog.com/energy-charts/

As you can see on this chart, China’s share of world GDP is still tiny compared to the United States’.

The bottom line, however, is that China is indeed set to become a developed country in the foreseeable future. The long-term orientation of its domestic as well as foreign policy and the diligence of its people are a great foundation for a stable medium-income developed economy.

Not only do I expect China to join the ranks of developed nations in the coming decades, but I also expect that China will become the leader in alternative energy technologies. This has many reasons, but first and foremost, it is an economic necessity for the country.

Its reliance on fossil fuel imports, the skyrocketing energy consumption and out-of-hand air pollution in most Chinese cities force its leadership to firstly, limit the growth of fossil fuel consumption, secondly, increase efficiency across the board, thirdly, remove tailpipe emissions from inner cities and fourthly, generate as much energy from more sustainable and (in the long term) cheaper energy sources.

Another factor contributing to this development is that China can’t challenge the technology leadership of Western countries in internal combustion engine technologies. But when it comes to electric cars, battery technology, photovoltaic cells, etc., China is already ahead of the competition.

In the summer of 2009, I had a discussion with a NYC hedge fund manager who argued that China is ahead of the United States in terms of know-how in alternative energy and smart energy policies. I agree.

China is already the number one PV cell producer in the world and becoming the leader in electric car technology.

Chinese car manufacturer Geely announced the launch of its all-electric Nanoq which is expected to hit European and American markets later this year. The five-seater has a top speed of 81 mph and has a range of up to 125 miles on a single charge.

BYD, which stands for Build Your Dreams, a major Chinese battery manufacturer, is also aiming at establishing itself as a leading manufacturer of battery-electric cars.

Electric cars help the Chinese government to reduce the need for fuel subsidies which cost the state billions of dollars per year and support those the most who drive the biggest cars.

Chinese companies will soon have an edge over Western competitors in the electric vehicle market which will see enormous growth over the coming decades and a lot of support from governments around the world in an effort to curb carbon dioxide emissions and reduce dependence on dwindling oil reserves from unstable regions of the world.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6984237.ece

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/246312/


The True Cost of Oil

Posted by Maximilian Staedtler in Economy, Electric Cars & Auto Industry, Energy, Environment, Politics on January 9th, 2010 |  3 Comments

Currently I’m working on a research paper with the title “On the Threshold to a New Energy Age - America’s shift towards renewable energy as a consequence of the energy crisis and climate change” and as part of my research, I conducted a poll to find out how prepared people are for the New Energy Economy.

I handed out questionnaires in Singapore, Tokyo, Lisbon, New York City and Honolulu. On one of the questionnaires I had distributed in Honolulu, I found a few interesting comments.

To question #14 (Oil is….?), the respondent did not tick one of the three answer choices (expensive, cheap, neither) but wrote on the side:

WHAT MATTERS WEBLOG Questionnaire Preparedness for the New Energy Age, Research Paper On the Threshold to a New Energy Age by Maximilian Staedtler

Oil is....

I couldn’t agree more. What is important to understand is that we’re not paying an honest price for oil / gasoline. The nominal price of a gallon of gasoline in dollars or of a barrel of crude does not include the cost of the military and intelligence efforts to secure our access to oil reserves and protect ourselves from the dangerous consequences of American petrodollars funding radicalism and potentates around the world. The cost of dealing with the consequences of climate change - which are unpredictable at this point but potentially devastating - is not included either.

The United States of America in particular and generally most industrialized countries are paying a high price for consuming huge quantities of fossil fuels. According to my calculations (-> it’s time to become energy independent, overhaul the entire economy and infrastructure), the United States must have spent more than $ 700 billion on fossil fuel imports in 2008 alone. In addition, the U.S. is very vulnerable when it comes to disruptions of oil supplies. As you can read in my previous post (-> on the unequal consumption of oil & the resulting risks), Iran could easily block the Strait of Hormuz, a very narrow seaway through which roughly 40% of seaborne oil shipments pass every day, and destroy oil production facilities in several oil-rich Persian Gulf countries - including the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Iraq. I’m not saying this is going to happen or likely to happen, but it is a possible scenario which puts the United States in a strategically disadvantageous position.

Whether you’re concerned about global warming, the health of the economy or national security, you will agree that it should be a number one priority for the U.S. to reduce its oil consumption and thereby ween itself from its dependence on Middle Eastern Oil, spend the money rather on domestic energy generation and keep carbon dioxide emissions from rising.

Much of this can be achieved through increased energy efficiency - the so-called “fifth fuel” after coal, oil, gas and uranium. 

Higher energy efficiency can only be achieved with higher compulsory standards for buildings and cars. Requiring U.S. auto makers to develop automobiles with better fuel economy will not only increase their products’ competitiveness but help decrease demand for foreign oil.

If efficiency standards were increased drastically and policies implemented to make oil reflect its true cost, the economic benefits over the long and medium term as well as the environmental and security benefits were undeniable.


on the unequal consumption of oil & the resulting risks

Posted by Maximilian Staedtler in Economy, Energy on January 6th, 2010 |  1 Comment

According to the CIA World Factbook, the United States of America has a population of roughly 307.2 million. (July 2009 estimate) (1)

The total population of the world is estimated to be around 6.7 billion based on calculations of the World Bank. (data from 2008) (2)

This means Americans constitue 4.5% of the world’s population.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects global oil consumption in 2010 to grow to 85.2 million barrels per day. (3) With the United States consuming 19,500,000 barrels of oil per day (4), America accounts for roughly 22.9 % of global oil consumption.

When 5% of the world’s population consume almost a quarter of the world’s oil, conflicts are inevitable. Oil is a vital resource for the U.S. economy and  America already depends on foreign oil supplies. This is risky since disruptions in the supply chain would have disastrous impacts on the health of the American economy. A country (such as Iran) that could easily disrupt oil supplies coming from the Persian Gulf by blocking the Strait of Hormuz (through which roughly 40% of seaborne oil shipments pass every day) could hold the U.S. to ransom. Iran is holding hostage a huge share of the world’s oil reserves. The oil facilities of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq and Bahrain are all within reach of Iranian missiles.

According to my calculations (follow this link to see the chart: oil consumption by country), the average American consumes 23.2 barrels of oil per year while the average Chinese consumes only 2.1 barrels per year. In 2010, one American will consume as much oil as 11 Chinese.  What were the consequences if in 15 or 20 years, one Chinese consumed 25% as much oil as an American today? Given that there will be around 1,450 million people in China between 2025 and 2030 (according to a recent report: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/28/content_507307.htm), China’s oil consumption will go through the roof no matter how efficiently they will be using energy by that time…

Without the discovery of several giant oil fields - with extraction costs similar to those in the Saudi Arabian desert - oil prices are prone to skyrocket.

sources:

(1) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html

(2) http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_totl&tdim=true&q=world+population

(3) http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html#Global_Crude_Oil_And_Liquid_Fuels

(4) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html


Top 10 oil-consuming countries

Posted by Maximilian Staedtler in Energy on January 4th, 2010 |  No Comments

Currently I’m working on a research paper with the title

On the Threshold to a New Energy Age - America’s shift towards renewable energy as a consequence of the energy crisis and climate change”.

Therefore I created two graphics, illustrating the total and per capita oil consumption of the ten largest oil consumers: The United States, China, Japan, India, Russia, Germany, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Canada and South Korea.

Oil Consumption per Capita by Country (barrels/year)

Oil Consumption per Capita by Country (barrels/year)

 

 

 

TOP 10 Oil Consuming Countries, Per Capita Oil Consumption, GDP per Capita

TOP 10 Oil Consuming Countries, Per Capita Oil Consumption, GDP per Capita

 

 

 

I used publicly available data from the CIA World Factbook:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

 

 

 

For more graphics and charts, visit my Energy Charts page:

http://www.whatmattersweblog.com/energy-charts/


2010 - Year of Uncertainty & Opportunity

Posted by Maximilian Staedtler in Economy, Globalization on January 1st, 2010 |  1 Comment

Even though this is my first post in 2010, I’d like to include a video from last year, featuring photos I took during my four-week stay in Hawaii in summer 2009.

I hope you enjoy this video. Traveling to Hawaii was an amazing experience. The place has such a positive energy which you can feel as soon as you are greeted by a lovely “Aloha” and get into a conversation with a local. The islands’ year-round pleasant temperatures and warm waters made Hawaii a dream destination for upscale tourism. Unlike any other place I’ve ever been to, Hawaii can be both, relaxing and exciting at the same time. The breathtaking landscapes, the intriguing culture and wonderful food make it hard to leave and easy to miss Hawaii. During my stay, I made some really good friends, learned a lot about Polynesian culture and became a huge fan of Hawaiian music - such as slack key guitar and ukulele.

If you have broadband, I advise you to watch the video in HD.

 

2010 is likely to be a year of uncertainty. As the financial crisis appears to be ebbing, the world is excitedly waiting to see major economies gaining back old strength. There is consensus that the Asia-Pacific region will be the epicenter of the next big global growth wave. During the crisis, China’s efforts to stem the meltdown were a blessing for the world economy. With the world’s third-largest economy maintaining high growth rates and strengthening domestic demand, Chinese consumers and companies have helped to stabilize the fragile global economy. Now it will be crucial whether or not China was overreaching by further building up overcapacities. If Chinese consumers fail to become American-style shoppers and remain thrifty, the implications for the Chinese economy could be disastrous. For many years to come, American consumers won’t be able to consume as they had been doing it in the years before the housing bubble popped. Therefore, China’s manufacturers need to find new customers, primarily within Asia.

Apart from China, some increased contribution to a global recovery from the rest of Asia can be expected. While Japan has not yet managed to end its “Lost Decade(s)”, marked by stagnation and deflationary pressures, Vietnam, Singapore and Indonesia are going to see strong growth in the years to come. Japan might also play a vital role when it comes to clean energy technologies and electric mobility.

The United States and Europe will be struggling with their out-of-hand public and private debt. Unless huge structural changes take place - such as the grand-scale deployment of smart energy technologies - growth rates might pick up but will remain low for an extended period.

Russia is now suffering from postponed economic reforms and its dependence on oil and gas exports. The global meltdown revealed a systemic weakness of the Russian economy. Therefore some analysts and economists argue whether the “R” should be taken out of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) states. If Russia indeed gets kicked out, Indonesia is the most likely candidate to take its place: BIIC (Brazil, Indonesia, India, China)

Especially smaller European economies that were hit hard by the financial crisis such as Iceland, Hungary and Greece might face bankruptcy. A Greek bankruptcy would be a difficult situation for the entire Eurozone, however, it is rather unlikely that Greek might leave the currency union entirely. Even though the possibility to downgrade its currency would give the Greek government a tool to increase competitiveness in the short term, the downsides would simply be too big. Financing its debt would become even more difficult outside of the Eurozone. The important question will be whether fellow European countries would bail Greece out should it come to a do-or-die situation. The Greek economy is week, as is the government. National debt is close to 120% of GDP, unemployment is high - especially among young people - and individuals are also highly indebted.

Spain (because of the crisis in the construction sector), Austria (because of Autrian banks’ involvement in lending to fragile economies in Eastern Europe), Ireland (because of the meltdown in finance) and Italy are also struggling and have poor growth prospects for the future. Even Britain’s economy is not going to recover fast as the massive financial sector is still weak and other industries are failing to fill the gap.

Dubai’s importance as a financial and real estate hub is waning while its neighbor Abu Dhabi strengthening its position and working on its image by investing in alternative energy projects such as the lighthouse project Masdar City.

Some predict escalating trade wars for 2010 and 2011. I hope that the United States, China and the European Union are aware of the enormous downsides of protectionist measures. Whether or not trade battles will erupt this year largely depends on the individual governments’ ability to resist populist calls for trade barriers.

Another point of uncertainty is the risk of other huge bubbles being created by the influx of money from stimulus packages and central banks around the world. Another bubble popping could easily torpedize an economic recovery.

Should the U.S. Federal Reserve fail to withdraw the excess money from the banking system in a timely manner, inflation rates could increase rapidly and have severe negative effects on the sustainability of the recovery. However, this would be all too tempting for the U.S. government, given the historic deficit, as this could reduce the real level of debt.

The bright side is that if central banks manage the money supply properly, governments refrain from setting up populist trade barriers, and banks start lending again, a strong global recovery may be underway. Therefore I’d also call 2010 the year of opportunity. Next year this time, we’ll know more…