Le rapport de RTE sur les Futurs énergétiques 2050 rassure la filière nucléaire
"Une présentation partielle et donc partiale." Le rapport du gestionnaire du réseau électrique français RTE était à peine mis en ligne que les premières critiques fusaient. Le député ex-LREM Matthieu Orphelin a été le premier à dégainer et dénoncer ce qu’il appelle "une manipulation du gouvernement". D’après lui, le document commet l’erreur de trop se baser sur l’évolution de la consommation électrique et aurait ainsi exclu "toute évolution sociétale notamment de maîtrise des consommations". Présenté ce matin, le rapport de RTE sur les Futurs énergétiques 2050 était très attendu. Comme sa publication fait quelque 600 pages, chacun y trouvera midi à sa porte. Les aficionados des éoliennes et du photovoltaïque noteront avec satisfaction que l’objectif de neutralité carbone en 2050 "est impossible sans un développement significatif des énergies renouvelables". Les fans du nucléaire pointeront qu’il est difficile de se passer de nouveaux réacteurs. Cela "implique des rythmes de développement des renouvelables plus rapides que ceux des pays européens les plus dynamiques."
La consommation électrique va augmenter de 35%
RTE a présenté six scénarios pour 2050. L’un prévoit 100% de renouvelables. Atteindre cet objectif est possible, estime Thomas Veyrenc, directeur de la stratégie de RTE. "Mais c’est un chemin complexe avec beaucoup d’incertitudes qui ne sont pas encore levées." Deux autres schémas intègrent 87% de renouvelables et 13% d’ancien nucléaire. Pour les trois dernières hypothèses le mix se partage entre les énergies vertes, le nucléaire existant et le nouveau nucléaire. Dans ces scénarios, la part de l’énergie atomique oscille entre 26% et 50%. Au cours des années à venir, les électrons vont se substituer aux énergies fossiles. D’après RTE, la consommation d’électricité augmentera d’environ 35%. Un vrai changement de paradigme. Il y a cinq ans, la transition écologique était encore dans les limbes. Le gestionnaire de réseau pariait sur une stagnation de la consommation d’électricité, voire une très légère augmentation. Depuis, l’Europe s’est fixé des objectifs ambitieux en matière de climat. Pour atteindre la neutralité carbone, l’électrification des usages est devenue une nécessité. L’électricité représente 25% de la consommation d’énergie aujourd’hui. Ce sera 55% en 2050. Mais comme dans le même temps, les hydrocarbures seront exclus du paysage, la consommation totale d’énergie devrait baisser de l’ordre de 40%.
Ligne de fracture
Combien coûtera cette transformation? Aujourd’hui, les coûts complets du système électrique s’élèvent à 45 milliards d’euros par an. En 2050, ils tourneront entre 59 et 66 milliards dans les scénarios où le nucléaire est privilégié. Et oscilleront entre 71 et 80 milliards dans un mix très majoritairement énergies renouvelables. Les énergies vertes reviendraient donc à 10 milliards de plus que le nucléaire. Un surcoût qui tient aux investissements dans des moyens de production flexibles (l’hydrogène par exemple) pour pallier l’intermittence des renouvelables et aux dépenses de raccordement.
"Construire de nouveaux réacteurs nucléaires est pertinent du point de vue économique, a fortiori quand cela permet de conserver un parc d'une quarantaine de gigawatts en 2050", indique le rapport. Xavier Piechaczyk, président du directoire de RTE se félicite du modèle énergétique français décarboné à 93% grâce au mix nucléaire-renouvelables. "En 2019, la France a émis onze fois moins de CO2 que l’Allemagne", dit-il. Quels que soient les scénarios retenus, la part des renouvelables va fortement augmenter dans les années à venir. Dans l’hypothèse à 50% de nucléaire, la capacité solaire serait multipliée par sept d’ici à 2050, celle de l’éolien par 2,5. En 2050, la France pourrait être hérissée de pas moins de 30.000 mâts.
Demain le vrai problème d’acceptabilité concernera le photovoltaïque. Au milieu du siècle, l’empreinte des fermes solaires pourrait représenter jusqu’à 0,3% du territoire français. Le rapport très complet de RTE va susciter son lot de polémiques. Sa publication intervient au moment où l'avenir énergétique agite la pré-campagne présidentielle de 2022. Il y a aujourd’hui une vraie ligne de fracture entre les pro-renouvelables (Yannick Jadot, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, Anne Hidalgo) et les pro-nucléaires (Marine Le Pen, Eric Zemmour, Xavier Bertrand, Fabien Roussel). Emmanuel Macron se range parmi les seconds. D’après Le Figaro, il pourrait annoncer avant Noël la construction de six nouveaux EPR.
Scientists link Covid vaccines to rare neurological complications
Study finds Pfizer and Oxford/AstraZeneca jabs have infrequent association with seven illnesses
The BioNTech/Pfizer and Oxford/AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccines are associated with seven rare neurological complications, according to the most comprehensive study of the side effects from the two jabs.
Using data from 32m vaccinated adults in England, researchers estimated that an extra 38 people per 10m who received their first Oxford/AstraZeneca shot suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome, which causes pain and weakness in the limbs and is usually temporary, than would do in the general population.
They found an increased risk of haemorrhagic stroke, a brain bleed, in the 28 days after vaccination with the BioNTech/Pfizer shot, at an estimated 60 extra cases per 10m people. The increased risk was significantly higher in female patients.
A smaller data set from Scotland backed up the association between the AstraZeneca vaccine and Guillain-Barré syndrome, but did not find the same link between the Pfizer shot and haemorrhagic stroke.
Aziz Sheikh, professor of primary care research and development at the University of Edinburgh, emphasised that the adverse events were so rare that they had to report their incidence in millions, rather than thousands. The incidents were measured in the 28 days after vaccination, or a positive test result.
“We’re not seeing a higher risk for any of these adverse events associated with the vaccine, than those associated with the infection,” he said.
In fact, people infected with Sars CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, had a substantially higher risk of the seven neurological conditions.
The infection causes 145m excess cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome per 10m people, and 123 extra events of encephalitis meningitis and myelitis, inflammations of the brain and spinal cord. There was a higher risk of haemorrhagic stroke in people infected with the virus, but only for the first seven days after testing positive.
The data covered people vaccinated from December-May and included 20m vaccinated with AstraZeneca and 12m who received a Pfizer jab, and were compared with 2m people who tested positive for Covid-19. The scientists will now study the incidence in the population after two doses.
The AstraZeneca vaccine has become associated with another very rare blood-clotting side effect, leading some countries to abandon the shot or restrict its use in younger people. The mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna have been associated with a rare heart inflammation, especially in younger men.
Julia Hippisley-Cox, professor of clinical epidemiology at the University of Oxford, who is not associated with the development of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, said that while the link with Guillain-Barré syndrome had been noted before this was the “largest, most reliable study internationally” of its kind.
Pfizer said it took adverse events associated with its vaccine “very seriously”, collecting information to send to regulators. It added that “hundreds of millions of people around the world have been vaccinated with our vaccine”.
AstraZeneca did not respond to a request for comment.
UniCredit/MPS: Orcel switches from deal maker to deal breaker
Chief executive deserves credit for holding out for a big dowry, but he may have made enemies along the way
If something seems too good to be true, it usually is. A capital-enhancing takeover of parts of Monte dei Paschi di Siena would have been a coup for UniCredit’s Andrea Orcel. He may have overplayed his hand by demanding a reported €6.5bn from the state to patch up the holes in the smaller Italian bank. This price was too rich for politicians who walked away from a deal over the weekend.
Orcel deserves credit for holding out for a big dowry. This was needed to compensate UniCredit minorities for the risks of integration and bad debts. He may have made some enemies along the way. The Italian establishment saw the former UBS banker as a man hired to do a deal, talk of which may recur.
The state will now have to renegotiate an extension of its EU deadline to exit MPS by the end of this year. Taxpayers will have to provide a fresh cash injection. Orcel must, meanwhile, present UniCredit shareholders with alternatives.
There are two main options. UniCredit could try buying Banco BPM if greater Italian exposure is still needed. If not, lower costs and higher capital returns should be priorities.
The fact that UniCredit shares barely moved on Monday shows that investors are still giving Orcel the benefit of the doubt. MPS was never going to be an easy target to absorb, even with surplus equity. Summer stress testing showed the bank was the continent’s weakest by many magnitudes. Some assets are on life support. Many will be reclassified when debt moratoria come to an end this year.
UniCredit is in better shape than it has been for years. A common equity tier one ratio of 15.5 per cent fully loaded leaves plenty of potential for buybacks. Trading at half their book value, the cheap shares reflect uncertainties around strategy even as the rate outlook improves.
Jefferies thinks the stock should yield 8 per cent if M&A remains off the table. But that was pretty much the plan of Orcel’s predecessor Jean Pierre Mustier. Shareholders may be left wondering why a new chief executive was needed in the first place.
Kim Kardashian West’s Skims to Partner With Fendi
The star’s shapewear company is launching a line with the Italian brand.
Fendi, the 96-year-old Roman luxury fashion house owned by LVMH, will collaborate with Kim Kardashian West to launch a women’s collection, the companies said Monday.
Kim Jones, the artistic director of womenswear and haute couture, worked with Skims, Kardashian West’s shapewear company, for a line of upscale ready-to-wear and shapewear debuting in November.
The partnership first germinated when Jones overheard women in his Fendi offices talking about Skims, he said in an interview. In response, “I sent him a bunch,” Kardashian West told WSJ. Magazine.
The two designers met to finalize designs in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico, this past March, with Kardashian West serving as the fit model for the line of stretchy, body-conscious dresses, knitwear, swimwear and a tracksuit, among other offerings, she says. Whereas a Skims cotton rib tank top is $34, items in the Fendi collaboration range from $100 to $4,200.
The shapewear category is heating up—this month, Blackstone said it was acquiring a majority stake in Spanx, which values the undergarment maker founded by Sara Blakely in 2000 at $1.2 billion.
The Fendi x Skims collection reflects the athletic-inspired, monochromatic minimalism Kardashian West favors, with simple tank dresses, knit crop tops and matching high-waisted leggings. Tracksuits and swimwear are printed with a blend of the Fendi and Skims logos. The most involved look in the collection is a sleeveless leather dress with a draped detail at the bust. It comes in a gradient of flesh tones ranging from light to dark.
Jones has a history of co-opting the zeitgeisty social currency of cult brands for unexpected high-low or high-high collaborations at his various creative director posts. The 2017 Louis Vuitton x Supreme collaboration happened on his watch as men’s artistic director at Vuitton. In late September during Milan Fashion Week, Jones, Silvia Venturini Fendi and Donatella Versace joined forces for a co-branded Fendi/Versace runway show, dubbed “Fendace,” featuring a roundup of ’90s supermodels—Naomi Campbell, Kate Moss, Amber Valletta, Shalom Harlow and Kristen McMenamy.
The merchandise connects traditional high-fashion luxury players with new, often younger audiences. The Louis Vuitton x Supreme collection generated intense interest from fans of the streetwear label. In 2017, The Wall Street Journal reported that the private equity firm Carlyle paid about $500 million for a 50 percent stake in Supreme. (Last year, Supreme was sold to apparel and footwear company VF Corp. in a deal that valued Supreme at roughly $2.1 billion including debt, also reported by the Journal.)
Skims, one of Kardashian West’s fashion and beauty ventures, was launched in 2019 with size- and skin-tone-inclusive underpinnings and shapewear. Many of the designs, such as a one-legged shapewear intended for high-slit dresses, stem from Kardashian West’s personal needs. She would dye and cut her undergarments with scissors to work with her outfits.
Skims has been a success, valued at $1.6 billion within two years of its debut, according to the brand. The collection has grown to include pajamas, loungewear, dresses and children’s wear. Each drop is centered around a specific fabric, such as jacquard, velour and cotton, which Kardashian West promotes through campaign images and casual, self-shot videos to her roughly 258 million Instagram followers.
“OK, we have new Skims Sleep,” she says in one recent video. “I just wanted you to see. They’re, like, so stretchy and soft.”
Pelosi Confirms Wealth Tax On Billionaires' Unrealized Gains Is On The Way
“We probably will have a wealth tax,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told CNN.
Sinema OKs a Tax on Unrealized Gains
In the scramble to find a tax hike that all 50 Democrat Senators could support, Senator Kyrsten Sinema OKs a Tax on Billionaires’ Unrealized Gains.
A new annual tax on billionaires’ unrealized capital gains is likely to be included to help pay for the vast social policy and climate package lawmakers hope to finalize this week, senior Democrats said Sunday.“We probably will have a wealth tax,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said Sunday on CNN, noting that Senate Democrats were still working on their proposal, which isn’t technically a wealth tax but bears a strong resemblance to that idea.The proposal under consideration from Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) would impose an annual tax on unrealized capital gains on liquid assets held by billionaires, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said Sunday on CNN.“I wouldn’t call that a wealth tax, but it would help get at capital gains, which are an extraordinarily large part of the incomes of the wealthiest individuals and right now escape taxation until they’re realized,” Ms. Yellen said.The tax is expected to affect people with $1 billion in assets or $100 million in income for three consecutive years, according to a person familiar with the discussions. The idea, for which President Biden recently expressed support after excluding it from his campaign plans and administration agenda, would affect a narrower group of people than the capital-gains changes that have already flopped among congressional Democrats.A spokeswoman for Ms. Sinema said Friday that she was working with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), who has pushed for an annual tax on the wealthiest Americans’ assets. That wealth tax that Ms. Warren talked about during her presidential campaign would have applied to all assets held by the wealthy. The proposal under consideration, in contrast, would focus on unrealized capital gains and it is expected to include a one-time tax on gains to date. That means a tech-company founder with $5 billion, almost all of which is unrealized gains, would be taxed more heavily than someone who just inherited $5 billion and has no unrealized gains under the tax code.“I think it’s likely. I’m pushing hard,” Ms. Warren said Sunday on MSNBC of raising taxes on billionaires.
Yellen More Careful Than Pelosi
Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin objected to hikes in marginal rates so this appears to be the default option.
Treasury Secretary Yellen was far more careful in her wording than Pelosi. The reason being that a wealth tax is likely to be found unconstitutional.
Q: Is this a wealth tax?A: My guess is no because it's a tax on gains, not wealth.
The proposal by Senator Elizabeth Warren is a genuine wealth tax and easily could be tossed by the Supreme Court. Warren obviously does not give a damn.
Regardless, expect legal challenges based on the 16th Amendment.
The proposal taxes unrealized gains. But is there "income" before gains are realized? The courts will decide if this goes forward, but the idea is dubious at best.
Funding Shortfall
The proposal will likely affect fewer than 1,000 of the wealthiest U.S. taxpayers. Can that possibly cover $2 trillion in spending?
No chance.
Mrs. Pelosi said the tax on billionaires’ assets would likely generate somewhere between $200 billion and $250 billion in revenue over 10 years.
What's Next?
Assuming Joe Manchin holds firm at limiting spending to $1.5 trillion as opposed to the $2 trillion numbers sloshing around, Democrats "only" have to find agreement on another $1.25 trillion.
Hang On To Your Wallets
A friend commented:
Hang on to your wallets. This is how the original income tax was shackled to us. The original tax in 1913 applied only to the super wealthy and topped out at 7%. The average American would never be taxed.We all know how that worked out. We will all be paying on unrealized gains before the decade is out.Also recall that big gains on December 31, 1999 would have been big losses by the first months into next year (and about ten years for the Nasdaq to get back to where it was). But a tax would have been assessed for 1999.
Tesla/Hertz: supercharged
How to regain relevance as a meme stock.
Hertz Global Holdings Inc., barely four months out of bankruptcy, placed an order for 100,000 Teslas in the first step of an ambitious plan to electrify its rental-car fleet, according to people with knowledge of the matter.
It’s the single-largest purchase ever for electric vehicles and represents about $4.2 billion of revenue for Tesla Inc., according to the people, who asked not to be identified because the information is private. While car-rental companies typically demand big discounts from automakers, the size of the order implies that Hertz is paying close to list prices.
Great scoop! Now, you might be wondering what the market has made of it. After all, the reborn Hertz has a market capitalisation of almost $12bn, or $21bn if you include debt, so this one order represents a third of its entire equity value. Or, double the $1.8bn it had in cash and cash equivalents at last count at the end of June.
Quite an undertaking then, particularly given Tesla has a reputation for making cars that consumers love, until they have to get them serviced. Don’t take our word for it. Consumer intelligence company JD Power ranked Tesla 30th out of 33 automakers on reliability in its benchmark study of American car brands. While in 2019 a Swedish car rental company went bust citing “recurring technical problems” with its fleet of Teslas. Still, a $4.2bn order will likely buy Hertz lot of spare service capacity from Elon Musk’s car company. Or so you’d think.
What’s the stonk of all stonks doing? Well, true-to-form, in pre-market Tesla is hitting all new time highs -- up 4.3 per cent to $948.50. That’s a market cap of some $940bn. In other words, each car Hertz ordered has added $390,000, roughly ten times the per car ticket price, to Tesla’s market value. And, in case you were wondering, that $39bn pre-market move is roughly equivalent to half a General Motors.
Still, it was only a matter of time wasn’t it? After AMC decided to supercharge its own meme stock status with its decision to embrace crypto as a payments system. Hertz, once the meme stock de jour, needed to do something to regain relevance. And, as it turns out, that something involved both Tesla and Tom Brady.
Competition Market Cap in $
Toyota : 279bilVolkswagen : 145bil
Daimler : 105bil
GM : 84bil
Ford : 65bil
BMW : 65bil
Stellantis : 61bil
Ferrari : 41bil
Hyundai : 36bil
Porsche :25bil
Tata Motors : 22bil
Nissan : 21.5bil
Renault : 10.5bil
Aston Martin : 2.8bil
Total : 963bil...
Volvo IPO Prices Lower Than Expected Despite Ambitious EV Plans
Pricing shows old auto is no match for valuations enjoyed by Tesla and other pure electric-vehicle players
Volvo Cars, the Swedish auto maker owned by China’s Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, on Monday set the price for its initial public offering at the low end of its target range, highlighting investors’ unwillingness to lend traditional car makers the valuations enjoyed by younger electric-vehicle companies.
Volvo said it has set the price of its shares at 53 Swedish kronor each, equivalent to $6.18, the bottom of its target range of up to 68 kronor. The offering values Volvo at just over $18 billion, shy of the $23 billion valuation that the company had hoped to achieve and the $25 billion that analysts had floated as possible.
Shares are set to begin trading on the Nasdaq Stockholm exchange on Friday, Oct. 29, the company said.
The lower pricing will reduce the anticipated proceeds from the IPO. It illustrates how even conventional auto companies with ambitious electrification plans continue to struggle to achieve the stellar valuations that have been readily handed to Tesla Inc., which boasts a market value of $900 billion, and new electric car makers such as Li Auto Inc., NIO Inc. and Xpeng Inc.
Li Auto’s American depositary receipts value the Chinese auto maker at around $33 billion, although it is a fraction of the size of Volvo. NIO’s ADRs give the company a market value of nearly $64 billion, and Xpeng touts a market value of nearly $37 billion.
Volvo ran into opposition from investors who balked at such valuations for a conventional car maker, according to people familiar with these conversations. Potential new investors refused to value Volvo’s business using the same math as used for new EV makers, saying Volvo’s transformation strategy was bold but still unproven.
Instead, they indicated to Volvo that they were willing to value the company based on the lower multiples that traditional auto makers attract, one person familiar with the discussions said.
Investors also valued Volvo’s near 50% stake in electric vehicle maker Polestar at a discount of its almost $10 billion valuation because Volvo has no plans to realize that value in the near term by selling down its holding, the person said.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal on Monday, Volvo CEO Hakan Samuelsson denied that the lower pricing suggested the company had run into difficulties selling the offering to investors, saying that the share price leaves room for new investors to profit on their investment.
“It’s important to leave a possibility for the new shareholders to have a good value development and really take part in the value creation,” Mr. Samuelsson said.
While the company will raise less money than hoped, Mr. Samuelsson said the proceeds would still be sufficient to secure financing for Volvo’s transition to a fully electric auto maker over the next few years.
Proceeds from the fully subscribed IPO will be equivalent to about $2.7 billion when the so-called greenshoe, or secondary offering, is exercised as planned, Volvo CFO Björn Annwall told the Journal. Initially, Volvo had hoped to raise 25 billion kronor through the primary offering alone, or about $2.9 billion.
“The important thing is securing our transformation,” he said.
Investors, especially those in the Nordic region, also pushed Volvo to end its two classes of shares in favor of just one Class B voting share that would give all investors equal rights. Under the old proposal, Geely would have still held around 97% of the voting rights, although its share ownership would have fallen to as low as about 80%, one person familiar with the discussions said.
Earlier this month, Geely agreed to scrap the nonvoting Class A shares and convert all of its shares to Class B voting stock in the wake of the Volvo IPO.
China’s Geely bought Volvo for $1.8 billion in 2010, when it was struggling under the ownership of Ford Motor Co. Volvo’s pricing values Geely’s post-IPO stake of 82% at around $15 billion, a huge gain that highlights the rags-to-riches transformation of the Swedish car marker under Geely’s ownership, one of the auto industry’s biggest turnaround stories.
Additional core shareholders include Swedish institutional investors Folksam and AMF, bringing the total share of Volvo’s future anchor shareholders to 86.3%. The remaining 13.7% of Volvo’s Class B voting stock, its only share class, will float freely.
Volvo extended the subscription phase of the offering by one day.