Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Europe
25% electricity generated by nuclear
power in 2015
Nuclear electricity
production (TWh)
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2013
2014
Armenia
38.8
42.7
42
43.5
39.4
45
39.4
33.2
26.6
29.2
30.7
2.2
2.3
Belgium
55.1
55.6
54.4
54.1
53.8
51.7
51.1
54
51
52.1
47.5
40.6
32.1
Bulgaria
41.6
44.6
43.6
32.1
32.9
35.9
33.1
32.6
31.6
30.7
31.8
13.3
15
Czech Rep
31.2
30.5
31.5
30.3
32.5
33.8
33.3
33
35.3
35.9
35.8
29
28.6
Finland
26.6
32.9
28
28.9
29.7
32.9
28.4
31.6
32.6
33.3
34.6
22.7
22.6
France
78.1
78.5
78.1
76.9
76.2
75.2
74.1
77.7
74.8
73.3
76.9
405.9
418
Germany
32.1
31
31.8
25.9
28.3
26.1
28.4
17.8
16.1
15.5
15.8
92.1
91.8
Hungary
33.8
37.2
37.7
36.8
37.2
43
42.1
43.2
45.9
50.7
53.6
14.5
14.8
Lithuania
72.1
69.6
72.3
64.4
72.9
76.2
3.8
3.9
3.5
4.1
3.8
3.7
3.4
3.6
4.4
2.8
2.7
Romania
10.1
8.6
13
17.5
20.6
19.5
19
19.4
19.8
18.5
10.7
10.8
Russia
15.6
15.8
15.9
16
16.9
17.8
17.1
17.6
17.8
17.5
18.6
161.7
169.1
Slovakia
55.2
56.1
57.2
54.3
56.4
53.5
51.8
54
53.8
51.7
56.8
14.6
14.4
Slovenia
38.8
42.4
40.3
41.6
41.7
37.9
37.3
41.7
36
33.6
37.2
Spain
22.9
19.6
19.8
17.4
18.3
17.5
20.1
19.5
20.5
19.7
20.4
54.3
54.9
Sweden
51.8
46.7
48
46.1
42
34.7
38.1
39.6
38.1
42.7
41.5
63.7
62.3
40
32.1
37.4
40
39.2
39.5
38
40.8
35.9
36.4
37.9
25
26.5
19.4
19.9
18.4
15.1
13.5
17.9
15.7
17.8
18.1
18.3
17.2
64.1
57.9
Netherlands
Switzerland
UK
Hypothesis development
H1. The Fukushima accident and subsequent events neg
atively affected stock prices on nuclear energy companie
s.
H2. The Fukushima accident and subsequent events pos
itively affected stock prices on alternative energy compa
nies.
H3. Different nuclear policy inclinations from European
political regimes led to the variation on stock prices in t
he markets.
Research method
Data
Sample Companies
Nuclear company
Conventional utilities
Alternative utilities
Electricity
Alternative electricity
Alternative energy
Alternative fuels
Renewable energy equipment and provider
Total
9
9
31
2
16
67
Research method
Methodology
T=-250
T=0
T=-1
T=25
T=5
(Brunnermeier, 2003)
Research method
Methodology
T=-250
T=0
T=-1
T=25
T=5
(Brunnermeier, 2003)
Research method
Methodology
T=-250
T=0
T=-1
T=25
T=5
(Brunnermeier, 2003)
Paired t-test
Alternative energy companies
5% significance level
-250 to -1
+1 to
+250
Mean
0.146267
0.161647
Variance
0.022671
0.021668
49
49
Observations
Pearson Correlation
df
0.869067
48
t Stat
-1.411555
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.164531
t Critical two-tail
2.010635
Paired t-test
Nuclear companies
5% significance level
-250 to -1
+1 to
+250
Mean
0.623456
0.574506
Variance
0.102056
0.109503
Observations
Pearson Correlation
df
t Stat
0.815139
8
0.741554
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.479558
t Critical two-tail
2.306004
Paired t-test
Conventional companies
5% significance level
-250 to -1
+1 to
+250
Mean
0.406267
0.414244
Variance
0.126419
0.087853
Observations
Pearson Correlation
df
0.859376
8
t Stat
-0.131472
P(T<=t) two-tail
0.898648
t Critical two-tail
2.306004
0
-0.01
-0.02
-0.02
-0.03
1.77%
2.17%
-0.03
-0.04
-0.04
1.38%
unit 3
reactor
building
exploded
Severe level
of radiation
leakage(1
Sv/h)
Marc
h
evacuation
12
zone around
Fukushima I is
extended to 20
km
Marc
h
Fukushima I
13
March
18
Marc
h 16
March
14
Day
High radiation
levels are detected
in an area 30 km
northwest of the
nuclear plant
Marc
h
15
second
explosion of
reactor 3
Unit I is
classified as an
INES(Internation
al Nuclear Event
Scale) Level-4
accident
Marc
h 17
25
No more
explosion
and nuclear
reactor start
under control
Severe level
of radiation
leakage(3.75
Sv/h)
0
25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
-0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.02
0
5
-0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.02
1.82%
0
3.63%
0.04
5.18%
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
2.1%
25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
-0.02
-0.04
0.08
0.06
8.3%
0.04
0.02
0
5
-0.02
-0.04
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
0.04
0.03
2.71%
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0
5
Among Countries
Continue with nuclear energy
12 member states, including Finland and France
Phase-out nuclear power stations
Belgium and Germany
Day 0 to Day1
Day 1 to Day 5
Immediate impacts
after Fukushima
Nuclear accident
Day 0 to day 1
Day 1 to Day 5
Finland
Finnish nuclear companies
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
5
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
4.78%
France
France
French nuclear companies
French alternative energy companies
0
-0.02
-0.04
0.08
0.06
0.04
-0.06
0.02
-0.08
-0.1
-0.12
-0.02
4.5%
6.36%
Possible reason
Expectation of Investor
Germany
Anti nuclear protest
Germany
German alternative energy companies
0.08
0.01
0.06
0
-0.01
0.04
0.02
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.02
-0.05
-0.04
1.85%
4.1%
Russia
Russian nuclear companies
0
-0.02
8.15%
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-0.1
-0.12
Conclusion on results
Nuclear vs Alternative energy & Conventional
Advocating vs Opposing on nuclear energy
Expectation on types of energy and information on nuclear ene
rgy
Nuclear accident
Risk vs Lives
Reference List
Betzer, A., Doumet, M. & Rinne, U. (2011). How Policy Changes Affect Shareholder Wealth: The Case of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster. In Schumpeter Discussion Paper Series 2011011. Retrieved November 6, 2
015 from http://elpub.bib.uni-wuppertal.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-1932/sdp11011.pdf
Bluenomics (2014). Electricity production by sources for France. Retrieved February 4, 2016 from https://www.bluenomics.com/data#!data/country_overview/energy_3/electricity_production_by_sources/electricity_produ
ction_by_sources_annual_of_total|chart/line&countries=france
Bluenomics (2014). Electricity production by sources for Germany. Retrieved February 4, 2016 from https://www.bluenomics.com/data#!data/country_overview/energy_3/electricity_production_by_sources/electricity_pro
duction_by_sources_annual_of_total|chart/line&countries=germany
Bluenomics (2014). Electricity production by sources for Spain. Retrieved February 4, 2016 from https://www.bluenomics.com/data#!data/country_overview/energy_3/electricity_production_by_sources/electricity_produc
tion_by_sources_annual_of_total|chart/line&countries=spain
Brunnermeier, M. K. (2003). Value Relevance of Analysts Earnings Forecasts . Retrieved November 10, 2015 from https://www.princeton.edu/~markus/teaching/Eco467/04Lecture/04Event%20Study%20Description.pdf
Edf (2012). EdF Annual Report. Retrieved February 2, 2016 from https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/finance/financial-information/publications/annual-report
Enel- (2014). Enel Annual Report 2011. Retrieved February 8, 2016 from https://www.enel.com/en-gb/Documents/FinancialReports/report2011/Enel_Annual_Report_2011.pdf
Ferstl, R., Utz, S. & Wimmer, M. (2012). The Effect of the Japan 2011 Disaster on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Stocks Worldwide: An Event Study. Journal of Business Research, 5 (1), 25-41.
Lopatta, K. & Kaspereit, T. (2012). The Cross-Section of Returns, Benchmark Model Parameters, and Idiosyncratic Volatility of Nuclear Energy Firms after Fukushima Daiichi . Energy Economics, 41 .
Inter Rao (2016). Inter RAO UES files Annual RAS Reports for 2010. Retrieved February 2, 2016 from http://interrao.ru/en/news/company/?ELEMENT_ID=438
Joint Research Centre (2016). Post-Fukushima Policy. Retrieved from http://ehron.jrc.ec.europa.eu/post-fukushima-policy
Marcovici, M. (2013). Lesson Learned?: Nuclear Energy after Fukushima
Mowery, B. D. (2011). The paired t-test. Pediatric Nursing, 37 (6), 320-321.
Negishi, M. & Pfanner, E. (2016, March 9). Fukushima Still Rattles Japan, Five Years After Nuclear Disaster. The Wall Street Journal
Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (2011). News Release. Retrieved February 1, 2016 from http://www.webcitation.org/69MikbzsO
OCED Nuclear Energy Agency (2012). Timeline for the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-nea.org/news/2011/NEWS-04.html
Shingo, K. & Fumiko, T. (2012). The effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on stock prices of electric power utilities in Japan. Energy Economics, 34 2029-2038.
Statistics Help for Students (2008). How do I interpret data in SPSS for a paired samples T-test?. Retrieved January 15, 2016 from http://statistics-help-for-students.com/How_do_I_interpret_data_in_SPSS_for_a_paired_sa
mples_T_test.htm#.VsMn2Pl97IW
Wittneben, B. F. (2012). The Impact of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident on European Energy Policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 15 1-3.
World Nuclear Association (2014). World Nuclear Power Reactors. Retrieved February 4, 2016 from http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/world-nuclear-power-reactors-and-uranium-requir
eme.aspx
World Nuclear Association (2015). Nuclear Power in the European Union. Retrieved November 6, 2015 from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Others/European-Union/
World Nuclear Association (2015). Nuclear shares of electricity generation - World Nuclear Association. Retrieved January 16, 2016 from http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/nuclear-gener
ation-by-country.aspx
Xinhua (2011), Russia's Nuclear Energy Policy Unchanged after Fukushima Accident . Retrieved February 3, 2016 from http://www.aec.gov.tw/webpage/info/files/energy_news_02-13_1.pdf
~Thank you~