Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK has released its annual accounts for 2011 – revealing that its profits more than quadrupled in 2011.
The Frankfurt-based bank turned a profit of €728 million last year, significantly up on €171 million from 2010.
The boosted profits came as a result of the ECB’s growing portfolio of sovereign bonds, which saw the ECB’s total interest income shoot up from €1.42 billion to just under €2 billion – half of which came directly from the bank’s holdings of bonds from eurozone countries like Ireland.
The massive increase in interest was helped by a smaller writedown on its financial assets and provisions, meaning that the bank’s total net come doubled from €586 million to €1.17 billion.
The bank has set aside another €1.166 billion towards risk provision, meaning it has now set aside a total of €6.36 billion to cover risks from fluctuations in the price of currencies, commodities and credit.
The €728 million profit, in total, is to be distributed among the central banks of eurozone member states. Ireland is set to receive about €11.5 million of that input.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Clarkson, what an utter knob.
Regardless of the point they were trying to make they still made the Nissan look more than a bit crap!
Am very disappointed with Top Gear on this. You wouldn’t find them doing something like this with one of the high performance Ferraris to ‘prove’ a point. I am a big fan of the show and I realise the show is to entertain, but I had always assumed the ‘tests’ would be genuine attempts to portray the reality, and not scripted pieces with false or at best misleading information.
So how do we know that any information and statistics they give us about any car, has any basis in fact, or is merely the creation of a script writer as it makes better telly??
It’s all scripted…you don’t honestly believe that on all those long distance ‘races’ across Europe that they hadn’t it timed or edited in advance to be sure the car always(or pretty much always) won? It’s entertainment now, with factual statistics seemingly taking a back seat (no pun intended…)
I am a big fan of Top Gear, I never miss an episode. I know it’s scripted mostly, but I had assumed that things like ‘road tests’ would be sort of based on actual facts, you know, like a test :) I mean they had no need to do this to prove their point(s) and by doing it, they actually take away creditability from their points I think.
TonyO – bless your innocence, is all I can say. You really didn’t think they don’t massage the data and outright lie to push their point of view?
This story is getting so old – how long before Nissan stop crying over the reality that as it stands, electric cars are not the way forward. Top Gear pointed out very effectively that we are not ready for electric cars, the infrastructure is not there. I for one do not have 13 hours to wait while my battery charges up, that’s IF I can find a charge point. Did anyone really think Top Gear were trying to prove how awful the range is on electric cars??? Until we get the infrastructure in place, the electric car will remain a city dweller.
Care to suggest the ‘way forward’? Because if you think petrol and diesel are the only way forward then we’re not going to have any cars at all in a couple of decades.
Hydrogen fuel cells, obviously. Nobody is suggesting petrol and diesel as the way forward.
Neil I didnt say electric cars were not the way forward, in fact there is a company making great inroads in getting around the problem of infrastructure and long charge times (check out http://www.betterplace.com/, not affiliated in anyway). Petrol and Diesel are not the way forward, but too many people are jumping on the electric bandwagon without thinking it through. I agree with JimBob – Hydrogen has great potential but we are years away from solving the issue of how to produce it cheaply. Just like with electric cars there is no short term solution, we need to be very clear on what we do and realise that the research we do into alternative energy now will not benefit us hugely in 2-3 years time, but provided we choose the correct path, we will see dividends on 20-30 years time. No sooner Im afraid – unless someone discovers something revolutionary in the mean time.
@Chris
You’re complaining about infrastructure. But it has to start somewhere. The market will decide whether it’s batteries or hydrogen cells. Top Gear pointing out that, guess what, there are far more petrol pumps out there than the alternative takes us nowhere because all they want to do is hold back time (reverse it back to the 50s if they could).
But there’s no point just waiting until the price of petrol is such that car usage drops overnight. Yes, it’s an ‘early adopter’ situation at the moment, with all the expense and risks that that can bring. But thank God there’s people putting money into it now.
@Neil definitely, I agree we need early adoptors and we need to push the boundaries, but we also need to be very careful about what we push…….is pushing for electric cars and charge points in every city the way forward? Or should we push other alternatives, like hot-swappable batteries, or hydrogen. The focus at the moment seems to be too much (at least in the consumer’s eye) on electric cars and charge points – and if the consumer perceives this negatively (which with a lack of charge points and reasonable recharge times) they will, the market could kill electric cars before they become viable. Its a look before you leap situation – have we exposed the public to this technology too early, without creating the necessary infrastructure, and without considering the negative consequences this could have?
I’m afraid that in the meantime Top Gears credibility has been swept down the toilet – how can we believe anything they ever say or state to us as being fact again, or as being credible again, into the future?
Ah Eddie come on, lets be honest I enjoy Top Gear but I don’t rely on it as a credible news source – I don’t really believe anyone should, as it is an entertainment programme in reality – but for people to get so worked over Top Gear misleading the public…….? I dont believe they did – they drove an electric car which ran out of charge, and then tried to charge it up in a typical British town. I actually thought it highlighted their point quite well – and obviously do did Nissan as I believe they have no sponsored a charge point in that town.
We have been screwed by the oil companies for years now. The quicker we move away the better for all of us !
Nissan are into hacking now?
Hacking, How so?
Its Nissan’s car that they lend to the show for the “test”, they can do what they want to the car its there’s so they are perfectly entitled to get stats about any tests run on it by Top Gear.
Frankly I can’t blame Nissan for doing what they did especially after what Top Gear pulled with the Tesla Roadster – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/30/tesla-sue-top-gear
Its clear Top Gear just want to maintain the petrol head culture but reality states that this culture can’t continue into our future.
We need alternatives and the likes of the Nissan Leaf whilst not suitable for all situations is perfectly suitable for a large amount of the population
It was supposed to be humorous, ah well, back to the day job.
Top Gear is staged!? Since when!?
We all know that it has been for years. That being said they could have just picked a town further away to drive to. There was no need to make out that the range of the car was less. It was a bad move on the part of the producers, they could have avoided all this if they chose a different town but I suppose they didnt count in Nissian getting the data transmitted back
It’s extremely irresponsible of the show to do what they did.
They knew what they were trying to do- whether it was for pure entertainment or to sabotage any notion of a non fossil fuel society.
In any event, if you watch top gear for the purpose of being informed about motor vehicles, you’re doing it wrong.
showing that electric cars have a limited range and are hard to recharge is irresponsible? That’s a strange sense of logic you have there Liam. Imagine finding yourself in the middle of the countryside with no battery power left and no way to recharge. Its irresponsible NOT to raise this issue.
Top Gear is a comedy, where three male stereotypes get into ever-more absurd situations with expensive vehicles. Occasionally it’s quite funny, if you like that sort of thing. That some people think it’s a serious review-slash-adventure show is amusing, but that any major company that thought that it was the right platform for an honest test of the real-world performance of their new electric car… well that’s downright hilarious.
Gavan The Independent does not say Tesla successful sued Top Gear in 2008. They are currently suing them in an ongoing case which they issued on the 30 of March this year concerning a Top gear episode in 2008. You can find details of the case on numerous sites around the web
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371334/Top-Gear-sued-Tesla-Motors-rigged-electric-car-test.html
http://www.teslamotors.com/teslavstopgear
Tony – thanks for the correction; I had come across another piece which said Tesla’s case had been successful and got my wires crossed in putting the piece together. It’s been amended now.
TopGear were aware of the data being recorded. That is an irrelevance. Go and read Andy Wilman’s response (from last week) on the TopGear.com website. Regardless of how they reached the conclusion or how fair their methods are, the people at TopGear illustrated a very valid point.
Nissan are just throwing their toys out of the pram because they jumped the gun with launching the Leaf which has been rightly nominated as a posterboy for the shortcomings of electric car ownership. You can’t go to a shopping mall these days without some twit shoving a flyer into your face for the thing. Sorry, I should call them leaflets – you know things made of paper? The all new, all electric, NISSAN LEAF; still a killer of trees.
The point, which many of you appear to have missed and so clearly illustrated by TopGear was this:
What if you or I arrived at our destination – EVEN having responsibly charged the car to it’s full capacity before setting out for the journey. What if having completed our journey we can’t locate a charging point to charge the car sufficiently for the return leg of the journey? What then? What if there are no public recharging points and you can’t park in close enough proximity to your hotel, B&B or whatever to hook up even an extension lead? Sorry, but the infrastructure just isn’t there and THAT was the point. The Nissan Leaf itself is not the problem and Nissan should untwist their knickers and shut the hell up. The majority of the world is simply not ready for the fully electric car yet.
MINI carried out a non-purchase, trial run all over Europe with their electric MINI and guess what – they pulled the plug (pun intended). :P Perhaps Nissan should have taken a leaf (oh dear) out of MINI’s book. Nissan wanted to be the first volume manufacturer to bring a relatively normal car, powered by electricity to market and they did – now they will just have to deal with the flack when they receive criticism of it. Those are the risks when you are the pioneers of new and relatively unproven technology without sufficient infrastructure to back it up 100%. They should just suck it up.
Nissan ought to have known better anyway, TopGear is a program for petrolheads. Clarkson has never been all that enamoured by their regularly powered product – and that includes their powerful sports coupes. The conservative old TopGear crew were never exactly ambassadors for the brand either and that was back when TopGear conducted very straightforward, stiff upper lipped, roadtests of everyday cars. I happen to recall that the Nissan Sunny was one of their favourite cars to ridicule and that the Almera at launch in 1995 also left them feeling utterly indifferent. Nissan ought to realise that TopGear is no longer a consumer product review show that reviews cars, it’s a prime time entertainment show that just happens to involve cars.
I know there will be a few ‘Dislike’ button maniacs who feel compelled to vote my comment down. It’s blatantly obvious that there are an awful lot of people posting here who haven’t a clue about cars or the engineering and technologies involved contributing to this piece.
I’d be very interested to know how many of the electric car crazies – who are vomiting their support of Nissan and outrage at TopGear all over this page – have actually put their money where their mouth is and shelled out their hard earned for one.
I’d bet precisely none.
Eeekk! I didn’t realise that was so long!
Your on the ball. I though it was a fair example of everyday use of the car, people will not charge the car evernight, no one will want to wait around for 30mins for a fast charge. I read in another thread here that ESB are putting fast charge points on the motorway – two cars ahead of you waiting and your delayed 1 .5 hrs….
Unless there are charging points in every town I think we are way off with electric cars.
Currently they say oh if you live in a City then they will be perfect, what if you want to take a trip must you then have another car for you longer trips outside the city.
Very well said. Most people here are missing the point entirely.
I’ll be buying a plug-in Prius when they come out. Seems to solve the range problem. I have a Prius at the moment and it’s worth its weight in gold for troll value – from petrolheads and hippies alike. The only downside is that I was plagued by Green party canvassers at the last election.
Bang on Paul, could not have said it better myself. If there is one thing here that every non ‘electric car crazy’ agrees on its that the infrastructure is just not there – electric cars could possibly be the way forward but it will be years before all the teething problems are sorted out.
Top gear has its good points,but Clarkson and co.just can not get their heads around the electric can concept.
Correct me if i’m wrong……, but at the end of this particular episode didn’t Clarkson, Hammond and May all agree though that alternative fuel was the way forward as petrol/oil was eventually going to run out? May made the point that Hydrogen would likely be the best when the processing was safer and cheaper…
Correct. Hydrogen is the future. Honda are already leasing Hydrogen powered ‘FCX Clarity’ saloon cars to customers in California.
Hydrogen fuel cells are an inefficient energy storage medium – less efficient than today’s battery tech AFAIK.
And James May test drove the clarity in the States and RAVED about it. In a James May way, not a Clarkson way. Top Gear are NOT in the pay of the Saudis and trying to force us all into petrol Range Rovers until the bitter end! What they are quietly (ish) pushing is the simple fact that current electric cars are NOT THE ANSWER. The are fine for city dwellers who only ever toodle around town. For the rest of us, they’re a crock of shite. Quite apart from their eco credentials being shaky (depending on how the electricity of a given country is produced, they’re a damaging to the environment as, say, a Fiat Twin Air, for sure), and the as yet unaddressed issue of how to safely dispose of their mucking great batteries once they’re used up, there’s also the issue that they just can’t cover a decent distance. Of course, until Hydrogen production becomes more cost efficient, they remain a viable option for a subset of the market – but they ain’t gonna save the world!
I don’t care. Top Gear is utterly hilarious!
> JimBob Hillbill (if that’s you’re real name). Nope. But I never said this car would suit me, merely that it was perfectly good for the vast majority of real car journeys. (I wouldn’t describe people who need to do a 50 mile round commute as ‘living in a city’ either.)
A 50 mile round commute really isn’t a lot to be honest, Newbridge or Blessington to Dublin city centre for example.Its just not practical for the majority of commuters to own an electric car with this type of range.
Covered this yesterday: http://i.doubt.it/2011/08/07/electric-car-wars/ To my mind it raised some good points, even if it did it in typical Top Gear fashion.
You obviously live in a city.
Top Gear simply made the point that an electric car will not be a viable option for many people until charging points are commonplace.
Yes they made it entertaining (they’d be out of a job if they didn’t) and had to be deliberately stupid to run the car flat in a city with no charging points.
In fairness to Clarkson he did say the Nissan was very good in many respects and was far better value than the Peugeot..
If anybody should be miffed it should be peugeot.
The reality is the tired format of Top Gear is well known,they don’t like Electric Cars,this is known and they exploit those cars weaknesses. To be fair to them,they made several v good points against the electric cars,can’t be topped up(ie,in a petrol car u can put a â
Drink petrol,and run the car on homemade vodka.
top gear this stinks of oil
Does anyone else find it amusing that no one is talking about the more successful of the two cars at all? You’d wonder why? Then again, it was of such little interest to me that I cannot even recall if it was the Mitsubishi, Peugeot or Citroën version they had on test.
May was driving a Peugeot.
In general, for car owners, a car battery is used for 1-2 years if it is well maintenance. However, many people have to replace it just for 3-4 months. This is a trouble for those car owners. In fact, you need to check and maintain the car battery on a regular basis, and then it will let its service lifespan longer. Of course, if you charge it improperly, it will damage the capacity and voltage. More information from Leoch International
http://www.leoch.com
have your say