In this newsletter:
1) As energy costs soar, Britain becoming less attractive for investment, manufacturers warn
Reuters, 9 January 2023
2) Green Britain: Manufacturers brace for emergency shutdowns as energy bills support cut
The Daily Telegraph, 9 January 2023
3) Delay to small nuclear reactors as ministers battle over costs
The Sunday Times, 8 January 2023
4) Copenhagen Atomics puts forward SMR design for UK appraisal
World Nuclear News, 5 January 2023
5) GE Hitachi formally enters SMR project in UK race for new nuclear
Power Magazine, 22 December 2022
The Sunday Times, 8 January 2023
4) Copenhagen Atomics puts forward SMR design for UK appraisal
World Nuclear News, 5 January 2023
5) GE Hitachi formally enters SMR project in UK race for new nuclear
Power Magazine, 22 December 2022
6) Green Germany: Around 40% of German companies expect output decline in 2023
Reuters, 9 January 2023
Reuters, 9 January 2023
7) Brian Gitt: Confessions of an Environmentalist
PragerU, 9 January 2023
8) David Paton:Why don’t we ever hear the good news about climate?
Spiked, 9 January 2023
Spiked, 9 January 2023
9) Francis Menton: The coming future of electric vehicles: Something here does not add up
Manhattan Contrarian, 7 January 2023
10) And finally: Giles Coren - Why I’ve pulled the plug on my electric car
The Times, 6 January 2023
The Times, 6 January 2023
Full details:
1) As energy costs soar, Britain becoming less attractive for investment, manufacturers warn
Reuters, 9 January 2023
Reuters, 9 January 2023
LONDON, Jan 9 (Reuters) - Britain has become less competitive and less attractive to foreign investors as a result of soaring energy costs and recent political turmoil, manufacturers said in an industry survey released on Monday.
The proportion of manufacturers who think Britain is a competitive location halved to 31% from 63% a year ago, and 43% said Britain had become less attractive to overseas investors, according to the survey by Make UK, the main trade body for British manufacturers, and accountants PwC.
The survey of 235 businesses took place from Nov. 1 to Nov. 22, when the turmoil of Liz Truss's short-lived government was fresh in people's minds, and 53% of firms said ongoing political instability had damaged business confidence.
This week finance minister Jeremy Hunt is due to outline plans to sharply scale back energy subsidies for businesses.
Make UK said the plans are likely to lead to exacerbate cuts to jobs and production that were already in the pipeline.
When the survey took place in November, two thirds of manufacturers expected to reduce headcount or cut output because of high energy costs.
Manufacturers in Britain have struggled of late, with closely-watched S&P Global business surveys showing they suffered a more a severe downturn in December than other Group of Seven nation peers.
"The year ahead is going to be very challenging for manufacturers with a potent mix of factors testing their resolve," Stephen Phipson, chief executive of Make UK.
"Ongoing supply chain disruption, access to labour and high transport costs which show no sign of abating can be added to a growing sense of economic and political uncertainty in their main markets."
Phipson said there was a significant risk that British manufacturers will "fall through the cracks" if the government failed to match the generosity of energy bill support programmes that Britain's competitors have in place.
The government plans to scale back energy subsidies for businesses will see the cost of support fall by 85% during the next financial year, limiting the cost to 5 billion pounds ($6 billion), the Daily Telegraph reported on Friday.
2) Green Britain: Manufacturers brace for emergency shutdowns as energy bills support cut
The Daily Telegraph, 9 January 2023
The proportion of manufacturers who think Britain is a competitive location halved to 31% from 63% a year ago, and 43% said Britain had become less attractive to overseas investors, according to the survey by Make UK, the main trade body for British manufacturers, and accountants PwC.
The survey of 235 businesses took place from Nov. 1 to Nov. 22, when the turmoil of Liz Truss's short-lived government was fresh in people's minds, and 53% of firms said ongoing political instability had damaged business confidence.
This week finance minister Jeremy Hunt is due to outline plans to sharply scale back energy subsidies for businesses.
Make UK said the plans are likely to lead to exacerbate cuts to jobs and production that were already in the pipeline.
When the survey took place in November, two thirds of manufacturers expected to reduce headcount or cut output because of high energy costs.
Manufacturers in Britain have struggled of late, with closely-watched S&P Global business surveys showing they suffered a more a severe downturn in December than other Group of Seven nation peers.
"The year ahead is going to be very challenging for manufacturers with a potent mix of factors testing their resolve," Stephen Phipson, chief executive of Make UK.
"Ongoing supply chain disruption, access to labour and high transport costs which show no sign of abating can be added to a growing sense of economic and political uncertainty in their main markets."
Phipson said there was a significant risk that British manufacturers will "fall through the cracks" if the government failed to match the generosity of energy bill support programmes that Britain's competitors have in place.
The government plans to scale back energy subsidies for businesses will see the cost of support fall by 85% during the next financial year, limiting the cost to 5 billion pounds ($6 billion), the Daily Telegraph reported on Friday.
2) Green Britain: Manufacturers brace for emergency shutdowns as energy bills support cut
The Daily Telegraph, 9 January 2023
The overwhelming majority of manufacturers are bracing for emergency shutdowns as the Treasury cuts support for business energy bills.
Business leaders warned that the clock is ticking across swathes of industry ahead of large increases in costs for electricity and gas when taxpayer help is scaled back in April.
Almost two-thirds of manufacturers say they are increasingly concerned about the risk of blackouts amid surging costs, according to a report by trade body Make UK and accountancy firm PwC.
Factories could be ordered to close down to protect domestic supply if power is tight during cold periods this winter under a worst case scenario outlined by National Grid, although experts regard this as increasingly unlikely because of mild weather so far.
A jump in costs could also mean that manufacturers themselves choose to shut temporarily, because operating becomes unprofitable.
Stephen Phipson, chief executive at Make UK said that the fear of blackouts “is leaving companies nervously looking over their shoulders and making production planning very difficult”.
He added: “Increases in energy costs... [have] left the clock ticking for many companies.
“These fears are also forcing companies to pay for contingency backup measures at a time when their cash flow is already severely stretched.”
The Government said in September that it would cover half of businesses’ electricity costs over the winter to avoid a wave of bankruptcies as energy prices surged.
Currently businesses' wholesale energy costs are capped at 21.1p per kilowatt hour (kWh) for gas and 7.5p per kWh for electricity. Taxpayers then stump up for the difference between that level and high real prices.
The six-month package is expected to cost taxpayers as much as £18bn. Although the aid will continue beyond April, it is expected to fall to roughly £2.5bn every six months - equivalent to a 85pc drop.
Make UK urged ministers to rethink the ideas amid fears that British industry could be undermined compared with companies overseas such as Germany – which already offers an extensive and generous energy support scheme.
Mr Phipson said: “While any extension of the energy relief scheme will be welcome, to date it has just been a sticking plaster and making it substantially less generous could be a tipping point for many companies. Rather than cutting support there is a very strong and urgent case for matching the more generous schemes our competitors have in place which is already leaving us at a massive disadvantage.
“Government must also ensure that all major users of energy are included in any extra help, not just those traditionally regarded as ‘energy intensive’. Otherwise there are some very significant companies employing many people that will fall through the cracks.”
Bosses also expect employment costs to continue surging. Nine in 10 believe their wage bill will increase in the coming year. A similar proportion think that transportation costs will also rise in 2023.
Cara Haffey, manufacturing leader at PwC, said: "UK manufacturers are resilient by nature, however we face another 12 months where it's likely that global supply chains will remain stretched and a string of pressure points will continue to spring up, from sourcing and purchasing to fulfilment and distribution.”
In another sign of the economic damage Britain is suffering, research and development into new drugs fell by more than expected last year according to a separate report by Deloitte.
The return on investment in research and development for global pharmaceutical companies fell to 1.2pc in 2022, it was estimated, down from the 2021 record of 6.8pc.
Karen Taylor, director and head of research, Deloitte Centre for Health Solutions, said: “While a drop-off in projected returns for biopharma R&D was inevitable after such an exceptional year in 2021, the degree is sharper than many would have expected.”
7) Brian Gitt: Confessions of an Environmentalist
PragerU, 9 January 2023
Imagine you dedicated your life to environmentalism and all of its assumptions. Then imagine you realize those assumptions are all wrong. What would you do? Entrepreneur Brian Gitt tells his personal story and where it led him.
Watch the video here
8) David Paton: Why don’t we ever hear the good news about climate?
Spiked, 9 January 2023
Manhattan Contrarian, 7 January 2023
Business leaders warned that the clock is ticking across swathes of industry ahead of large increases in costs for electricity and gas when taxpayer help is scaled back in April.
Almost two-thirds of manufacturers say they are increasingly concerned about the risk of blackouts amid surging costs, according to a report by trade body Make UK and accountancy firm PwC.
Factories could be ordered to close down to protect domestic supply if power is tight during cold periods this winter under a worst case scenario outlined by National Grid, although experts regard this as increasingly unlikely because of mild weather so far.
A jump in costs could also mean that manufacturers themselves choose to shut temporarily, because operating becomes unprofitable.
Stephen Phipson, chief executive at Make UK said that the fear of blackouts “is leaving companies nervously looking over their shoulders and making production planning very difficult”.
He added: “Increases in energy costs... [have] left the clock ticking for many companies.
“These fears are also forcing companies to pay for contingency backup measures at a time when their cash flow is already severely stretched.”
The Government said in September that it would cover half of businesses’ electricity costs over the winter to avoid a wave of bankruptcies as energy prices surged.
Currently businesses' wholesale energy costs are capped at 21.1p per kilowatt hour (kWh) for gas and 7.5p per kWh for electricity. Taxpayers then stump up for the difference between that level and high real prices.
The six-month package is expected to cost taxpayers as much as £18bn. Although the aid will continue beyond April, it is expected to fall to roughly £2.5bn every six months - equivalent to a 85pc drop.
Make UK urged ministers to rethink the ideas amid fears that British industry could be undermined compared with companies overseas such as Germany – which already offers an extensive and generous energy support scheme.
Mr Phipson said: “While any extension of the energy relief scheme will be welcome, to date it has just been a sticking plaster and making it substantially less generous could be a tipping point for many companies. Rather than cutting support there is a very strong and urgent case for matching the more generous schemes our competitors have in place which is already leaving us at a massive disadvantage.
“Government must also ensure that all major users of energy are included in any extra help, not just those traditionally regarded as ‘energy intensive’. Otherwise there are some very significant companies employing many people that will fall through the cracks.”
Bosses also expect employment costs to continue surging. Nine in 10 believe their wage bill will increase in the coming year. A similar proportion think that transportation costs will also rise in 2023.
Cara Haffey, manufacturing leader at PwC, said: "UK manufacturers are resilient by nature, however we face another 12 months where it's likely that global supply chains will remain stretched and a string of pressure points will continue to spring up, from sourcing and purchasing to fulfilment and distribution.”
In another sign of the economic damage Britain is suffering, research and development into new drugs fell by more than expected last year according to a separate report by Deloitte.
The return on investment in research and development for global pharmaceutical companies fell to 1.2pc in 2022, it was estimated, down from the 2021 record of 6.8pc.
Karen Taylor, director and head of research, Deloitte Centre for Health Solutions, said: “While a drop-off in projected returns for biopharma R&D was inevitable after such an exceptional year in 2021, the degree is sharper than many would have expected.”
3) Delay to small nuclear reactors as ministers battle over costs
The Sunday Times, 8 January 2023
The Sunday Times, 8 January 2023
A funding deal for the first fleet of mini nuclear reactors is not expected to materialise for at least another 12 months, amid a row in government over the cost of Britain’s wider nuclear ambitions.
Last year, in order to triple domestic nuclear capacity to 24 gigawatts by 2050 — a quarter of the UK’s projected electricity demand — Boris Johnson set out plans for eight new large reactors alongside the development of small modular reactors (SMRs).
The government also announced the formation of Great British Nuclear (GBN), a body responsible for helping to deliver the next generation of reactors and SMRs by identifying potential sites, developers and investors.
At present only one plant, Hinkley Point C, is under construction, with the financing and final investment decisions on Sizewell C still pending.
However, even though all but one of the UK’s existing plants are set to be shut down by the end of the decade, the government’s nuclear strategy now appears at risk of stalling amid internal disagreements.
In particular, Whitehall sources have revealed that there remains significant uncertainty over the scale of state investment in SMRs.
Rolls-Royce, which has created designs for a 470 megawatt SMR and wants to begin building factories, has called for ministers to enter funding talks and start placing orders. Rolls is understood to be seeking a commitment for four initial SMRs at a cost of about £2 billion each, which it believes would unlock orders from interested foreign buyers. But a senior government source said the Treasury would not sign off on any orders or significant funding until the technology had approval from the Office for Nuclear Regulation, which is not expected until 2024.
While the government has already invested £210 million in Rolls’s technology, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is also still assessing whether its competitors, including GE Hitachi, may offer “more viable” alternatives.
Insiders have signalled that the government may opt to launch yet another competition to gather further evidence before any firm deals are struck. More broadly, Treasury ministers harbour big concerns over the costs associated with GBN, which officials have warned is billions over budget.
While officials expect GBN to be announced early this year, after months of delays, the internal wrangling could lead to changes to both the body’s scope and funding.
Last night Paul Stein, chairman of the Rolls SMR consortium, said: “We stand ready to upscale SMR as soon as we get the green light ... We’re confident our design will bring the lowest cost of energy ... the lowest risk, and be game changing for British jobs and exports.
“It’s not just procurement of SMRs that is at stake, but our energy security, our national prosperity and the development of a home-grown design which will re- industrialise our nation. We trust that whatever process the government follows will reach this same view and we can proceed with pace.”
A BEIS source said: “It is clear the way to shore up this country’s energy security is to achieve a pipeline of new nuclear. The government [is] committed to .. establishing and backing Great British Nuclear.”
4) Copenhagen Atomics puts forward SMR design for UK appraisal
World Nuclear News, 5 January 2023
UK Atomics - a subsidiary of Denmark's Copenhagen Atomics - has submitted a Generic Design Assessment (GDA) entry application for its small and modular thorium molten salt reactor to the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS).
GDA is a process carried out by the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) and the Environment Agency (EA) to assess the safety, security, and environmental protection aspects of a nuclear power plant design that is intended to be deployed in Great Britain. Successful completion of the GDA culminates in the issue of a Design Acceptance Confirmation from the ONR and a Statement of Design Acceptability from the EA. In May 2021, BEIS opened the GDA process to advanced nuclear technologies, including small modular reactors (SMRs).
UK Atomics has now applied for its containerised molten salt reactor to be put through the GDA process. Moderated with unpressurised heavy water, the reactor consumes nuclear waste while breeding new fuel from thorium. Small enough to allow for mass manufacturing and assembly line production, the reactor has an output of 100 MWt.
"The reactor design utilises innovative technologies to generate energy through a thorium molten salt reactor, enabling clean, reliable and cheap energy for the world," the company said. "This technology has the added benefit of producing no greenhouse gas emissions and it does consume long-term nuclear waste from the classic nuclear industry to produce energy."
A prototype reactor has already been constructed at a new facility in Copenhagen which "will be tested to support the goal-oriented approval process".
"We are thrilled to be taking this important step towards bringing our groundbreaking technology to market," said UK Atomics CEO and cofounder Thomas Steenberg. "We believe this reactor has the potential to greatly reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and make a significant impact on the green transition, and for the UK to provide jobs and prosperity."
According to Copenhagen Atomics, the reactors will be deployed by UK Atomics, who will build, own and operate a fleet of autonomous reactors, "eventually numbering in thousands". This business model, selling energy-as-a-service, will enable a cost-effective and low-risk deployment.
The first commercial reactor is scheduled to begin operating in 2028.
The company said that with low operating costs and no capital expenditure to the customer, it projects an electricity price point below GBP40 (USD48) per MWh. "This price is very competitive and will create a new affordable energy source that can drive the energy transition for the world," it said.
"We are removing the complexity for decision makers," said Copenhagen Atomics cofounder Thomas Jam Pedersen. "Companies fear the responsibility of operating a nuclear plant, decommissioning, and handling nuclear waste. We take care of all of that and just deliver reliable and green energy to the customer."
"UK Atomics' application for its 'waste burner' design is an exciting step forward for next generation nuclear in the UK," said Nuclear Industry Association Chief Executive Tom Greatrex. "It offers another innovative way of producing abundant clean energy to ensure energy security and hit our net-zero goals. The UK can and should be leading the deployment of these types of technologies, and we look forward to seeing progress in the days ahead."
Rolls-Royce SMR was the first vendor to submit an application for a GDA of an SMR design. The 470 MWe pressurised water reactor design was accepted for review in March 2022 with BEIS asking the ONR and EA to begin the process.
In December, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy submitted a GDA entry application for its BWRX-300 SMR, while Holtec International said it intends to soon submit an application for its SMR-160 design.
5) GE Hitachi formally enters SMR project in UK race for new nuclear
Power Magazine, 22 December 2022
GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) has submitted a Generic Design Assessment (GDA) entry application for its BWRX-300 small modular reactor (SMR) to UK authorities, kicking off a key regulatory process that could give the advanced nuclear technology a competitive edge as the country races to potentially triple its nuclear capacity to up to 24 GW by 2050.
The effort expands GEH’s efforts to engage with regulators in the UK for its BWRX-300, a 300-MW boiling water reactor (BWR). “Regulatory agencies in Canada and the U.S. are collaborating on their licensing review of the BWRX-300. Through the GDA process, we look forward to engaging U.K. regulators and enabling collaboration with their global counterparts,” noted Sean Sexstone, GEH executive vice president of Advanced Nuclear, on Dec. 20.
GDA: A Non-Mandatory But Significant Regulatory Process
The GDA is a non-mandatory regulatory process overseen by the UK Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) and Environment Agency (EA) to ensure that new nuclear power plants built in the country “meet high standards of safety, security, environmental protection and waste management.” The joint process is separate from site-specific licensing, which the ONR grants as a legal document for the entire lifecycle of a facility, and environmental permits from the EA (or Natural Resources Wales). A four-step technology-neutral assessment introduced in 2007, the GDA serves as a first step to reduce project risk, providing confidence that a proposed design can be built, operated, and decommissioned in the UK under existing standards.
Full story
Last year, in order to triple domestic nuclear capacity to 24 gigawatts by 2050 — a quarter of the UK’s projected electricity demand — Boris Johnson set out plans for eight new large reactors alongside the development of small modular reactors (SMRs).
The government also announced the formation of Great British Nuclear (GBN), a body responsible for helping to deliver the next generation of reactors and SMRs by identifying potential sites, developers and investors.
At present only one plant, Hinkley Point C, is under construction, with the financing and final investment decisions on Sizewell C still pending.
However, even though all but one of the UK’s existing plants are set to be shut down by the end of the decade, the government’s nuclear strategy now appears at risk of stalling amid internal disagreements.
In particular, Whitehall sources have revealed that there remains significant uncertainty over the scale of state investment in SMRs.
Rolls-Royce, which has created designs for a 470 megawatt SMR and wants to begin building factories, has called for ministers to enter funding talks and start placing orders. Rolls is understood to be seeking a commitment for four initial SMRs at a cost of about £2 billion each, which it believes would unlock orders from interested foreign buyers. But a senior government source said the Treasury would not sign off on any orders or significant funding until the technology had approval from the Office for Nuclear Regulation, which is not expected until 2024.
While the government has already invested £210 million in Rolls’s technology, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is also still assessing whether its competitors, including GE Hitachi, may offer “more viable” alternatives.
Insiders have signalled that the government may opt to launch yet another competition to gather further evidence before any firm deals are struck. More broadly, Treasury ministers harbour big concerns over the costs associated with GBN, which officials have warned is billions over budget.
While officials expect GBN to be announced early this year, after months of delays, the internal wrangling could lead to changes to both the body’s scope and funding.
Last night Paul Stein, chairman of the Rolls SMR consortium, said: “We stand ready to upscale SMR as soon as we get the green light ... We’re confident our design will bring the lowest cost of energy ... the lowest risk, and be game changing for British jobs and exports.
“It’s not just procurement of SMRs that is at stake, but our energy security, our national prosperity and the development of a home-grown design which will re- industrialise our nation. We trust that whatever process the government follows will reach this same view and we can proceed with pace.”
A BEIS source said: “It is clear the way to shore up this country’s energy security is to achieve a pipeline of new nuclear. The government [is] committed to .. establishing and backing Great British Nuclear.”
4) Copenhagen Atomics puts forward SMR design for UK appraisal
World Nuclear News, 5 January 2023
UK Atomics - a subsidiary of Denmark's Copenhagen Atomics - has submitted a Generic Design Assessment (GDA) entry application for its small and modular thorium molten salt reactor to the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS).
GDA is a process carried out by the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) and the Environment Agency (EA) to assess the safety, security, and environmental protection aspects of a nuclear power plant design that is intended to be deployed in Great Britain. Successful completion of the GDA culminates in the issue of a Design Acceptance Confirmation from the ONR and a Statement of Design Acceptability from the EA. In May 2021, BEIS opened the GDA process to advanced nuclear technologies, including small modular reactors (SMRs).
UK Atomics has now applied for its containerised molten salt reactor to be put through the GDA process. Moderated with unpressurised heavy water, the reactor consumes nuclear waste while breeding new fuel from thorium. Small enough to allow for mass manufacturing and assembly line production, the reactor has an output of 100 MWt.
"The reactor design utilises innovative technologies to generate energy through a thorium molten salt reactor, enabling clean, reliable and cheap energy for the world," the company said. "This technology has the added benefit of producing no greenhouse gas emissions and it does consume long-term nuclear waste from the classic nuclear industry to produce energy."
A prototype reactor has already been constructed at a new facility in Copenhagen which "will be tested to support the goal-oriented approval process".
"We are thrilled to be taking this important step towards bringing our groundbreaking technology to market," said UK Atomics CEO and cofounder Thomas Steenberg. "We believe this reactor has the potential to greatly reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and make a significant impact on the green transition, and for the UK to provide jobs and prosperity."
According to Copenhagen Atomics, the reactors will be deployed by UK Atomics, who will build, own and operate a fleet of autonomous reactors, "eventually numbering in thousands". This business model, selling energy-as-a-service, will enable a cost-effective and low-risk deployment.
The first commercial reactor is scheduled to begin operating in 2028.
The company said that with low operating costs and no capital expenditure to the customer, it projects an electricity price point below GBP40 (USD48) per MWh. "This price is very competitive and will create a new affordable energy source that can drive the energy transition for the world," it said.
"We are removing the complexity for decision makers," said Copenhagen Atomics cofounder Thomas Jam Pedersen. "Companies fear the responsibility of operating a nuclear plant, decommissioning, and handling nuclear waste. We take care of all of that and just deliver reliable and green energy to the customer."
"UK Atomics' application for its 'waste burner' design is an exciting step forward for next generation nuclear in the UK," said Nuclear Industry Association Chief Executive Tom Greatrex. "It offers another innovative way of producing abundant clean energy to ensure energy security and hit our net-zero goals. The UK can and should be leading the deployment of these types of technologies, and we look forward to seeing progress in the days ahead."
Rolls-Royce SMR was the first vendor to submit an application for a GDA of an SMR design. The 470 MWe pressurised water reactor design was accepted for review in March 2022 with BEIS asking the ONR and EA to begin the process.
In December, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy submitted a GDA entry application for its BWRX-300 SMR, while Holtec International said it intends to soon submit an application for its SMR-160 design.
5) GE Hitachi formally enters SMR project in UK race for new nuclear
Power Magazine, 22 December 2022
GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) has submitted a Generic Design Assessment (GDA) entry application for its BWRX-300 small modular reactor (SMR) to UK authorities, kicking off a key regulatory process that could give the advanced nuclear technology a competitive edge as the country races to potentially triple its nuclear capacity to up to 24 GW by 2050.
The effort expands GEH’s efforts to engage with regulators in the UK for its BWRX-300, a 300-MW boiling water reactor (BWR). “Regulatory agencies in Canada and the U.S. are collaborating on their licensing review of the BWRX-300. Through the GDA process, we look forward to engaging U.K. regulators and enabling collaboration with their global counterparts,” noted Sean Sexstone, GEH executive vice president of Advanced Nuclear, on Dec. 20.
GDA: A Non-Mandatory But Significant Regulatory Process
The GDA is a non-mandatory regulatory process overseen by the UK Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) and Environment Agency (EA) to ensure that new nuclear power plants built in the country “meet high standards of safety, security, environmental protection and waste management.” The joint process is separate from site-specific licensing, which the ONR grants as a legal document for the entire lifecycle of a facility, and environmental permits from the EA (or Natural Resources Wales). A four-step technology-neutral assessment introduced in 2007, the GDA serves as a first step to reduce project risk, providing confidence that a proposed design can be built, operated, and decommissioned in the UK under existing standards.
Full story
6) Green Germany: Around 40% of German companies expect output decline in 2023
Reuters, 9 January 2023
Reuters, 9 January 2023
BERLIN, Jan 9 (Reuters) - Four out of ten German companies expect business to shrink in 2023, a survey by the German Economic Institute (IW) showed on Monday, blaming high energy costs, supply chain issues and the continuing war in Ukraine.
"The risk of a gas shortage in the 2022/23 winter season is no longer as present as it was in the summer of 2022, and energy prices have also retreated since then. However, they remain at a high level and production disruptions cannot be ruled out," the IW said in the survey seen by Reuters.
"Moreover, it will only become clear in the course of 2023 how extensive gas and energy supply can be built up for the next winter and the extent of any possible disruptions that could occur in 2023."
The survey of around 2,500 companies showed that around a third of companies expect output to stagnate and the remaining quarter predict business will grow.
Germany's economy, Europe's largest, is forecast to shrink by 0.3% next year, the most among G7 nations, according to the International Monetary Fund, hit by a sudden halt of gas flows from Russia, its former main supplier.
The outlook is particularly bleak in the German construction sector, where more than half of companies surveyed by IW expect a decline in production and just 15% anticipate more business.
The picture is barely brighter in industry, where 39% of surveyed companies forecast a decline, driven by a cautious assessment in the consumer and basic industries.
"The risk of a gas shortage in the 2022/23 winter season is no longer as present as it was in the summer of 2022, and energy prices have also retreated since then. However, they remain at a high level and production disruptions cannot be ruled out," the IW said in the survey seen by Reuters.
"Moreover, it will only become clear in the course of 2023 how extensive gas and energy supply can be built up for the next winter and the extent of any possible disruptions that could occur in 2023."
The survey of around 2,500 companies showed that around a third of companies expect output to stagnate and the remaining quarter predict business will grow.
Germany's economy, Europe's largest, is forecast to shrink by 0.3% next year, the most among G7 nations, according to the International Monetary Fund, hit by a sudden halt of gas flows from Russia, its former main supplier.
The outlook is particularly bleak in the German construction sector, where more than half of companies surveyed by IW expect a decline in production and just 15% anticipate more business.
The picture is barely brighter in industry, where 39% of surveyed companies forecast a decline, driven by a cautious assessment in the consumer and basic industries.
7) Brian Gitt: Confessions of an Environmentalist
PragerU, 9 January 2023
Imagine you dedicated your life to environmentalism and all of its assumptions. Then imagine you realize those assumptions are all wrong. What would you do? Entrepreneur Brian Gitt tells his personal story and where it led him.
Watch the video here
8) David Paton: Why don’t we ever hear the good news about climate?
Spiked, 9 January 2023
Climate-related disasters are killing fewer people than ever.
It has been almost impossible to miss the recent media reports that 2022 was the UK’s warmest year on record. But did you also spot the news that 2022 was another year of exceptionally low climate-related deaths across the world? This good news comes from data from the OFDA / CRED International Disaster Database and was noted by economist Bjorn Lomborg on 1 January. Yet few, if any, mainstream media outlets decided to report it.
The 2022 numbers are provisional and may increase slightly, but climate-related deaths will almost certainly end up lower than they were five, 10 or 20 years ago – and this is part of a longer-running downward trend. Our schools provide many hours of lessons on climate change, but I wonder how many teachers, let alone pupils, are aware that climate-related deaths have decreased by as much as 97 per cent over the past 100 years, as the OFDA / CRED data show.
The fact that climate-related deaths are decreasing does not mean climate change is not real, or even that it is not a problem. One reason deaths have fallen is that increased wealth and lower global-poverty rates have improved our ability to protect people when climate disasters happen. Even so, you would think awareness of this positive trend would provide important context for public debates over climate policy.
It is not just climate-related deaths that are falling. The economic costs caused by climate events have also decreased by about 20 per cent over the past 30 years. And although experts tell us that climate change will affect food production, data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation show a steady increase in global food production since 1961. The increase has slowed more recently, but production in 2020 (the latest available year) was still eight per cent higher than in 2010. And those figures show production per capita, meaning they take into account the large increases in global population over the same period.
Total food production might be up, but what does this mean for the poorest and most vulnerable? There is good news on this front, too. The UN estimates that the number of people suffering from undernourishment has dropped significantly over the past 20 years. Numbers rose a little in 2021 (the latest year of data), but that is largely due to lockdown policies, which have contributed to global poverty.
For some reason, much of our media seem keen only to report on the bad news, even when that bad news is based on modelled projections of what might happen in the future, as opposed to real-world data.
It is hard to see how such an approach can benefit the public debate over climate change. Although perhaps the key word here is ‘debate’. Our political, academic and media establishment seems to have decided that there is no debate to be had on climate change – the science is settled and anyone who disagrees is a ‘denier’ or a promoter of ‘misinformation’. Journalists, in particular, seem to take this view. Perhaps they feel it would almost be letting the side down to focus on trends that challenge the consensus that climate change represents an existential threat to humanity.
One way to break out of this lazy way of thinking is to distinguish between climate change and climate-change policy. Even if you believe that the ‘science is settled’ on climate change, there must still be room for debate about the most appropriate policies to address climate issues. That being said, the notion of ‘the science’ being ‘settled’ in an area as dynamic and uncertain as the climate is clearly nonsense.
The UK’s current Net Zero approach to climate policy is based on the assumption that reducing carbon emissions over the next 30 years will lead to predictable and significant benefits in terms of reduced climate disasters in the longer term. There are a lot of uncertainties in that assumption. And it is not remotely clear that the likely benefits justify the eye-watering sums of public and private expenditure that would be needed to decarbonise society.
There also seems to be very little appetite in the political and media establishment for considering whether there are alternatives to Net Zero that might have a better cost-benefit trade-off. These might include investment in adaptation to climate change, as well as policies that allow for some continued use of cheap and abundant fossil fuels rather than trying to eliminate them entirely.
Because the debate on climate-change policy has been so successfully shut down, a number of major planned polices have gone dangerously unscrutinised, such as the phasing out of investment in fossil-fuel-based energy sources, the ban on the sale of non-electric cars from 2030 and the move away from the use of gas for domestic heating. Each of these policies involves significant public and private expenditure and fundamental changes to how we live our lives. They must be subjected to public debate and challenge. We need to establish whether any likely benefits can justify the huge disruption and costs they will inevitably entail. If those promoting Net Zero are right that these policies are essential for the long-term survival of society, they should not fear having to make that case in public.
We need to have a serious debate about these issues in 2023. And we can start by telling people the good news about the climate.
David Paton is professor of industrial economics at Nottingham University Business School. Follow him on Twitter: @CricketWyvern
9) Francis Menton: The coming future of electric vehicles: Something here does not add upIt has been almost impossible to miss the recent media reports that 2022 was the UK’s warmest year on record. But did you also spot the news that 2022 was another year of exceptionally low climate-related deaths across the world? This good news comes from data from the OFDA / CRED International Disaster Database and was noted by economist Bjorn Lomborg on 1 January. Yet few, if any, mainstream media outlets decided to report it.
The 2022 numbers are provisional and may increase slightly, but climate-related deaths will almost certainly end up lower than they were five, 10 or 20 years ago – and this is part of a longer-running downward trend. Our schools provide many hours of lessons on climate change, but I wonder how many teachers, let alone pupils, are aware that climate-related deaths have decreased by as much as 97 per cent over the past 100 years, as the OFDA / CRED data show.
The fact that climate-related deaths are decreasing does not mean climate change is not real, or even that it is not a problem. One reason deaths have fallen is that increased wealth and lower global-poverty rates have improved our ability to protect people when climate disasters happen. Even so, you would think awareness of this positive trend would provide important context for public debates over climate policy.
It is not just climate-related deaths that are falling. The economic costs caused by climate events have also decreased by about 20 per cent over the past 30 years. And although experts tell us that climate change will affect food production, data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation show a steady increase in global food production since 1961. The increase has slowed more recently, but production in 2020 (the latest available year) was still eight per cent higher than in 2010. And those figures show production per capita, meaning they take into account the large increases in global population over the same period.
Total food production might be up, but what does this mean for the poorest and most vulnerable? There is good news on this front, too. The UN estimates that the number of people suffering from undernourishment has dropped significantly over the past 20 years. Numbers rose a little in 2021 (the latest year of data), but that is largely due to lockdown policies, which have contributed to global poverty.
For some reason, much of our media seem keen only to report on the bad news, even when that bad news is based on modelled projections of what might happen in the future, as opposed to real-world data.
It is hard to see how such an approach can benefit the public debate over climate change. Although perhaps the key word here is ‘debate’. Our political, academic and media establishment seems to have decided that there is no debate to be had on climate change – the science is settled and anyone who disagrees is a ‘denier’ or a promoter of ‘misinformation’. Journalists, in particular, seem to take this view. Perhaps they feel it would almost be letting the side down to focus on trends that challenge the consensus that climate change represents an existential threat to humanity.
One way to break out of this lazy way of thinking is to distinguish between climate change and climate-change policy. Even if you believe that the ‘science is settled’ on climate change, there must still be room for debate about the most appropriate policies to address climate issues. That being said, the notion of ‘the science’ being ‘settled’ in an area as dynamic and uncertain as the climate is clearly nonsense.
The UK’s current Net Zero approach to climate policy is based on the assumption that reducing carbon emissions over the next 30 years will lead to predictable and significant benefits in terms of reduced climate disasters in the longer term. There are a lot of uncertainties in that assumption. And it is not remotely clear that the likely benefits justify the eye-watering sums of public and private expenditure that would be needed to decarbonise society.
There also seems to be very little appetite in the political and media establishment for considering whether there are alternatives to Net Zero that might have a better cost-benefit trade-off. These might include investment in adaptation to climate change, as well as policies that allow for some continued use of cheap and abundant fossil fuels rather than trying to eliminate them entirely.
Because the debate on climate-change policy has been so successfully shut down, a number of major planned polices have gone dangerously unscrutinised, such as the phasing out of investment in fossil-fuel-based energy sources, the ban on the sale of non-electric cars from 2030 and the move away from the use of gas for domestic heating. Each of these policies involves significant public and private expenditure and fundamental changes to how we live our lives. They must be subjected to public debate and challenge. We need to establish whether any likely benefits can justify the huge disruption and costs they will inevitably entail. If those promoting Net Zero are right that these policies are essential for the long-term survival of society, they should not fear having to make that case in public.
We need to have a serious debate about these issues in 2023. And we can start by telling people the good news about the climate.
David Paton is professor of industrial economics at Nottingham University Business School. Follow him on Twitter: @CricketWyvern
Manhattan Contrarian, 7 January 2023
Supposedly, we are rapidly on our way toward a zero-carbon, all electric energy future. But has anybody done the arithmetic to see if this adds up?
I’m carving myself out a niche as the guy who does a few simple calculations to check if the grand schemes of our central planners make any sense. So far I’ve taken that approach to the question of energy storage to back up a wind/solar electricity grid, and on that one the schemes of the central planners most definitely do not add up. But the energy storage question, although involving no math beyond basic arithmetic, does have some complexities. How about something somewhat simpler, like: If we convert our entire automobile fleet to all-electric cars, where is the electricity going to come from?
With the big push currently on to get rid of internal combustion vehicles and replace them with electrics, surely someone has done the calculations to be sure that the electricity supply will be ample. Actually, that does not appear to be the case. Once again, the central planners have no idea what they are doing.
A few things in the recent news make this issue highly topical. First, in the days just before Christmas, much of the country experienced a severe cold snap. Severe, that is, but not record-breaking. Almost everywhere that had very cold temperatures during those days had had even colder temperatures in the past, not necessarily every year, but multiple times over the course of decades.
Second, several utilities found themselves with insufficient electricity to meet demand, and had to impose rolling blackouts on their customers, even in the face of freezing cold temperatures. Examples of utilities imposing rolling blackouts during the severe cold wave included Duke Energy (covering most of North and South Carolina, and parts of Florida, Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky) and TVA (covering all of Tennessee and parts of Alabama, Mississippi and Kentucky). Both of those utilities, and many others, have spent the last decade and more shuttering reliable coal power plants, and building lots of wind turbines and solar panels, along with some (but obviously not enough) natural gas plants, as replacements.
As of today, electric vehicles are a tiny fraction of all vehicles (less than 1% in the U.S., says Reuters as of February 2022), particularly in these Midwestern and Southern states. Yet even with only the tiniest level of electricity demand coming from electric vehicles, already major utilities are short of electricity when a not-out-of-the-ordinary cold snap hits.
And now, where are things headed in the near future? The Wall Street Journal had a big piece with a January 1 date (it appeared in the print edition on January 3) about the coming rush of electric vehicles, headline “Shift to EVs Triggers Biggest Auto-Factory Building Boom in Decades.” The gist is that the industry is gearing up to build factories at a breakneck pace for the imminent supply of electric cars for all. Excerpt:
"The U.S. auto industry is entering one of its biggest factory-building booms in years, a surge of spending largely driven by the shift to electric vehicles and new federal subsidies aimed at boosting U.S. battery manufacturing. Through November, about $33 billion in new auto-factory investment has been pledged in the U.S., including money for the construction of new assembly plants and battery-making facilities, according to the Center for Automotive Research, a nonprofit organization based in Michigan. . . . The capital outlays amount to a collective bet by the car industry that buyers will embrace battery-powered models in numbers large enough to support these investments. The global auto industry plans to spend a collective $526 billion on electric vehicles through 2026, according to consulting firm AlixPartners."
Whew! It’s the total transformation of the industry, from internal combustion engines to battery-electric. And if you look at the websites of the manufacturers themselves, they are almost all saying that they are committed to the rapid conversion to electric vehicles, with all internal-combustion manufacturing banished by some early date. Here is GM on its “path to an all-electric future” (by 2035); and here is Ford’s claim that it will “lead America’s shift to electric vehicles” (50% by 2030!). Numerous other manufacturers are making comparable claims.
OK, then, how much electricity is this going to take? I’ll start with this handy (if somewhat complicated) chart from the U.S. Energy Information Administration showing production (by source) and use (by sector) of all energy in the U.S. for the year 2021...
Full post & comments
I’m carving myself out a niche as the guy who does a few simple calculations to check if the grand schemes of our central planners make any sense. So far I’ve taken that approach to the question of energy storage to back up a wind/solar electricity grid, and on that one the schemes of the central planners most definitely do not add up. But the energy storage question, although involving no math beyond basic arithmetic, does have some complexities. How about something somewhat simpler, like: If we convert our entire automobile fleet to all-electric cars, where is the electricity going to come from?
With the big push currently on to get rid of internal combustion vehicles and replace them with electrics, surely someone has done the calculations to be sure that the electricity supply will be ample. Actually, that does not appear to be the case. Once again, the central planners have no idea what they are doing.
A few things in the recent news make this issue highly topical. First, in the days just before Christmas, much of the country experienced a severe cold snap. Severe, that is, but not record-breaking. Almost everywhere that had very cold temperatures during those days had had even colder temperatures in the past, not necessarily every year, but multiple times over the course of decades.
Second, several utilities found themselves with insufficient electricity to meet demand, and had to impose rolling blackouts on their customers, even in the face of freezing cold temperatures. Examples of utilities imposing rolling blackouts during the severe cold wave included Duke Energy (covering most of North and South Carolina, and parts of Florida, Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky) and TVA (covering all of Tennessee and parts of Alabama, Mississippi and Kentucky). Both of those utilities, and many others, have spent the last decade and more shuttering reliable coal power plants, and building lots of wind turbines and solar panels, along with some (but obviously not enough) natural gas plants, as replacements.
As of today, electric vehicles are a tiny fraction of all vehicles (less than 1% in the U.S., says Reuters as of February 2022), particularly in these Midwestern and Southern states. Yet even with only the tiniest level of electricity demand coming from electric vehicles, already major utilities are short of electricity when a not-out-of-the-ordinary cold snap hits.
And now, where are things headed in the near future? The Wall Street Journal had a big piece with a January 1 date (it appeared in the print edition on January 3) about the coming rush of electric vehicles, headline “Shift to EVs Triggers Biggest Auto-Factory Building Boom in Decades.” The gist is that the industry is gearing up to build factories at a breakneck pace for the imminent supply of electric cars for all. Excerpt:
"The U.S. auto industry is entering one of its biggest factory-building booms in years, a surge of spending largely driven by the shift to electric vehicles and new federal subsidies aimed at boosting U.S. battery manufacturing. Through November, about $33 billion in new auto-factory investment has been pledged in the U.S., including money for the construction of new assembly plants and battery-making facilities, according to the Center for Automotive Research, a nonprofit organization based in Michigan. . . . The capital outlays amount to a collective bet by the car industry that buyers will embrace battery-powered models in numbers large enough to support these investments. The global auto industry plans to spend a collective $526 billion on electric vehicles through 2026, according to consulting firm AlixPartners."
Whew! It’s the total transformation of the industry, from internal combustion engines to battery-electric. And if you look at the websites of the manufacturers themselves, they are almost all saying that they are committed to the rapid conversion to electric vehicles, with all internal-combustion manufacturing banished by some early date. Here is GM on its “path to an all-electric future” (by 2035); and here is Ford’s claim that it will “lead America’s shift to electric vehicles” (50% by 2030!). Numerous other manufacturers are making comparable claims.
OK, then, how much electricity is this going to take? I’ll start with this handy (if somewhat complicated) chart from the U.S. Energy Information Administration showing production (by source) and use (by sector) of all energy in the U.S. for the year 2021...
Full post & comments
10) And finally: Giles Coren - Why I’ve pulled the plug on my electric car
The Times, 6 January 2023
The Times, 6 January 2023
The spark is gone — you’re better off walking than relying on useless, unreliable vehicles and chargers that never work
As I watch my family strike out on foot across the fields into driving rain and gathering darkness, my wife holding each child’s hand, our new year plans in ruins, while I do what I can to make our dead car safe before abandoning it a mile short of home, full of luggage on a country lane, it occurs to me not for the first time that if we are going to save the planet we will have to find another way. Because electric cars are not the answer.
Yes, it’s the Jaguar again. My doomed bloody £65,000 iPace that has done nothing but fail at everything it was supposed to do for more than two years now, completely dead this time, its lifeless corpse blocking the single-track road.
I can’t even roll it to a safer spot because it can’t be put in neutral. For when an electric car dies, it dies hard. And then lies there as big and grey and not-going-anywhere as the poacher-slain bull elephant I once saw rotting by a roadside in northern Kenya. Just a bit less smelly.
Not that this is unusual. Since I bought my eco dream car in late 2020, in a deluded Thunbergian frenzy, it has spent more time off the road than on it, beached at the dealership for months at a time on account of innumerable electrical calamities, while I galumph around in the big diesel “courtesy cars” they send me under the terms of the warranty.
But this time I don’t want one. And I don’t want my own car back either. I have asked the guys who sold it to me to sell it again, as soon as it is fixed, to the first mug who walks into the shop. Because I am going back to petrol while there is still time.
And if the government really does ban new wet fuel cars after 2030, then we will eventually have to go back to horses. Because the electric vehicle industry is no readier to get a family home from Cornwall at Christmas time (as I was trying to do) than it is to fly us all to Jupiter. The cars are useless, the infrastructure is not there and you’re honestly better off walking. Even on the really long journeys. In fact, especially on the long journeys. The short ones they can just about manage. It’s no wonder Tesla shares are down 71 per cent. It’s all a huge fraud. And, for me, it’s over.
Yet the new owner of my “preloved” premium electric vehicle, fired with a messianic desire to make a better world for his children, will not know this. He will be delighted with his purchase and overjoyed to find there are still six months of warranty left, little suspecting that once that has expired — and with it the free repairs and replacement cars for those long spells off road — he will be functionally carless.
He will be over the moon to learn that it has “a range of up to 292 miles”. No need to tell him what that really means is “220 miles”. Why electric carmakers are allowed to tell these lies is a mystery to me. As it soon will be to him.
Although for the first few days he won’t worry especially. He’ll think he can just nip into a fuel station and charge it up again. Ho ho ho. No need to tell him that two out of three roadside chargers in this country are broken or busy at any one time. Or that the built-in “find my nearest charge point” function doesn’t work, has never worked, and isn’t meant to work.
Or that apps like Zap-Map don’t work either because the chargers they send you to are always either busy or broken or require a membership card you don’t have or an app you can’t download because there’s no 5G here, in the middle of nowhere, where you will now probably die.
Or that the Society of Motor Manufacturers said this week that only 23 new chargers are being installed nationwide each day, of the 100 per day that were promised (as a proud early adopter, I told myself that charging would become easier as the network grew, but it hasn’t grown, while the number of e-drivers has tripled, so it’s actually harder now than it was two years ago).
There are, of course, plus sides to electric ownership. Such as the camaraderie when we encounter each other, tired and weeping at yet another service station with only two chargers, one of which still has the “this fault has been reported” sign on it from when you were here last August, and the other is of the measly 3kWh variety, which means you will have to spend the night in a Travelodge while your stupid drum lazily inhales enough juice to get home.
Together, in the benighted charging zone, we leccy drivers laugh about what fools we are and drool over the diesel hatchbacks nonchalantly filling up across the way (“imagine getting to a fuel station and knowing for sure you will be able to refuel!”) and talk in the hour-long queue at Exeter services about the petrol car we will buy as soon as we get home.
We filled up there last week on the way back from Cornwall, adding two hours to our four-hour journey, by which time Esther wasn’t speaking to me. She’s been telling me to get rid of the iPace since it ruined last summer’s holidays in both Wales and Devon (“If you won’t let us fly any more, at least buy a car that can get us to the places we’re still allowed to go!”).
But I kept begging her to give me one last chance, as if I’d refused to give up a mistress, rather than a dull family car. Until this time, a couple of miles from home, when a message flashed up on the dash: “Assisted braking not available — proceed with caution.” Then: “Steering control unavailable.”
And then, as I inched off the dual carriageway at our turnoff, begging it to make the last mile, children weeping at the scary noises coming from both car and father: “Gearbox fault detected.” CLUNK. WHIRRR. CRACK.
And dead. Nothing. Poached elephant. I called Jaguar Assist (there is a button in the roof that does it directly — most useful feature on the car) who told me they could have a mechanic there in four hours (who would laugh and say, “Can’t help you, pal. You’ve got a software issue there. I’m just a car mechanic. And this isn’t a car, it’s a laptop on wheels.”)
So Esther and the kids headed for home across the sleety wastes, a vision of post-apocalyptic misery like something out of Cormac McCarthy, while I saw out 2022 waiting for a tow-truck. Again.
But don’t let that put you off. I see in the paper that electric car sales are at record levels and production is struggling to keep up with demand. So why not buy mine? It’s clean as a whistle and boasts super-low mileage. After all, it’s hardly been driven . . .
As I watch my family strike out on foot across the fields into driving rain and gathering darkness, my wife holding each child’s hand, our new year plans in ruins, while I do what I can to make our dead car safe before abandoning it a mile short of home, full of luggage on a country lane, it occurs to me not for the first time that if we are going to save the planet we will have to find another way. Because electric cars are not the answer.
Yes, it’s the Jaguar again. My doomed bloody £65,000 iPace that has done nothing but fail at everything it was supposed to do for more than two years now, completely dead this time, its lifeless corpse blocking the single-track road.
I can’t even roll it to a safer spot because it can’t be put in neutral. For when an electric car dies, it dies hard. And then lies there as big and grey and not-going-anywhere as the poacher-slain bull elephant I once saw rotting by a roadside in northern Kenya. Just a bit less smelly.
Not that this is unusual. Since I bought my eco dream car in late 2020, in a deluded Thunbergian frenzy, it has spent more time off the road than on it, beached at the dealership for months at a time on account of innumerable electrical calamities, while I galumph around in the big diesel “courtesy cars” they send me under the terms of the warranty.
But this time I don’t want one. And I don’t want my own car back either. I have asked the guys who sold it to me to sell it again, as soon as it is fixed, to the first mug who walks into the shop. Because I am going back to petrol while there is still time.
And if the government really does ban new wet fuel cars after 2030, then we will eventually have to go back to horses. Because the electric vehicle industry is no readier to get a family home from Cornwall at Christmas time (as I was trying to do) than it is to fly us all to Jupiter. The cars are useless, the infrastructure is not there and you’re honestly better off walking. Even on the really long journeys. In fact, especially on the long journeys. The short ones they can just about manage. It’s no wonder Tesla shares are down 71 per cent. It’s all a huge fraud. And, for me, it’s over.
Yet the new owner of my “preloved” premium electric vehicle, fired with a messianic desire to make a better world for his children, will not know this. He will be delighted with his purchase and overjoyed to find there are still six months of warranty left, little suspecting that once that has expired — and with it the free repairs and replacement cars for those long spells off road — he will be functionally carless.
He will be over the moon to learn that it has “a range of up to 292 miles”. No need to tell him what that really means is “220 miles”. Why electric carmakers are allowed to tell these lies is a mystery to me. As it soon will be to him.
Although for the first few days he won’t worry especially. He’ll think he can just nip into a fuel station and charge it up again. Ho ho ho. No need to tell him that two out of three roadside chargers in this country are broken or busy at any one time. Or that the built-in “find my nearest charge point” function doesn’t work, has never worked, and isn’t meant to work.
Or that apps like Zap-Map don’t work either because the chargers they send you to are always either busy or broken or require a membership card you don’t have or an app you can’t download because there’s no 5G here, in the middle of nowhere, where you will now probably die.
Or that the Society of Motor Manufacturers said this week that only 23 new chargers are being installed nationwide each day, of the 100 per day that were promised (as a proud early adopter, I told myself that charging would become easier as the network grew, but it hasn’t grown, while the number of e-drivers has tripled, so it’s actually harder now than it was two years ago).
There are, of course, plus sides to electric ownership. Such as the camaraderie when we encounter each other, tired and weeping at yet another service station with only two chargers, one of which still has the “this fault has been reported” sign on it from when you were here last August, and the other is of the measly 3kWh variety, which means you will have to spend the night in a Travelodge while your stupid drum lazily inhales enough juice to get home.
Together, in the benighted charging zone, we leccy drivers laugh about what fools we are and drool over the diesel hatchbacks nonchalantly filling up across the way (“imagine getting to a fuel station and knowing for sure you will be able to refuel!”) and talk in the hour-long queue at Exeter services about the petrol car we will buy as soon as we get home.
We filled up there last week on the way back from Cornwall, adding two hours to our four-hour journey, by which time Esther wasn’t speaking to me. She’s been telling me to get rid of the iPace since it ruined last summer’s holidays in both Wales and Devon (“If you won’t let us fly any more, at least buy a car that can get us to the places we’re still allowed to go!”).
But I kept begging her to give me one last chance, as if I’d refused to give up a mistress, rather than a dull family car. Until this time, a couple of miles from home, when a message flashed up on the dash: “Assisted braking not available — proceed with caution.” Then: “Steering control unavailable.”
And then, as I inched off the dual carriageway at our turnoff, begging it to make the last mile, children weeping at the scary noises coming from both car and father: “Gearbox fault detected.” CLUNK. WHIRRR. CRACK.
And dead. Nothing. Poached elephant. I called Jaguar Assist (there is a button in the roof that does it directly — most useful feature on the car) who told me they could have a mechanic there in four hours (who would laugh and say, “Can’t help you, pal. You’ve got a software issue there. I’m just a car mechanic. And this isn’t a car, it’s a laptop on wheels.”)
So Esther and the kids headed for home across the sleety wastes, a vision of post-apocalyptic misery like something out of Cormac McCarthy, while I saw out 2022 waiting for a tow-truck. Again.
But don’t let that put you off. I see in the paper that electric car sales are at record levels and production is struggling to keep up with demand. So why not buy mine? It’s clean as a whistle and boasts super-low mileage. After all, it’s hardly been driven . . .
The London-based Net Zero Watch is a campaign group set up to highlight and discuss the serious implications of expensive and poorly considered climate change policies. The Net Zero Watch newsletter is prepared by Director Dr Benny Peiser - for more information, please visit the website at www.netzerowatch.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment