The Telegraph
"Electricity from wind isn’t cheap – and it never will be"
Story by Matt Ridley
10 SEPTEMBER 2023
The MPs who have forced Rishi Sunak into a U-turn on onshore wind power love to repeat the favourite slogan of the wind industry: “wind is cheap”.
“Cheap, clean, secure,” says Sir Alok Sharma.
“Cheap,” cheeps Ed Miliband.
It conceals the truth.
Electricity from wind is not cheap and never will be.
The latest auction of rights to build offshore wind farms failed to attract any bids, despite offering higher subsidised prices.
That alone indicates that wind is not cheap or getting cheaper.
But the real reason for the lack of interest in the auction is that, for the first time, bidders are not free to walk away from their bids when it suits them.
In the past, they could put in low offers, boast about them being cheap, then take the higher market price later.
The Government has at last called their bluff, so they are having to admit that electricity prices need to be higher to make wind farms pay.
The cost of subsidising wind is vast.
Then add the cost of getting the power from remote wind farms to where people live.
And the cost of balancing the grid and backing wind up with gas plants for the times when the wind drops.
And the cost of paying wind farms to reduce output on windy days when the grid can’t take it.
If wind power is so cheap, how come energy bills have risen in step with the amount of installed wind power?
Says the energy expert John Constable: “We had a huge amount of wind... and it not only did absolutely nothing to protect against the recent gas crisis: it actually made it worse, because the UK’s security of supply now hangs by the single thread of gas, as the sole thermodynamically competent fuel in the system, coal being near absent and nuclear a small fraction.”
And yet the wind industry is complaining that today’s high electricity prices are not high enough, and without more subsidies they will stop building: “The race to the bottom on strike prices incentivised by the current auction process is at odds with the reality of project costs and investment needs, jeopardising deployment targets,” said RenewableUK recently.
How does that square with claims it is cheap?
The wind industry’s capital costs were very high before the Ukraine crisis, and now, like everybody else’s, are shooting up still further: the cost of steel, concrete, carbon fibre, copper and all the other ingredients of a wind turbine have risen sharply.
Operating costs are rising.
Inevitably, the energy generated by wind is expensive.
And, as Constable suggests, wind itself is thermodynamically inferior.
Consequently, it takes a huge machine – the building of which requires a lot of energy – to extract a small amount of electricity from randomly fluctuating, low-density wind, which bloweth as and when it listeth.
By contrast, in a nuclear plant, it takes a small machine to produce a flood of energy from a dense, “thermodynamically competent” energy source, and on demand.
The man and woman in the street understand this intuitively.
Politicians not at all.
Here is a simple analogy to help them.
Electricity, like coffee, is only any good if you can buy it when you feel like it.
If I set up a chain of coffee shops and sell coffee no better than Costa’s, but I make hundreds of excess cups one morning and none at all the next, from a facility that towers hundreds of feet into the sky, ruins views, slaughters birdlife and requires government subsidies, I suspect the customer would prefer Costa.
But in our benighted electricity market, you are forced to buy my coffee except on the days when I produce none, when you are allowed to go to Costa – which has put its prices up to compensate for my existence.
So, no, wind power is not cheap or secure.
Nor is it clean.
The mining of minerals and pouring of concrete that is required for a wind farm have a huge pollution impact and a massive carbon footprint.
Voters know wind farms are a futile gesture and they will now punish the Tories accordingly.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... 48a3&ei=23
THE BRITS
Re: THE BRITS
GlobalData
"'I beg to differ’: international industry experts reject Sunak’s comments on heat pumps"
Story by Annabel Cossins-Smith
29 SEPTEMBER 2023
Heat pumps are an “obvious” solution for national decarbonisation and recent comments on the technology by UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak are inaccurate, deputy policy manager for climate at NGO the European Environmental Bureau Davide Sabbadin told a climate conference in London, UK, on Wednesday.
There has been “a lot of back and forth” over policy relating to the scaling-up of heat pumps in the UK over recent years, Sabbadin told the London Climate Technology Show, referring to a U-turn by Sunak last week on the deadline set for phasing out fossil fuel boilers in the country.
Citing comments made by Sunak in his address on net zero last Wednesday, namely those which stated that heat pumps are unaffordable for many, and that some homes in the UK “will never ever be suitable for a heat pump”, Sabbadin said “I beg to differ”.
High-temperature heat pumps, a type of heat pump that can generate the same operating temperatures as a traditional gas boiler, can be installed on any home without any additional work being needed, he argued.
This sentiment was echoed during a panel discussion on the state of UK household decarbonisation policy.
Nigel Banks, technical director at Octopus Energy, agreed that “you can fit a heat pump in almost any home”, adding that Sunak’s suggestion that 20% of houses could never have a heat pump installed is a “misnomer”.
Indeed, a government-funded project, commissioned by the former Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, found there is no property type or architectural era unsuitable for a heat pump.
Just days before Sunak’s U-turns on net zero policy, Octopus Energy unveiled its new own-brand heat pump that could be free for households when bought under the government’s Boiler Upgrade Scheme, which offers up to £7,500 ($9,176) towards the installation of heat pump systems.
Miles Rowland, policy officer for the World Green Building Council’s Europe Regional Network, a group comprising more than 20 national green building councils, called Sunak’s U-turn “very disappointing”, adding that the UK is now veering “way off track” regarding its plan to decarbonise households.
The country is “lagging behind the major European economies”, Rowland said, pointing out that France is deploying heat pumps ten times faster than the UK.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/i- ... AA1hdfJT|1
"'I beg to differ’: international industry experts reject Sunak’s comments on heat pumps"
Story by Annabel Cossins-Smith
29 SEPTEMBER 2023
Heat pumps are an “obvious” solution for national decarbonisation and recent comments on the technology by UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak are inaccurate, deputy policy manager for climate at NGO the European Environmental Bureau Davide Sabbadin told a climate conference in London, UK, on Wednesday.
There has been “a lot of back and forth” over policy relating to the scaling-up of heat pumps in the UK over recent years, Sabbadin told the London Climate Technology Show, referring to a U-turn by Sunak last week on the deadline set for phasing out fossil fuel boilers in the country.
Citing comments made by Sunak in his address on net zero last Wednesday, namely those which stated that heat pumps are unaffordable for many, and that some homes in the UK “will never ever be suitable for a heat pump”, Sabbadin said “I beg to differ”.
High-temperature heat pumps, a type of heat pump that can generate the same operating temperatures as a traditional gas boiler, can be installed on any home without any additional work being needed, he argued.
This sentiment was echoed during a panel discussion on the state of UK household decarbonisation policy.
Nigel Banks, technical director at Octopus Energy, agreed that “you can fit a heat pump in almost any home”, adding that Sunak’s suggestion that 20% of houses could never have a heat pump installed is a “misnomer”.
Indeed, a government-funded project, commissioned by the former Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, found there is no property type or architectural era unsuitable for a heat pump.
Just days before Sunak’s U-turns on net zero policy, Octopus Energy unveiled its new own-brand heat pump that could be free for households when bought under the government’s Boiler Upgrade Scheme, which offers up to £7,500 ($9,176) towards the installation of heat pump systems.
Miles Rowland, policy officer for the World Green Building Council’s Europe Regional Network, a group comprising more than 20 national green building councils, called Sunak’s U-turn “very disappointing”, adding that the UK is now veering “way off track” regarding its plan to decarbonise households.
The country is “lagging behind the major European economies”, Rowland said, pointing out that France is deploying heat pumps ten times faster than the UK.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/i- ... AA1hdfJT|1
Re: THE BRITS
State Of The Union
"Green Agenda Driving Inflation"
Story by Claire O'Hare
18 NOVEMBER 2023
The Bank of England advisor has admitted that green policies such as carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes are increasing inflation and impacting output.
These policies are causing costs to be passed on to consumers, prompting changes to reduce emissions.
The Bank of England sees addressing climate change as part of its mandate, despite the negative economic effects.
Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee-member Catherine Mann reportedly said during a recent speech that “carbon taxes, public investments, and subsidies are all inflationary”
“Evidence has suggested upward pressure on inflation [and] downward effects on output,” continued Mann.
Mann highlighted how high prices are “passed on fully or in part to consumers, which prompts the behavioral change needed to reduce emissions”.
“Not only is it within my remit to respond to the macroeconomic effects of climate change, but, in my view, my remit requires me to do so,” proclaimed the financial expert.
“When climate change has macroeconomic effects – whether physical impacts from extreme weather events and higher average temperatures or transition effects associated with transforming to a net zero economy, including explicit implications for inflation – it becomes a concern for monetary policymakers, directly within a price stability mandate,” added Mann.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has slightly scaled back some net zero policies, but the UK remains committed to reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
The green agenda pursued by the Conservative Party has negative economic impacts and poses a threat to national security, as noted in a report from the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... 37d1&ei=48
"Green Agenda Driving Inflation"
Story by Claire O'Hare
18 NOVEMBER 2023
The Bank of England advisor has admitted that green policies such as carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes are increasing inflation and impacting output.
These policies are causing costs to be passed on to consumers, prompting changes to reduce emissions.
The Bank of England sees addressing climate change as part of its mandate, despite the negative economic effects.
Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee-member Catherine Mann reportedly said during a recent speech that “carbon taxes, public investments, and subsidies are all inflationary”
“Evidence has suggested upward pressure on inflation [and] downward effects on output,” continued Mann.
Mann highlighted how high prices are “passed on fully or in part to consumers, which prompts the behavioral change needed to reduce emissions”.
“Not only is it within my remit to respond to the macroeconomic effects of climate change, but, in my view, my remit requires me to do so,” proclaimed the financial expert.
“When climate change has macroeconomic effects – whether physical impacts from extreme weather events and higher average temperatures or transition effects associated with transforming to a net zero economy, including explicit implications for inflation – it becomes a concern for monetary policymakers, directly within a price stability mandate,” added Mann.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has slightly scaled back some net zero policies, but the UK remains committed to reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
The green agenda pursued by the Conservative Party has negative economic impacts and poses a threat to national security, as noted in a report from the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... 37d1&ei=48
Re: THE BRITS
The National Review
"Britain’s Disastrous Path to Net Zero Is a Warning to the U.S."
Story by Andrew Puzder
6 FEBRUARY 2024
At last year’s U.N. climate conference in Dubai, the Biden administration agreed to triple the world’s renewable-energy capacity by 2030.
It also joined the Powering Past Coal Alliance, pledging to eliminate coal-powered generation.
This is all part of President Biden’s goal to completely decarbonize the U.S. electrical grid by 2035 and achieve net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050.
Britain has been going down this path since 2008, when Parliament wrote an 80 percent decarbonization target into law, which it raised to 100 percent, or net zero, in 2019.
This luxury net-zero policy, which only the rich can afford, has been devastating for both businesses and ordinary Britons just trying to heat their homes and get to work.
A new report for the RealClear Foundation by Rupert Darwall is a timely and much-needed warning to America.
It shows what would happen if Democrats and progressives get their way and inflict net-zero climate policies on the country.
British politicians boast of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions faster than any other major economy but ignore the unfortunate fact that Britain’s economy has been performing poorly since 2008.
In 2020, even before the recent surge in energy costs, everyday Britons were paying about 75 percent more for electricity than Americans, the result of a double whammy — cap-and-trade policies on the one hand and renewable subsidies on the other.
And then came the Ukraine shock.
During the 2022 energy crisis, electricity rates for British businesses were more than double the average paid by U.S. businesses.
In Britain, the impact of cap-and-trade on the cost of fuel to generate electricity is massive.
In 2022, government-imposed carbon costs averaged $128 per megawatt hour (MWh) for coal-generated electricity and $51 per MWh for natural gas.
Those costs are on top of actual fuel costs, which averaged $150 per MWh for electricity generated from coal and $160 per MWh for natural gas.
These mean that it cost $278 to generate 1 MWh of electricity from coal and $211 from natural gas.
In the United States, electricity prices were significantly lower for two reasons.
First, no cap-and-trade policies.
Second, for coal, British power stations were old and operated at much lower thermal efficiencies than in the U.S. (the U.K. has nearly phased out all coal-powered stations — although some had to be brought back during a 2023 cold snap); and, for natural gas, it is much cheaper piped (as it is in the U.S.) than liquified and shipped (as it is in Europe).
So in the U.S., the fuel cost per MWh of electricity generated from coal was $27 per MWh (versus $278 in Britain) and $61 per MWh for natural gas (versus $211 in Britain).
Britons also have to pay the cost of subsidizing politically favored wind and solar.
Analysis of the renewable portfolios of Britain’s Big Six energy companies shows that the average price for wind- and solar-generated electricity between 2009 and 2020 was well over £100 per MWh, whereas the price for reliable electricity from gas- and coal-fired power stations fell from £60 per MWh in 2013 to less than £50 per MWh in 2020.
That same year, consumer subsidies of renewables helped the Big Six to earn a profit of £61 per MWh of electricity on average for the higher-cost, intermittent, demand-unresponsive and therefore less valuable renewable outputs.
On the other hand, government-imposed costs forced the Big Six to take massive write-downs on their gas-fired power stations, collectively recording a staggering £1.6 billion loss in 2014 for providing the lower-cost, reliable generating capacity on which Britain’s households and businesses depend.
Unsurprisingly, these policies have led to overinvestment in renewables and underinvestment in the reliable generating capacity needed to keep the lights on — and the costs down.
Britain’s unintermittent, reliable coal- and gas-generating capacity peaked in 2010, at 88.0 gigawatts (GW).
It then fell by 25.1 GW over the next decade, mainly as coal-fired plants were shuttered.
Over the same period, wind and solar capacity rose by 33.5 GW.
Britain has managed to keep its lights on because higher electricity prices have driven demand down.
Between 2010 and 2019, economy-wide electricity consumption fell by 10.8 percent.
Even so, the gap between consumption and domestic generation has been widening, causing a surge in imported electricity from its European neighbors.
That’s not an option for the U.S.
We cannot import the equivalent of two-fifths of Canada’s electricity output.
Energy prices comparable to those in Britain — and across much of Europe — would tear the heart out of the American economy, which relies on cheap, abundant energy.
The impact on working- and middle-class Americans would be intolerable.
While it is unlikely that Congress would pass legislation like Britain’s Climate Change Act, which made net zero the law of the land after an 88-minute debate in the House of Commons, the threat of net zero is nonetheless as real as it is dangerous.
In May 2021, the White House issued an executive order on the adoption of a whole-of-government approach to climate financial-risk disclosure, demonstrating how an alliance between the administrative state and woke ESG investors on Wall Street would bring about net zero.
In August 2022, Congress passed the energy bill misnamed the Inflation Reduction Act, which provides for budget-busting, fiscally irresponsible uncapped subsidies of wind and solar, which will wreak havoc on the economics of reliable generating capacity, just as they have in Britain.
In 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed regulation on greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil-fuel-power generators that, if implemented, would go a long way toward achieving the administration’s economically devastating goal of entirely decarbonizing electricity generation by 2035.
Renewable energy is not a low-cost substitute for fossil fuels.
Renewables are not cheap, nor can they provide the reliability that modern societies expect and on which they depend.
Darwall’s report convincingly demonstrates how Britain was conned into net zero by deceptive and illusory promises of cheap renewable power.
The results have been an economic disaster.
There is still time to heed Britain’s warning and instead choose the path of energy abundance and economic prosperity by developing America’s unsurpassed reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... 1ec&ei=175
"Britain’s Disastrous Path to Net Zero Is a Warning to the U.S."
Story by Andrew Puzder
6 FEBRUARY 2024
At last year’s U.N. climate conference in Dubai, the Biden administration agreed to triple the world’s renewable-energy capacity by 2030.
It also joined the Powering Past Coal Alliance, pledging to eliminate coal-powered generation.
This is all part of President Biden’s goal to completely decarbonize the U.S. electrical grid by 2035 and achieve net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050.
Britain has been going down this path since 2008, when Parliament wrote an 80 percent decarbonization target into law, which it raised to 100 percent, or net zero, in 2019.
This luxury net-zero policy, which only the rich can afford, has been devastating for both businesses and ordinary Britons just trying to heat their homes and get to work.
A new report for the RealClear Foundation by Rupert Darwall is a timely and much-needed warning to America.
It shows what would happen if Democrats and progressives get their way and inflict net-zero climate policies on the country.
British politicians boast of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions faster than any other major economy but ignore the unfortunate fact that Britain’s economy has been performing poorly since 2008.
In 2020, even before the recent surge in energy costs, everyday Britons were paying about 75 percent more for electricity than Americans, the result of a double whammy — cap-and-trade policies on the one hand and renewable subsidies on the other.
And then came the Ukraine shock.
During the 2022 energy crisis, electricity rates for British businesses were more than double the average paid by U.S. businesses.
In Britain, the impact of cap-and-trade on the cost of fuel to generate electricity is massive.
In 2022, government-imposed carbon costs averaged $128 per megawatt hour (MWh) for coal-generated electricity and $51 per MWh for natural gas.
Those costs are on top of actual fuel costs, which averaged $150 per MWh for electricity generated from coal and $160 per MWh for natural gas.
These mean that it cost $278 to generate 1 MWh of electricity from coal and $211 from natural gas.
In the United States, electricity prices were significantly lower for two reasons.
First, no cap-and-trade policies.
Second, for coal, British power stations were old and operated at much lower thermal efficiencies than in the U.S. (the U.K. has nearly phased out all coal-powered stations — although some had to be brought back during a 2023 cold snap); and, for natural gas, it is much cheaper piped (as it is in the U.S.) than liquified and shipped (as it is in Europe).
So in the U.S., the fuel cost per MWh of electricity generated from coal was $27 per MWh (versus $278 in Britain) and $61 per MWh for natural gas (versus $211 in Britain).
Britons also have to pay the cost of subsidizing politically favored wind and solar.
Analysis of the renewable portfolios of Britain’s Big Six energy companies shows that the average price for wind- and solar-generated electricity between 2009 and 2020 was well over £100 per MWh, whereas the price for reliable electricity from gas- and coal-fired power stations fell from £60 per MWh in 2013 to less than £50 per MWh in 2020.
That same year, consumer subsidies of renewables helped the Big Six to earn a profit of £61 per MWh of electricity on average for the higher-cost, intermittent, demand-unresponsive and therefore less valuable renewable outputs.
On the other hand, government-imposed costs forced the Big Six to take massive write-downs on their gas-fired power stations, collectively recording a staggering £1.6 billion loss in 2014 for providing the lower-cost, reliable generating capacity on which Britain’s households and businesses depend.
Unsurprisingly, these policies have led to overinvestment in renewables and underinvestment in the reliable generating capacity needed to keep the lights on — and the costs down.
Britain’s unintermittent, reliable coal- and gas-generating capacity peaked in 2010, at 88.0 gigawatts (GW).
It then fell by 25.1 GW over the next decade, mainly as coal-fired plants were shuttered.
Over the same period, wind and solar capacity rose by 33.5 GW.
Britain has managed to keep its lights on because higher electricity prices have driven demand down.
Between 2010 and 2019, economy-wide electricity consumption fell by 10.8 percent.
Even so, the gap between consumption and domestic generation has been widening, causing a surge in imported electricity from its European neighbors.
That’s not an option for the U.S.
We cannot import the equivalent of two-fifths of Canada’s electricity output.
Energy prices comparable to those in Britain — and across much of Europe — would tear the heart out of the American economy, which relies on cheap, abundant energy.
The impact on working- and middle-class Americans would be intolerable.
While it is unlikely that Congress would pass legislation like Britain’s Climate Change Act, which made net zero the law of the land after an 88-minute debate in the House of Commons, the threat of net zero is nonetheless as real as it is dangerous.
In May 2021, the White House issued an executive order on the adoption of a whole-of-government approach to climate financial-risk disclosure, demonstrating how an alliance between the administrative state and woke ESG investors on Wall Street would bring about net zero.
In August 2022, Congress passed the energy bill misnamed the Inflation Reduction Act, which provides for budget-busting, fiscally irresponsible uncapped subsidies of wind and solar, which will wreak havoc on the economics of reliable generating capacity, just as they have in Britain.
In 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed regulation on greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil-fuel-power generators that, if implemented, would go a long way toward achieving the administration’s economically devastating goal of entirely decarbonizing electricity generation by 2035.
Renewable energy is not a low-cost substitute for fossil fuels.
Renewables are not cheap, nor can they provide the reliability that modern societies expect and on which they depend.
Darwall’s report convincingly demonstrates how Britain was conned into net zero by deceptive and illusory promises of cheap renewable power.
The results have been an economic disaster.
There is still time to heed Britain’s warning and instead choose the path of energy abundance and economic prosperity by developing America’s unsurpassed reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... 1ec&ei=175
Re: THE BRITS
REUTERS
"Foreign holdings of US Treasuries surge to all-time high in December - data"
By Gertrude Chavez-Dreyfuss
February 15, 2024
NEW YORK, Feb 15 (Reuters) - Foreign holdings of U.S. Treasuries soared to another all-time peak in December, data from the Treasury Department showed on Thursday, rising for a second straight month.
Holdings of U.S. Treasuries rose to $8.06 trillion in December, from what was then a record high of $7.808 trillion in November.
Compared with a year earlier, Treasuries held by foreigners expanded by 10.5%.
The increased buying of Treasuries continued a trend of the last few months, after yields dropped as the market priced in interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve.
The three largest holders of Treasuries -- Japan, China and the UK -- led the purchase U.S. government debt.
Japanese investors raised their stash of Treasuries to $1.138 trillion in December, from $1.127 trillion in November, data showed.
Their holdings were the largest since August 2022.
Japan remains the largest non-U.S. holder of U.S. government debt.
China's holdings of Treasuries rose to $816.3 billion, up $34.3 billion from $782 billion held in November.
China's load of Treasuries rose for a second straight month.
Before that, China's Treasury holdings had declined for seven straight months.
In October last year, China's holding dropped to $763.5 billion, the lowest since March 2009.
The UK, meanwhile, listed its Treasury holdings at $753.7 billion in December, a record high.
The benchmark 10-year Treasury yield started November at 4.22%, ending the month at 3.86%, down 36 basis points.
The decline in yields coincided with the pivot by the Fed to a neutral stance from a tightening bias.
Data further showed that major U.S. asset classes showed inflows during the month.
On a transaction basis, U.S. Treasuries posted inflows of $33.8 billion, from a revised $72.4 billion in November.
U.S. equities showed inflows of $79.7 billion in December, sharply up from an outflow of $200 million in the previous month.
Foreign buying of U.S. corporates and agencies in November continued, with inflows of $23.8 billion and $4.6 billion, respectively.
Overall, net foreign acquisitions of long-term and short-term securities, as well as banking flows, showed a net inflow of $139.8 billion in December, down from a revised $223.3 billion posted in November, according to U.S. Treasury data.
Reporting by Gertrude Chavez-Dreyfuss; Editing by Chris Reese and Jonathan Oatis
https://www.reuters.com/markets/foreign ... 024-02-15/
"Foreign holdings of US Treasuries surge to all-time high in December - data"
By Gertrude Chavez-Dreyfuss
February 15, 2024
NEW YORK, Feb 15 (Reuters) - Foreign holdings of U.S. Treasuries soared to another all-time peak in December, data from the Treasury Department showed on Thursday, rising for a second straight month.
Holdings of U.S. Treasuries rose to $8.06 trillion in December, from what was then a record high of $7.808 trillion in November.
Compared with a year earlier, Treasuries held by foreigners expanded by 10.5%.
The increased buying of Treasuries continued a trend of the last few months, after yields dropped as the market priced in interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve.
The three largest holders of Treasuries -- Japan, China and the UK -- led the purchase U.S. government debt.
Japanese investors raised their stash of Treasuries to $1.138 trillion in December, from $1.127 trillion in November, data showed.
Their holdings were the largest since August 2022.
Japan remains the largest non-U.S. holder of U.S. government debt.
China's holdings of Treasuries rose to $816.3 billion, up $34.3 billion from $782 billion held in November.
China's load of Treasuries rose for a second straight month.
Before that, China's Treasury holdings had declined for seven straight months.
In October last year, China's holding dropped to $763.5 billion, the lowest since March 2009.
The UK, meanwhile, listed its Treasury holdings at $753.7 billion in December, a record high.
The benchmark 10-year Treasury yield started November at 4.22%, ending the month at 3.86%, down 36 basis points.
The decline in yields coincided with the pivot by the Fed to a neutral stance from a tightening bias.
Data further showed that major U.S. asset classes showed inflows during the month.
On a transaction basis, U.S. Treasuries posted inflows of $33.8 billion, from a revised $72.4 billion in November.
U.S. equities showed inflows of $79.7 billion in December, sharply up from an outflow of $200 million in the previous month.
Foreign buying of U.S. corporates and agencies in November continued, with inflows of $23.8 billion and $4.6 billion, respectively.
Overall, net foreign acquisitions of long-term and short-term securities, as well as banking flows, showed a net inflow of $139.8 billion in December, down from a revised $223.3 billion posted in November, according to U.S. Treasury data.
Reporting by Gertrude Chavez-Dreyfuss; Editing by Chris Reese and Jonathan Oatis
https://www.reuters.com/markets/foreign ... 024-02-15/
Re: THE BRITS
Business Insider
"The UK's $3.7B flagship aircraft carrier caught fire in another embarrassing incident for the Royal Navy"
Story by rrommen@insider.com (Rebecca Rommen)
12 MARCH 2024
* A fire broke out on the Royal Navy's flagship, the HMS Queen Elizabeth, a report said.
* It is the second time in recent weeks that the carrier has suffered a problem.
* Last month, HMS Queen Elizabeth pulled out of a NATO exercise following a mechanical issue.
The UK's $3.7 billion flagship aircraft carrier caught fire in yet another embarrassment for the Royal Navy.
The fire broke out on HMS Queen Elizabeth while it was docked for repairs at Glen Mallan on Loch Long in Scotland, according to the UK Defence Journal.
It is the second incident for the carrier in recent weeks.
The fire, which a Royal Navy spokesperson told the publication was "minor," was swiftly contained without reported injuries.
A person aboard the ship told the Journal: "No fatalities, minor fire damage to the ship but all over with."
The Royal Navy did not immediately respond to a request for comment by Business Insider.
Navy Lookout, a navy analysis site, wrote that "minor shipboard fires are not uncommon."
"All sailors are trained in fire-fighting and, in this instance, appear to have responded quickly and extinguished fire with no injuries."
"Involvement of local civilian fire brigade is also standard procedure."
HMS Queen Elizabeth is now en route to Rosyth, Scotland, for repairs, specifically targeting the starboard propeller shaft coupling.
Last month, the carrier was withdrawn from a major NATO exercise because of the coupling issue, and was ultimately replaced by HMS Prince of Wales.
The Ministry of Defence told BI at the time that technical problems were inevitable on state-of-the-art ships.
HMS Prince of Wales itself faced breakdowns previously, adding to a pattern of mechanical difficulties in the Navy's flagship vessels.
Pressure is now mounting on UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to increase defense spending.
Foreign Office Minister Anne-Marie Trevelyan and Security Minister Tom Tugendhat are advocating for a "much greater pace" of investment, stressing the need for the UK to lead in defense and security spending, particularly in light of escalating global risks posed by countries like Russia and China.
The underfunding of the Navy amid geopolitical strife, including vessels targeted by Houthis in the Red Sea, has called the UK's readiness for war into question.
"Gen. Lord Houghton pointed to the shortage of available vessels and further noted that he found the high proportion of naval equipment which was inoperable to be 'quite disturbing,'" a report, citing a top UK defense official.
The high-profile failures of the UK's flagship aircraft carrier have shown how Britain is struggling to keep up with first-rate navies around the world, experts have said.
"There is a dissonance between the UK's military ambitions and its capabilities," Richard Barrons, a former head of the UK's armed forces, told the Financial Times in February.
"The risk is that we get drawn into a conflict and can't sustain our presence, and this exposes a strategic weakness."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/th ... 88f3&ei=14
"The UK's $3.7B flagship aircraft carrier caught fire in another embarrassing incident for the Royal Navy"
Story by rrommen@insider.com (Rebecca Rommen)
12 MARCH 2024
* A fire broke out on the Royal Navy's flagship, the HMS Queen Elizabeth, a report said.
* It is the second time in recent weeks that the carrier has suffered a problem.
* Last month, HMS Queen Elizabeth pulled out of a NATO exercise following a mechanical issue.
The UK's $3.7 billion flagship aircraft carrier caught fire in yet another embarrassment for the Royal Navy.
The fire broke out on HMS Queen Elizabeth while it was docked for repairs at Glen Mallan on Loch Long in Scotland, according to the UK Defence Journal.
It is the second incident for the carrier in recent weeks.
The fire, which a Royal Navy spokesperson told the publication was "minor," was swiftly contained without reported injuries.
A person aboard the ship told the Journal: "No fatalities, minor fire damage to the ship but all over with."
The Royal Navy did not immediately respond to a request for comment by Business Insider.
Navy Lookout, a navy analysis site, wrote that "minor shipboard fires are not uncommon."
"All sailors are trained in fire-fighting and, in this instance, appear to have responded quickly and extinguished fire with no injuries."
"Involvement of local civilian fire brigade is also standard procedure."
HMS Queen Elizabeth is now en route to Rosyth, Scotland, for repairs, specifically targeting the starboard propeller shaft coupling.
Last month, the carrier was withdrawn from a major NATO exercise because of the coupling issue, and was ultimately replaced by HMS Prince of Wales.
The Ministry of Defence told BI at the time that technical problems were inevitable on state-of-the-art ships.
HMS Prince of Wales itself faced breakdowns previously, adding to a pattern of mechanical difficulties in the Navy's flagship vessels.
Pressure is now mounting on UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to increase defense spending.
Foreign Office Minister Anne-Marie Trevelyan and Security Minister Tom Tugendhat are advocating for a "much greater pace" of investment, stressing the need for the UK to lead in defense and security spending, particularly in light of escalating global risks posed by countries like Russia and China.
The underfunding of the Navy amid geopolitical strife, including vessels targeted by Houthis in the Red Sea, has called the UK's readiness for war into question.
"Gen. Lord Houghton pointed to the shortage of available vessels and further noted that he found the high proportion of naval equipment which was inoperable to be 'quite disturbing,'" a report, citing a top UK defense official.
The high-profile failures of the UK's flagship aircraft carrier have shown how Britain is struggling to keep up with first-rate navies around the world, experts have said.
"There is a dissonance between the UK's military ambitions and its capabilities," Richard Barrons, a former head of the UK's armed forces, told the Financial Times in February.
"The risk is that we get drawn into a conflict and can't sustain our presence, and this exposes a strategic weakness."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/th ... 88f3&ei=14
Re: THE BRITS
The Telegraph
"MoD admits rocket launchers and machine guns are among arsenal of missing weapons"
Story by Sean Rayment
31 MARCH 2024
Britain’s Armed Forces appear to have lost a small arsenal of weapons that includes machine guns, assault rifles, rocket launchers and thousands of rounds of ammunition, official records show.
The lost or stolen arms include two general purpose machine guns (GPMG), one of which was lost by the Royal Navy at sea.
The GPMG, which can fire up to 750 rounds per minute and has a range of up to 1,800 metres, is an important weapon for infantry battalions.
Other losses include a deactivated Russian rocket launcher, up to eight SA-80 rifles and several Glock pistols.
Last year, thieves stole a decommissioned First World War Lewis machine gun from the regimental headquarters of the Queen’s Royal Hussars, and a .50-calibre heavy machine gun went missing from an Army headquarters in Wiltshire.
In total, at least 30 weapons have been either lost or stolen from military bases since 2018.
Freedom of information (FoI) requests obtained by The Sunday Telegraph and NationalSecurityNews.com show that other weapons losses have included a deactivated Soviet-made AK47 assault rifle, Army cadet rifles, a deactivated Second World War Luger pistol, First and Second World War automatic weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition.
All of the losses have been investigated by military police but no items have been found.
Additionally, 1,800 computers, laptops and memory sticks have been lost by defence chiefs in the past four years.
The government figures reveal that between 2018 and 2023, at least 1,400 MoD laptops, 100 computers and up to 300 USB sticks, which could hold sensitive data, also went missing.
The latest MoD figures released to MPs show that in the past two years, 361 laptops were either lost or stolen, along with 98 mobile phones, 70 computer hard drives and 50 memory sticks.
In August, 51 laptops disappeared from the MoD’s inventory and a further 50 were either lost or stolen in the first three months of last year.
Hundreds of items are reported as either being lost or stolen every year by the MoD.
In 2022, a Land Rover was stolen in Kenya, along with four vehicle batteries and wheels worth some £16,000.
Night vision equipment, worth more than £2,000, was stolen, along with more than £30,000 of silverware, from Cottesmore military base.
Huge security risk
The huge number of computer and memory stick losses will have posed a potentially huge security risk to the Armed Forces, one military expert has claimed, and investigators had to launch dozens of enquiries to establish whether the equipment contained secret or sensitive information potentially of use to foreign powers.
The FOIs also reveal that hundreds of other pieces of equipment, such as helmets, body armour, boots, respirators and diving knives and a generator were stolen from military warehouses.
Some of the details were published by Dr Andrew Murrison, the undersecretary of state at the MoD, in response to a parliamentary written question submitted by Sarah Olney MP, who described the findings as “astonishing”.
Ms Olney, the Liberal Democrat MP for Richmond Park, also called for an inquiry into what went wrong and the potential risks posed by the thefts.
‘Government has a duty to keep people safe’
She said: “The Government has a duty to keep people safe, yet this revelation from the MoD should be ringing alarm bells for our national and personal security.”
A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: “We take security of defence very seriously and have robust policies and procedures to prevent losses and thefts."
"Encryption on devices ensures any data is safeguarded and prevents access to our network.
“Where there is suspected criminal activity, we will take the necessary steps to investigate and prosecute.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/mo ... 17ce&ei=48
"MoD admits rocket launchers and machine guns are among arsenal of missing weapons"
Story by Sean Rayment
31 MARCH 2024
Britain’s Armed Forces appear to have lost a small arsenal of weapons that includes machine guns, assault rifles, rocket launchers and thousands of rounds of ammunition, official records show.
The lost or stolen arms include two general purpose machine guns (GPMG), one of which was lost by the Royal Navy at sea.
The GPMG, which can fire up to 750 rounds per minute and has a range of up to 1,800 metres, is an important weapon for infantry battalions.
Other losses include a deactivated Russian rocket launcher, up to eight SA-80 rifles and several Glock pistols.
Last year, thieves stole a decommissioned First World War Lewis machine gun from the regimental headquarters of the Queen’s Royal Hussars, and a .50-calibre heavy machine gun went missing from an Army headquarters in Wiltshire.
In total, at least 30 weapons have been either lost or stolen from military bases since 2018.
Freedom of information (FoI) requests obtained by The Sunday Telegraph and NationalSecurityNews.com show that other weapons losses have included a deactivated Soviet-made AK47 assault rifle, Army cadet rifles, a deactivated Second World War Luger pistol, First and Second World War automatic weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition.
All of the losses have been investigated by military police but no items have been found.
Additionally, 1,800 computers, laptops and memory sticks have been lost by defence chiefs in the past four years.
The government figures reveal that between 2018 and 2023, at least 1,400 MoD laptops, 100 computers and up to 300 USB sticks, which could hold sensitive data, also went missing.
The latest MoD figures released to MPs show that in the past two years, 361 laptops were either lost or stolen, along with 98 mobile phones, 70 computer hard drives and 50 memory sticks.
In August, 51 laptops disappeared from the MoD’s inventory and a further 50 were either lost or stolen in the first three months of last year.
Hundreds of items are reported as either being lost or stolen every year by the MoD.
In 2022, a Land Rover was stolen in Kenya, along with four vehicle batteries and wheels worth some £16,000.
Night vision equipment, worth more than £2,000, was stolen, along with more than £30,000 of silverware, from Cottesmore military base.
Huge security risk
The huge number of computer and memory stick losses will have posed a potentially huge security risk to the Armed Forces, one military expert has claimed, and investigators had to launch dozens of enquiries to establish whether the equipment contained secret or sensitive information potentially of use to foreign powers.
The FOIs also reveal that hundreds of other pieces of equipment, such as helmets, body armour, boots, respirators and diving knives and a generator were stolen from military warehouses.
Some of the details were published by Dr Andrew Murrison, the undersecretary of state at the MoD, in response to a parliamentary written question submitted by Sarah Olney MP, who described the findings as “astonishing”.
Ms Olney, the Liberal Democrat MP for Richmond Park, also called for an inquiry into what went wrong and the potential risks posed by the thefts.
‘Government has a duty to keep people safe’
She said: “The Government has a duty to keep people safe, yet this revelation from the MoD should be ringing alarm bells for our national and personal security.”
A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: “We take security of defence very seriously and have robust policies and procedures to prevent losses and thefts."
"Encryption on devices ensures any data is safeguarded and prevents access to our network.
“Where there is suspected criminal activity, we will take the necessary steps to investigate and prosecute.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/mo ... 17ce&ei=48