In which Dame Groan groans about EVs and Mein Gott is an excellent bromancer substitute ...

 

The reptiles maintained their jihad, their holy war this morning, it apparently being the only path forward that they could see for the mutton Dutton ...

Contemptible really, with the mutton Dutton allegedly acing the tennis playing PM on terror response, while announcing he wouldn't stand in front of the indigenous flag ...

Division, division, division ...so the house might stand always divided.

Meanwhile, in another country ...

You'd think in the spirit of fair minded alarmism that in response to that bus burning in South Australia the reptiles would produce another jihad of hysteria and fear ...

But then it's only an Islamic school bus, so no need for the reptiles to join that queue ...

Instead over on the far right cackling Claire led off with the approved current form of reptile hysteria ...

Why this epic bout of panic, FUD and fear mongering? The pond can think of one explanation.

Once again there was conspicuous silence on the nuking of the country to save the planet, and the costs thereof, and the pond had to turn to Crikey to be reminded of what had been, and was being, promised...

The keen Keane led the way with Policy bum Dutton has two big ideas. They’re both in bad trouble, Peter Dutton has two big ideas: cut migration and build nuclear power plants. He's now abandoned one, and we know the other will be a disaster. (paywall)

Inter alia:

...When Dutton “unveiled” what looked like a detailed migration policy in his budget reply back in May, including a specific commitment to a net overseas migration target of 160,000, it was immediately undermined by shadow treasurer Angus Taylor having a completely different idea of what Dutton had just announced. What kind of show is Dutton running when his shadow treasurer, after the leader’s own budget reply, doesn’t know what the policy is?
Then there was Dutton railing against foreign students, but refusing to back a government bill to, erm, reduce foreign student numbers — a Trump tactic that only Crikey called out.
But the confusion has now gotten worse. While many of us have been talking about how Dutton is seeking to exploit migration — and Labor is failing to get it under control — in the lead-up to the election, the inherent problems of a low-migration policy have tripped up the opposition leader. Yesterday he abandoned that 160,000 target from back in May — leaving his friends at Sky to say he “repeatedly equivocated and refused to recommit to the target”. Ouch.
Remember, this is an area in which Dutton was minister for seven years. If he doesn’t know migration, who does? But now all we have is Dutton’s hatred of foreign students and hostility to migrants as his formal policy.
Dutton’s other signature policy, an unprecedented, fiscally devastating entry of the government into power generation, will receive some time in the spotlight this week with Dutton having promised for the umpteenth time he’ll release details of it. That the Coalition is busy trying to invent numbers for Labor’s policy to argue that the hundred-billion-plus cost of nuclear reactors is the cheap option suggests no amount of fake “independent modelling” or Panglossian assumptions have been able to get the costing down to anything reasonable.
In that context, it’s worth reading the CSIRO’s latest GenCost report, which sets out to address the complaints of nuclear power fans and the Coalition that the assumptions behind its 2023 demolition of the economic case for nuclear power (and, it shouldn’t be forgotten, Labor’s carbon capture and storage scam) were unfair.
The opposition complained that the lives of nuclear reactors are much longer than modelled. GenCost notes that nuclear power plants can indeed run for many decades, but they need refurbishment to do so, and renewables plants can run for similar lives at a much lower refurbishment cost.
The opposition complained the CSIRO should have used a US power capacity figure of 93%, not the global nuclear industry average of 80% or the Australian coal-fired power plant average of 59%. GenCost pointed out it uses the same capacity range for all power sources, and it’s not prudent financially to assume the best-case scenario.

Meanwhile Anton Nilsson offered a detailed breakdown of the timeline in Any minute now, Dutton is absolutely, totally, definitely going to release costings for his nuclear policy, The Coalition has been talking about its nuclear energy plans for more than two years. And for more than two years, we've been told the details are right around the corner. (paywall)

Nilsson started on 5th June 2022 with the arrival of tediously enthusiastic Ted to the climate change and energy portfolio, but the pond will settle for the last date in his report:

December 5, 2024 

The Sydney Morning Herald reports Dutton “will reveal his costings for seven government-backed nuclear plants as soon as next week” and that the Coalition will claim its energy grid plan “would cost less than Labor’s”. 

Aaaand today, December 9, 2024, a new CSIRO report, which has reportedly “changed its modelling to accommodate criticism from the Peter Dutton-led Coalition that it had unfairly favoured wind and solar energy sources”, still finds nuclear power would be “about 50% more expensive than renewables”.

Dutton complains the CSIRO is “bagging” the Coalition’s plan, even though the group hasn’t seen it yet: “It just looks to me like there’s a heavy hand of Chris Bowen in all this, and I don’t think people want to see that.” 

And all that's got to be worth an infallible Pope ...

And that's the last you'll hear about the new CSIRO report as the pond turns to its standard Tuesday fare of a dinkum, jolly good, ever so superlative Groaning...

Yes, the pond ignored cackling Claire and the bagging of Angela by Oliver and the bagging of the collapsing Assad, which apparently is all the fault of a weak Tehran and never mind the folly of Vlad the Sociopath being distracted by his war on Ukraine ... all tossed aside, for the sheer pleasure and delight of a revival of the lizard Oz war on EVs...

It was a vast relief that Dame Groan decided to have a go at EVs. Anything other than reptile terrorist hysteria (strangely absent in other media outlets).

Here the pond should declare an interest, what with having an extended range Ioniq 5 in the family. 

The notional 570k range (more like 500k) put an end to range anxiety and the fast charging (20 minutes) will put an end to time anxiety when the infrastructure improves, with infrastructure the only serious limitation to  an amazingly adept driving experience - once you get the hang of all the mod cons. As a bonus, it handily avoids being tagged as the vehicle favoured by lovers of fascism and Uncle Leon.

Dame Groan was of course entirely negative in Why consumers aren’t taking the EV bait anymore, What is becoming clear is that there are many unintended consequences when governments seek to diminish consumer sovereignty by attempting to direct consumer purchases in ways that don’t reflect their preferences.

For some reason the reptiles decided that an image, An EV charging station at a PTT service station in central Bangkok. Picture: Getty Images, was the most relevant way for readers in the hive mind to begin their 5 minute journey with Dame Groan, what with the state of charging in central Bangkok uppermost in mind when travelling the Hume and looking for a working charging port somewhere around Tarcutta:

Really, reptiles, really?

Was that the best the remnants of the lizard Oz graphics department could find as they ferreted through Getty for a cheap stock image? Not a single image pertaining to EVs in Australia?

But the pond digresses, on with the epic groaning, as Dame Groan ferreted through cheap, stock footage, half-baked ideas:

Restricting consumer choice has been a preferred policy approach of many governments for some time. Outright bans on products can be unpopular, while providing financial subsidies to induce certain purchases – think solar panels or electric vehicles – is expensive.
The alternative is to introduce regulatory arrangements that tilt consumer spending by setting certain targets for sellers to meet.
Consumers remain free to purchase the products they want. It’s just that the manipulated market will throw up different terms and conditions relative to an unfettered arrangement.
For good measure, the claim is made that many consumers are ill-informed and need to be nudged to buy socially desirable products while rejecting others.
An early example of a scheme designed to shift consumer purchases is the Corporate Average Fuel Economy scheme introduced in the US in 1975. Following the two oil price shocks, the scheme was designed to encourage vehicle manufacturers to introduce more fuel-efficient vehicles. Each year, a manufacturer’s purchased fleet is tested for its overall fuel efficiency; failure to reach the minimum standard results in substantial fines being payable.

At this point the reptiles introduced a bit of confusion and conflation by way of cross promotion with Sky News:

Senior motoring journalist Paul Gover says the second-hand market for luxury EVs is “dropping like a stone”. A report shows luxury car dealers are failing to shift electric vehicle stock because the market is set to become flooded with cheap Chinese EVs. Mr Gover told Sky News host Steve Price that some dealers refuse to trade EVs because “nobody wants them” on the wholesale market or second-hand.

Another pointless graphic to boot, together with fuzzy logic. 

Are dealers refusing to trade EVs because they're luxury items or just because they're EVs, and how are dealers unable to shift electric vehicle stock because the market is set to be flooded with cheap Chinese EVs, because apparently no one wants to drive EVs, except everyone's keen to buy the cheap Chinese EVs flooding the markets?

And is this just a beat up of a story which you could find a year ago at CNN, Volkswagen is losing the electric car race to Tesla and China?

Instead of range anxiety, Dame Groan was showing manufacturing anxiety.

Never mind, it was on with Dame Groan's parade of anxieties ...

While the onus is ostensibly on manufacturers, car dealers also are involved in ensuring the overall target is met. Their actions range from singing the praises of very fuel-efficient options, even if other features of the car don’t suit the purchaser, to providing price discounts for economical vehicles while jacking up the price of gas-guzzlers.
It’s not clear how effective the CAFE scheme has been, in part because different rules apply to light trucks – our SUVs – from standard cars. In combination with the shift towards light trucks, large swings in the real price of petrol and diesel and the surge of cars from Europe and Japan, the overall net effect of the scheme is murky, but it limps on, effectively driven by a government agency.
These types of schemes have become extremely appealing to governments in the context of acting on climate change.
The main version involves driving consumers towards buying electric vehicles and away from vehicles powered by internal combustion engines. This is achieved by setting new car sales targets for EVs or establishing annual limits on average carbon dioxide emissions for each manufacturer. These schemes then typically alter the annual target, with an end point of all new purchases being EVs or close to.
Take Britain’s new vehicle sales scheme. Currently there is an announced ban on non-EV car purchases from 2035 – it had been 2030, but the Conservative government changed the date. This year, 22 per cent of all car purchases must be EVs (the figure is 10 per cent for vans) and next year it will be 28 per cent. The target is 80 per cent of new EV sales in 2030.
But here’s the thing: apart from the early adopters who were quick to buy EVs, the run-of-the-mill car buyer is now a reluctant buyer of EVs. The purchase price, the cost of insurance, inadequate charging, the absence of off-street parking, range anxiety, poor resale prices – these are key features of the market. It is estimated that car manufacturers selling cars in Britain in 2024 will be hit for about £6bn ($11.9bn) – made up of £2bn in fines and £4bn in price discounting.

What can the pond say, except will someone kindly Ioniq the old biddy's many forms of paranoia. 

At this point the reptiles introduced their returning hero, Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Reading, Pennsylvania, in November. The incoming Trump administration has pledged to rescind the federal EV mandate. Picture: Getty Images

What's interesting here is Uncle Leon's tricky situation, outlined in the ABC's How Elon Musk's relationship with China could shield Tesla from a Trump trade war.

Oh it's going to be a glorious future of tariff and trade wars and mass deportations, with the Beast running this story a few days ago, Trump Vows to Deport U.S. Citizens in New Immigration Policy, He echoed the words of his incoming “border czar,” who first suggested the idea in October (paywall)

President-elect Donald Trump promised on Sunday to deport U.S. citizens as part of his quest to expel all undocumented immigrants, describing them as collateral in his sweeping immigration plans.

Trump told Meet the Press‘ Kristen Welker that he wanted to avoid the family separation scandal that plagued his first administration. But to do so, he said, will require mixed-immigration families—those with undocumented immigrants with children who are U.S. citizens—to leave together.

“I don’t want to be breaking up families, so the only way you don’t break up the family is you keep them together and you have to send them all back,” he said.

Trump appeared to acknowledge the policy will prove to be unpopular, but he claimed it was necessary to ensure laws were followed.

“You can always find something out like, you know, ‘This doesn’t work. That doesn’t work,‘” Trump said. “I’ll tell you what’s going to be horrible, when we take a wonderful young woman who’s with a criminal. And they show the woman, and she could stay by the law, but they show the woman being taken out. Or they want her out and your cameras are focused on her as she’s crying as she’s being taken out of our country. And then the public turns against us. But we have to do our job. And you have to have a series of standards and a series of laws. And in the end, look, our country is a mess.”

The incoming White House policy deputy chief says there will be more funding for the immigration crackdown.

The family-separation policy was implemented by the first Trump administration in 2017, prompting steady waves of backlash and scrutiny for the “zero tolerance” standard. Trump’s incoming “border czar” Tom Homan has vowed to reinstate the policy, telling CBS in October that families “can be deported together.” Trump said on Sunday he agreed with Homan.

Trump also promised he would end birthright citizenship on the first day of his administration, saying he would find a way to circumvent the 14th Amendment’s edict that grants citizenship.

“We’re going to have to get it changed,” he said. “We’ll maybe have to go back to the people. But we have to end it.”

Oh it's going to be a glorious future of tariff and trade wars and mass deportations, but meanwhile, back to a grim Dame Groan detemined to keep on groaning:

But following on from the recent closure of the Vauxhall van factory in Luton, it’s widely anticipated the Starmer government will adjust the scheme to ensure the viability of other automotive factories.
Australia is about to get a taste of this type of scheme with the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard becoming operational from January 1, 2025. By stipulating the annual carbon dioxide target for each fleet – targets that become more stringent each year – the aim is to drive more consumers to purchase EVs (and possibly plug-in hybrids) and to reject ICE vehicles. The argument is that the scheme will lead to a greater range of vehicles, particularly EVs, from which consumers can chose and save money on petrol and diesel.
(There is a real issue of whether EVs are as environmentally friendly as is often claimed. To be sure, they have zero emissions at the tail pipe. But manufacturing EVs, overwhelmingly undertaken in China for EVs purchased in Australia, is more emissions-intensive than ICE vehicles. When electricity is also partly generated from fossil fuels, which is the case for the National Electricity Market, the net effect on global emissions of the shift to EVs is not entirely clear-cut.)

Actually it's pretty clear cut, and it's a sign of Dame Groan's desperation that she should resort to this tired old furphy.

If the pond might head over to MIT for a moment , back in 2022...

Although many fully electric vehicles (EVs) carry “zero emissions” badges, this claim is not quite true. Battery-electric cars may not emit greenhouse gases from their tailpipes, but some emissions are created in the process of building and charging the vehicles. Nevertheless, says Sergey Paltsev, Deputy Director of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, electric vehicles are clearly a lower-emissions option than cars with internal combustion engines. Over the course of their driving lifetimes, EVs will create fewer carbon emissions than gasoline-burning cars under nearly any conditions.

“We shouldn't claim victory that with this switch to electric cars, problem solved, we are going to have zero emissions,” he says. “No, that's not the case. But electric cars are actually much, much better in terms of the impact on the climate in comparison to internal combustion vehicles. And in time, that comparative advantage of electric cars is going to grow.”

One source of EV emissions is the creation of their large lithium-ion batteries. The use of minerals including lithium, cobalt, and nickel, which are crucial for modern EV batteries, requires using fossil fuels to mine those materials and heat them to high temperatures. As a result, building the 80 kWh lithium-ion battery found in a Tesla Model 3 creates between 2.5 and 16 metric tons of CO2 (exactly how much depends greatly on what energy source is used to do the heating). This intensive battery manufacturing means that building a new EV can produce around 80% more emissions than building a comparable gas-powered car.

But just like with gasoline cars, most emissions from today’s EVs come after they roll off the production floor. The major source of EV emissions is the energy used to charge their batteries. These emissions, says Paltsev, vary enormously based on where the car is driven and what kind of energy is used there. The best case scenario looks like what’s happening today in Norway, Europe’s largest EV market: the nation draws most of its energy from hydropower, giving all those EVs a minuscule carbon footprint. In countries that get most of their energy from burning dirty coal, the emissions numbers for EVs don’t look nearly as good—but they’re still on par with or better than burning gasoline.

And so on, and it's even more clear cut in just a few short years, as batteries have improved, but back to the groaning:

Worldwide, the reality is that these schemes are encountering major difficulties just as we are about to introduce our own version. In the US, which has a federal EV mandate as well as state regulations, the local manufacturers have been complaining bitterly as they are forced to sell EVs at significant losses. Dealers increasingly are staring at lots of unsold EVs. The incoming Trump administration has pledged to rescind the EV mandate.
In Europe, there are increasing levels of panic over the impact of the mandated shift to EVs as local manufacturers struggle to compete with cheap Chinese EVs, even in the face of the tariffs imposed by the EU. Bear in mind here that the automotive industry in Europe is a very substantial part of the economy, making up about 6 per cent of overall GDP of the EU. It was big news therefore when Volkswagen recently announced it would close three of its 10 automotive plants in Germany.

Then things got truly Python silly because for no particular reason except a bloody cheap failed graphics department, it was back to Bangkok, A BYD owner charges his car battery at an EV charging station at a PTT service station in central Bangkok. Picture: Getty Images

Really? Dame Groan doing her best to lather up EV FUD, and all the reptiles could offer was a snap of Bangkok? Couldn't someone have just gone down to Marrickville Metro and taken a snap? Did the Surry Hills reptiles fear they might meet up with dragons?

Never mind, it was time for the last of the groaning ...

What is becoming clear is that there are many unintended consequences when governments seek to diminish consumer sovereignty by attempting to direct consumer purchases in ways that don’t reflect their preferences. Consumers can simply refuse to take the bait – this is the case with sluggish EV sales, including in Australia. Governments often have no choice but to back down.
Indeed, these schemes are now creating havoc, with many European and US manufacturers facing disastrous commercial consequences from their shift to EV manufacturing. Given the long lead times and the need to establish new logistic chains, any shift of this type is hugely resource intensive. When sales disappoint, the effect on the companies can be calamitous.
In the meantime, the world is awash with cheap EVs manufactured in China with substantial state subsidies and using cheap energy, often coal-fired electricity.
The response of the US, and even the EU, has been to impose tariffs on imports from China, but these have been insufficient to stem the flow.
The moral of the story is this: stomping on consumer sovereignty is an extremely dangerous approach for governments to take. Consumers always have the option of refusing to play ball even with prices being cross-subsidised. There is a danger that consumers can be misled.
These schemes can leave manufacturers and sellers with hefty fines to pay in the event of targets not being met. In the worst-case scenario, companies can collapse because of unachievable and unprofitable scheme targets. They also may withdraw from certain markets.
Australia is introducing a scheme when many other countries are heading in the opposite direction. There is a message there.

Indeed there's a message here. Dame Groan will never tire of her climate science denialism, and her insatiable desire to bash renewables and any form of change that suggests that climate change might be real, including but not limited to the shift to EVs...

And so to the bonus, and what joy that Mein Gott was out and about yesterday ... and an alarming truth was revealed.

It's a dangerous time for a wayward, bludging reptile of the bromancer kind to have left the field at the lizard Oz. 

The reptiles love to fill a vacuum with whatever blather they can manage, and with the bromancer MIA, Mein Gott has suddenly stepped up as the resident foreign affairs expert. 

Of course he dresses up the poaching by pretending it's all about world economics, but that would only fool the feeblest of hive mind punters. Mein Gott is an expert on worldly affairs, and dammit, he isn't afraid to show it.

A formula for the future of the Middle East, Ukraine and Europe has been mapped out, The Albanese government is totally out of touch with what’s happening in the Middle East and got caught up in the need to preserve local seats where Islamic groups have a greater voter force.

The snap showed Mein Gott kept the company of the 'leets in rarefied places prone to handshake wrestling... US President-elect Donald Trump and President of France, Emmanuel Macron attend the ceremony to mark the reopening of Notre-Dame of Paris Cathedral. Picture: Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images

Really reptiles? The most important moment was the handshake duel ...

Never mind, on with Mein Gott stealing the bromancer's thunder ...

President-elect Donald Trump’s promise to sort out Ukraine before he is inaugurated on January 20 can now be widened by incorporating the Middle East.
World economics is set for a fundamental change.
In remarkable timing, two weeks before Christmas, on the steps of the restored Notre Dame cathedral, a linked formula for the future of the Middle East and of Ukraine-Europe was mapped out. The English and French reports from Notre Dame tell us that Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky agreed on the basis of a settlement that would be put to Vladimir Putin. But the conversations went much further.
And as has happened so often in past global crises, economic issues in the countries involved offer a pathway out of seemingly unsolvable quagmires.
That’s certainly the case in Syria, Ukraine, Russia and Iran.
As I pointed out last week, 40 per cent of the Russian economy is devoted to the Ukraine war, which is in stalemate.
Just as the Syrian economic disaster brought down its dictator, Bashar al-Assad, economics could bring down Putin.
And if Putin does not understand the potential relationship between the economy and the survival of many dictators, he now has the former dictator of Syria in Russia to explain what can ­happen.

Then came another distracting snap: France's President Emmanuel Macron (C) walks with US president-elect Donald Trump (R) and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky (L) after a meeting at the Elysee Presidential Palace in Paris. Picture JULIEN DE ROSA / AFP

Still no handshake duel? Really reptiles, but how Mein Gott loves himself some Benji and dot point power presentations:

The details of a settlement that would be put to Putin were not released but clearly Russia takes key parts of Ukraine’s Donbas region and probably gets security over Crimea and is able to restore its naval presence in the region. Ukraine will need security.
Zelensky pulls out of Russian territory and the slaughter of tens of thousands of North Korean troops stops. Will Putin agree? The alternative is the danger of nuclear war in Europe. There is a good chance that with the Russia- Middle Eastern strategy in tatters, agreement can be reached.
Macron may be important in the negotiation.
The fall of Syria means Hezbollah and Hamas can no longer be supplied by Iran, and given Iran’s economic mess, it would always have struggled to keep supporting its proxy fighters.
This is a complete victory for Israel and its Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
The hostages and the Hamas settlement will be in the headlines but at the cathedral the strategy of Trump may have been to encourage Macron to help sort out both Ukraine and the Middle East, instead of focusing on France’s own difficulties.
From the non-English media reports from Notre Dame, it would seem that the basis of the Trump/ Netanyahu/Macron plan for the Middle East involves five strategies.

• Iran has suffered a potential regime-changing event in its defeats but, at least initially, there will be no attempt to overthrow the regime in Iran.
• Iran must not have nuclear power. Its ballistic missiles pose a risk to the Gulf countries and Israel. They will be dismantled by negotiation or force. Iran is also in an economic mess and the fall of Syria threatens the regime’s survival. It may be a perfect time to give the regime a choice. Iran will need to instruct its Hamas proxy to release the hostages.
• Remaining Iranian proxies in the region in Iraq and Yemen must go the same way as Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria.
• A formula will be worked out between Trump’s people and then Saudi Arabia will bring with it around 12 Middle Eastern countries.
• Part of the plan will be the restoration of the shocking Syrian economy, which may take priority over Gaza. The Palestinians are not liked in many areas of the Middle East.

Yeay, on with the genocide.

Then came a little news.com.au cross promotion in AV format: Key government buildings were also ransacked and set ablaze, including a security compound housing the Military Intelligence Interrogation Division, which was razed by fire.

Did the prospect of instability in Syria unnerve this wannabe bromancer? Cartoonists might worry about all the pushing and the shoving to follow ...

But nah, that news.com.au AV distraction just set up a final short burst of international expertise from Mein Gott. 

Take care bromancer, there's an expert cuckoo currently occupying your nest. This is a man totally in touch with what's happening in the Middle East, and knows up to pander to Jewish readers pleased to subscribe to the hive mind:

In Syria there is, of course, the normal shouting that comes with rebel uprisings, but Abu Mohammed al-Golani, leader of the Islamist rebel alliance, and his supporters are well educated and know they cannot rebuild Syria without help from other Middle Eastern countries, along with the US and Europe.
Although Turkey has provided some finance for the rebels, it is not strong enough to fix the Syrian mess where large numbers of buildings destroyed in the 2011 civil war are still in ruins. And Syrian agriculture is a fraction of its former self, when it was the centre of Syrian prosperity. As has happened in Russia, the Syrian dictator suffered from massive falls in his currency and high inflation.
The new leader of Syria must bring that under control and he can’t do that without outside help, which he will get as part of a wider Middle Eastern formula.
In the end, what happens to Gaza may be decided by Israel’s Netanyahu, who at the moment arguably has the most powerful military force in the region.
The great vision of the Middle Eastern optimists is that Israel will provide the technology; oil-rich countries will provide the money; and Syria and perhaps some of the Palestinians will provide the labour to restore the ­Middle East. With that comes ­stable oil prices. Trump and his mate Netanyahu will take the credit.
Our government is totally out of touch with what’s happening in the Middle East and got caught up in the need to preserve local seats where Islamic groups have a greater voter force.
It’s a very dangerous time to play on the international field with such motivations.

It's only the government that's totally out of touch with what's happening in the Middle East? 

Please, some respect for a hot contender.

What about the competition from Mein Gott?

And with that it was time to finish up with the immortal Rowe, perhaps wondering if Mein Gott had all the answers to difficult questions ...