Media
- Thread starter cosors
- Start date
Wewillseewhatfutureholds
Emerged
cosors
👀
I have no idea how he comes up with it, maybe frustration.
I immediately thought of Phillips66 and Novonix . )
Opened the twitter account of this guy (phillips_013) and it is full of this type of messages especially targeting CXO and LKE. Not worth to be taken seriously.
Semmel
Top 20
Wall street is slowly creeping into the scale of the battery market in the next 10 years as an economic super cycle. This time its in form of a research note published by Morgan Stenley on Tesla. But before you throw your computer out of the window in agony upon hearing this company name, please see paragraph 5 in the reasearch note as it is not specific to Tesla.
I attached the paragraph, source is from here:
The core point is: MS says the world needs 20 to 40 TWh battery manufacturing capacity to move 100% renewable. This would include trucks and home storage and grid storage systems. Benchmark Minerals forcasts a production capacity in Europe of about 800 GWh.
Now this planned annual capacity figure stands at 789.2GWh in 2030, more than a 6-fold increase and enough to produce almost 15 million pure EVs as this global battery arms race takes hold in Europe.
source: https://www.benchmarkminerals.com/m...0-berlin-summit-to-dissect-battery-megatrend/
MS estimates a global demand that is about 30 (!!!!) times as much as Benchmark Minerals manufacturing capacity forecasts for Europe. Assuming that Europe captures 20% of the battery market, that is still 6 times too low of an estimate by 2030. We will continue to see a massive increase in demand for batteries and with it, all its raw materials including graphite. Talga, please get your production going and make plans to scale to to >2 mtpa of Anode by 2030. We need you!
I attached the paragraph, source is from here:
The core point is: MS says the world needs 20 to 40 TWh battery manufacturing capacity to move 100% renewable. This would include trucks and home storage and grid storage systems. Benchmark Minerals forcasts a production capacity in Europe of about 800 GWh.
Now this planned annual capacity figure stands at 789.2GWh in 2030, more than a 6-fold increase and enough to produce almost 15 million pure EVs as this global battery arms race takes hold in Europe.
source: https://www.benchmarkminerals.com/m...0-berlin-summit-to-dissect-battery-megatrend/
MS estimates a global demand that is about 30 (!!!!) times as much as Benchmark Minerals manufacturing capacity forecasts for Europe. Assuming that Europe captures 20% of the battery market, that is still 6 times too low of an estimate by 2030. We will continue to see a massive increase in demand for batteries and with it, all its raw materials including graphite. Talga, please get your production going and make plans to scale to to >2 mtpa of Anode by 2030. We need you!
Attachments
Graphite sector information to build a strong understanding of the commodity, risks, opportunities and sector in general the recently released reports from Credit Suisse is worth a read, as too is the BMO reports released earlier in the year.
Cover pages for each above, with reports attached.
Last edited:
cosors
👀
Thanks Gero and Happy Easter! I will read through it in peace. On the quick, the expected sales growth looks interesting. Not bad for trial permits . ) Greetings and pleasant days!
WheresTheMonkey
Regular
From the Melbourne Age newspaper
An orphaned commodity’: Graphite overlooked in race for EV minerals
By Jackson Graham
April 19, 2022 — 8.30amSave
Share
Normal text sizeLarger text sizeVery large text size
Advertisement
Australian graphite miners seeking to challenge China’s dominance over global supplies of the electric battery raw material could see demand increase up to five-fold by 2050 amid an accelerating switch from petrol to electric vehicles and years of underinvestment in the industry.
Despite graphite making up more of the mass of electric vehicle (EV) batteries than any other mineral, analysts and producers say graphite hasn’t captured investor attention like the booming lithium market where prices jumped nearly 500 per cent last year.
Analysts and producers say graphite hasn’t captured investor attention like the booming lithium market.CREDIT
HOTO: BLOOMBERG“I genuinely think the world got lithium, and the next thing that’s going to come will be the conversation around ‘we forgot about graphite’,” Black Rock Mining chief executive John de Vries said.
The challenges that have held up companies seeking to develop new graphite mines have included longer project lead times than lithium, lengthy processes where companies adjust the product to suit battery makers, and opaque pricing structures in the China-dominated supply chain.
Credit Suisse research analyst Phineas Glover forecasts a supply crunch as EV production ramps up, forcing a supply deficit of 32 per cent by 2025 and demand to grow five-fold by 2050.
“It looks a lot more like lithium three to five years ago,” Glover said.
“In five years’ time, suddenly graphite pricing will have gone up in my view quite significantly, and it will bring a huge incentive to bring all these projects on board.”
A handful of ASX-listed companies are challenging China’s command over graphite supply and processing but some early supporters saw their investments flail in the past decade as enthusiasm about EVs failed to drive new sales as quickly as many had projected.
However, with EV uptake roaring back, the companies are focused on supplying and processing natural graphite, which has a lower cost and lesser carbon footprint than synthetic graphite.
Advertisement
Syrah Resources, the biggest ASX-listed natural graphite supplier, has a Mozambique mine built on the projected growth of EVs and a battery material site in the US set to be the first major integrated operation outside of China.
“The demand growth is such that complementary sources of supply to China will be required globally,” business development general manager Viren Hira said.
The company signed an offtake agreement with Tesla last year and is working on a timeframe to start supplying the market as Syrah plans to start production at its Louisiana site in the second half of 2023.
Hira said unlike lithium, graphite was yet to benefit from a heightened price environment and underinvestment slowed progress. “Graphite is a bit of an orphaned commodity. And that might be because the market structure and conditions have resulted in challenges securing financing,” he said. “It’s equally important to a battery as lithium, if not more.”
South Korean company POSCO spent $US7.5 million on a 15 per cent stake in Black Rock Mining last year, with the Australian miner preparing to supply graphite from its Tanzania operations.
RELATED ARTICLE
Lithium
Carmakers pressure supply chains for cleaner lithium
De Vries said the company planned to have mining and processing commencing in late 2023 and it could be the first project supported with international bank debt.“It’s all been equity financed … the banks won’t stand there because the structure of the industry still has 100 per cent of the processing for anode going through China,” de Vries said.
“We need an influx of bank debt. We need an influx of equity here if we’re actually going to make this stuff available.”
Morgans analyst Max Vickerson said graphite was a “developing story” that markets remained cautious about after investors were disappointed when shares in some companies fell between 2016 and 2020. “There were people who got burnt last time around,” Vickerson said.
“At the moment the market is probably a little more balanced, it might just be that companies pulled the trigger on graphite projects too early.”
Wewillseewhatfutureholds
Emerged
Anyone got access to this news seems like Big news https://thewest.com.au/business/ene...ansition-with-green-battery-anodes--c-6425574
Attachments
Wewillseewhatfutureholds
Emerged
Mark looks very happy in the picture I'm thinking fast track means one of two things upscaling the out put of and or earlier than 2024 or both or permits!!!!!!!
Wewillseewhatfutureholds
Emerged
Damn still good for news of any sort but the article I posted headlined accelerate. My bad... Over eager once again. Still is this the start of momentum in the spotlight of graphite plays. More exposure to a giant company is the way forward
Hi Gero
Thanks for sharing. Unfortunately, I can’t read it due to the Paywall. Any chance you can screen shot the content and repost.
I do get the sense that Talga are starting to ramp up the marketing side of the business and as Mark has consistently been communicating, there will be a shortage of battery quality graphite suitable for anodes. The recent commentary from Benchmark, Credit Suisse and the US Gov’t grant to Syrah all beginning to awake the masses that have solely focussed on Lithium.
Would love to see Mark’s travel diary. After presenting at the conference in the US, has he gone straight onto Europe or has he visited Japan to see our friends at Mitsui & Dr Claudio? We know he will be in Sweden May for another conference. I would hazard a guess that he may be basing himself out of Europe (UK/Germany/Sweden) for next few months as we get to the pointy end of securing permits, finalising offtake deals & accessing EU green funds.
Seeing RNU get a substantial grant from the Aust Gov’t, Syrah get one from the US Gov’t, I’d suspect Talga is in poll position to secure EU funds towards the capex of bringing online Europe’s first and greenest EV anode plant. How much is more likely the question and will reduce the potential amount of equity we need to give to Mitsui and or raise from shareholders. Mark has consistently minimised dilution by prudently running the business for the past 10 year and i bet he is working out the best possible deal to secure such finance & also only sign binding offtake deals that ensure we shareholders benefit from the upside to come in graphite/anode prices unlike Syrah did with Tesla.
Look forward to the upcoming quarterly report, but suspect most of the action is going to happen in Q2/Q3 this year.
Shared from the 4/20/2022 The West Australian eEdition
CHEYANNE ENCISO
A Perth-based green tech company is aiming to help shift the world to a more sustainable future by developing the “cleanest” battery anodes.
Talga Group — which was founded in 2009 and listed on the ASX the following year — develops graphite-based battery anode products, technology and advanced materials.
Green anodes, being one half of the active materials in a lithium-ion battery, can reduce the CO2 emissions associated with the production of electric vehicles, energy storage systems and consumer electronics.
The company recently commissioned its first electric vehicle anode qualification plant in Lulea in northern Sweden, which will produce materials suitable for prospective consumers.
Understood to be Europe’s first lithium-ion battery anode plant, it will produce large-scale commercial samples of Talga’s coated active anode material for battery customer qualification.
Talga managing director Mark Thompson said Sweden was chosen for its high-grade and “super conductive” ore.
“I went and sampled places all over the world and reviewed everything, looked at different deposits and decided north Sweden had this combination that was spectacular,” he said.
Mr Thompson, pictured, said there was a gap in the market where cleaner production of battery anodes was needed.
“Most graphite production was centred out of Asia and it had really dirty supply chains, both from an energy point of view and environmental point of view,” he said.
“It was also a fairly old industry and it hadn’t seen innovation, so there was opportunity to bring in modern processing techniques.
“Thirdly, there was a need to have a non-Asian source — Sweden fitted that bill, it had the right rock, has the right power supply and has the right location.”
Mr Thompson said Talga’s fully vertical integrated model makes the company distinctive.
“We’re one of the very few in the world that are vertically integrated that can make the anode material from our own mines,” he said.
Talga leads sustainable future transition with battery anodes
CHEYANNE ENCISO
A Perth-based green tech company is aiming to help shift the world to a more sustainable future by developing the “cleanest” battery anodes.
Talga Group — which was founded in 2009 and listed on the ASX the following year — develops graphite-based battery anode products, technology and advanced materials.
Green anodes, being one half of the active materials in a lithium-ion battery, can reduce the CO2 emissions associated with the production of electric vehicles, energy storage systems and consumer electronics.
The company recently commissioned its first electric vehicle anode qualification plant in Lulea in northern Sweden, which will produce materials suitable for prospective consumers.
Understood to be Europe’s first lithium-ion battery anode plant, it will produce large-scale commercial samples of Talga’s coated active anode material for battery customer qualification.
Talga managing director Mark Thompson said Sweden was chosen for its high-grade and “super conductive” ore.
“I went and sampled places all over the world and reviewed everything, looked at different deposits and decided north Sweden had this combination that was spectacular,” he said.
Mr Thompson, pictured, said there was a gap in the market where cleaner production of battery anodes was needed.
“Most graphite production was centred out of Asia and it had really dirty supply chains, both from an energy point of view and environmental point of view,” he said.
“It was also a fairly old industry and it hadn’t seen innovation, so there was opportunity to bring in modern processing techniques.
“Thirdly, there was a need to have a non-Asian source — Sweden fitted that bill, it had the right rock, has the right power supply and has the right location.”
Mr Thompson said Talga’s fully vertical integrated model makes the company distinctive.
“We’re one of the very few in the world that are vertically integrated that can make the anode material from our own mines,” he said.
cosors
👀
This article was published in the Chinese mining journal but the author is Australian. It is about the sustainability label. We are also mentioned. But it also uses the outdated World Bank figure based on an assumption from 10 to twenty years ago.
Does anyone know if our group was right in its demand or was the delay implemented after all?
Did they just buy out the magazine?
____________________________________________
added:
Finally I found something that explains where we stand with the EU battery regulation. I find the explanation very good and neutral. Now I also understand the other side better. So it has not yet been finally decided.
"Possible effects of the upcoming EU battery regulation
Last summer, the journal Science published an article on the Battery Directive by battery analyst Hans-Eric Melin and others. The article contains an analysis of the Commission's proposal [5]. The authors discuss the possible effects on industry players and products. Their reasoning is summarised below.
More expensive batteries could slow down electrification
They believe that the directive is very ambitious and has good aims. "The directive is certainly needed and will have a global impact, but possibly with some unwanted side effects." is their assessment. One concern is that the cost of battery production risks increasing. Higher battery prices could slow down electrification. A possible effect of the directive could thus paradoxically be a slower phase-out of fossil fuels.
The proposed EU sustainability requirements for batteries are much more ambitious than the corresponding requirements for vehicles and internal combustion engines. While stricter requirements on exhaust emissions are being investigated in the EU, the products themselves will not have to be developed with the same environmental and circularity requirements. This puts electric vehicles at a disadvantage.
European manufacturers may be disadvantaged
However, the authors' main concerns relate to market players. They fear that battery manufacturers supplying mainly the European market will be more restricted than those in the US, where requirements are lower. This will give a competitive advantage to players in the US market. They can choose from a wider range of possible suppliers and products, and they can offer lower prices than players that are large in Europe.
In contrast, the battery markets in China and South Korea are already regulated in a way that is somewhat similar to the forthcoming European regulatory framework. The Asian market for lithium-ion batteries is much larger than the European one. This favours Chinese and Korean operators as they already have good access to recycling markets and an established management of such supply chains. Here, EU requirements could potentially create higher thresholds for European battery manufacturers. These companies are less well equipped than Asian competitors to meet the new requirements.
Similarly, the authors see a risk that far-reaching requirements favour large players, particularly those already established. New entrants and small innovative companies may find it more difficult to enter the market.
Detailed requirements may hamper technology development
A detailed regulatory framework can be conservative. Detailed requirements risk not being sufficiently adaptive as markets change. Recycled material requirements may slow down new technologies. There is also a risk that manufacturers will look to unregulated materials to reduce costs. All this suggests that the rules need to be reviewed and adjusted.
But at the same time, the proposed regulation is one of the most advanced environmental standards in the world. It could serve as a model for regulating other industries, the authors conclude.
European Parliament wants to tighten requirements
When the European Parliament's Environment Committee presented its report in February this year, it wanted to significantly tighten requirements in several areas [3].
Some of the Committee's proposals:
- Include battery requirements in light transport vehicles (electric park bikes, mopeds etc).
- Requiring carbon footprint declaration from 2025 instead of 2026 and bringing forward the carbon emission thresholds by six months from July to January 2027.
- Minimum requirements for recycled content of cobalt, lead, lithium and nickel in 2028 instead of 2030, and increased requirements in 2033 instead of 2035.
- Increased recycling requirements for nickel-cadmium batteries.
- Recycling requirements for more battery types by 2030.
- Increased requirements in 2026 for the percentage of cobalt and copper recycled from 90% to 95% and for lithium from 35% to 70%. Increased requirements from 2030 for cobalt and copper from 95 to 98%, for lithium from 70 to 90% and for nickel from 95 to 98%.
- New rule to adjust the directive when new battery technologies change the conditions for which materials can be recycled.
Additional wording on due diligence.
Saft and Umicore hesitant about tightening
A recent webinar discussed the possible effects of the directive. It can be viewed in retrospect [6]. Here are some comments from the seminar.
Battery manufacturer Saft says it broadly appreciates the Commission's proposal. It is considered to be balanced. However, the Parliament's proposal with new requirements needs further analysis. According to Saft, it has not been preceded by the same investigations and scientific studies. They also pointed out that the new rules will be much more onerous to comply with. The current requirements from 2006 are a 14-page document. The new one is 130 pages with some 30 annexes and addenda. There are many details that can complicate.
Recycling company Umicore expressed much the same view. The Commission's proposal contains "balanced" objectives. Like Saft, Umicore believes that the proposed tightening needs to be analysed further. At the same time, it believes that the requirements for recycled lithium are achievable provided that recycling capacity is expanded in Europe.
Instead, the environmental organisation Transport & Environment highlighted that the requirements for maximum emissions targets from battery production will benefit European industry as EU electricity is less carbon intensive than Asian electricity. The association supports the Parliament's proposal for stricter recycling levels. In a world where battery production is increasing rapidly, we cannot afford to do without very high levels of recycling, is their reasoning. It would drive up prices and ultimately disadvantage both manufacturers and buyers.
ACEA warns of tightening
The European Automobile Manufacturers Association, ACEA, expressed a similar view to Saft and Umicore on the process in December 2021 [7]. The Commission's proposals are good, but a faster introduction and higher recycling targets are not compatible with the development of battery technologies and market conditions. The requirements need to be analysed in more detail and otherwise risk putting European industry at a disadvantage. In the document, the organisation gives some examples of how they think the Commission's proposal should be handled.
On the contrary, Northvolt and others want to speed up the introduction of
But not all industry representatives want to rush things. In a letter to EU environment ministers in December 2021, Northvolt and seven other companies (Automotive Cells, EIT Innoenergy, Eramet, Verkor, Talga, Vulkan Energy and Skeleton Technologies) advise European member states against delaying the introduction of the Battery Directive [8]. They believe that a delay would disadvantage the European battery industry. These companies believe that European companies would gain a competitive advantage from high environmental standards, and that faster implementation would give Europe's battery industry a boost.
Own comment
In many respects, this is a traditional tug-of-war between actors and interests. The arguments and issues are familiar from other environmental issues. But there are new elements. The battery regulation can be seen as an expression of the legislator's broadening view of environmental and health issues. Traditionally, the content of products, the working environment during production and emissions from factories are regulated. Here, the law also addresses manufacturing in third countries, includes social responsibility in the supply chain and has a greater focus on circularity. Perhaps similar laws will come in other areas.
The Science article shows some dilemmas with policy decisions. Strict sustainability requirements may disadvantage some established industries or domestic companies. The future winners are not always easy to identify. Respectfully, such decisions can be difficult. However, the authors' conclusion that electrification may be slowed by increased battery costs is not a foregone conclusion in the short term. At present, the main driver is regulatory requirements for lower CO2 emissions. These requirements will have to be met even if battery costs do not fall as fast as in the past. In the longer term, when electrification is commercially driven and the importance of the emission constraint is reduced, cost may play a more important role.
It now remains to be seen how the Council of Europe will handle the final directive. It is not unusual for environmental ambitions to be higher in the Parliament than in the Council. But the Council's environment committee expressed its support. We will come back to this issue."
https://omev.se/2022/04/20/tankbara-effekter-av-eus-kommande-batteriforordning/
Does anyone know if our group was right in its demand or was the delay implemented after all?
EU’s Clean Battery Deadline is Looming for Battery Metals Developers
Did they just buy out the magazine?
____________________________________________
added:
Finally I found something that explains where we stand with the EU battery regulation. I find the explanation very good and neutral. Now I also understand the other side better. So it has not yet been finally decided.
"Possible effects of the upcoming EU battery regulation
Mats-Ola Larsson 2022-04-20
In our newsletter of 18 March, we described the EU's process to develop a directive on sustainability requirements for batteries [1]. The European Commission's proposal was made in December 2020 [2]. The Parliament's Environment Committee tabled a proposal for tightening [3] in February and the Council of Europe's environment ministers expressed their support for the process in March [4]. In this newsletter, we take a closer look at possible impacts and some stakeholders' views on the proposed requirements.Last summer, the journal Science published an article on the Battery Directive by battery analyst Hans-Eric Melin and others. The article contains an analysis of the Commission's proposal [5]. The authors discuss the possible effects on industry players and products. Their reasoning is summarised below.
More expensive batteries could slow down electrification
They believe that the directive is very ambitious and has good aims. "The directive is certainly needed and will have a global impact, but possibly with some unwanted side effects." is their assessment. One concern is that the cost of battery production risks increasing. Higher battery prices could slow down electrification. A possible effect of the directive could thus paradoxically be a slower phase-out of fossil fuels.
The proposed EU sustainability requirements for batteries are much more ambitious than the corresponding requirements for vehicles and internal combustion engines. While stricter requirements on exhaust emissions are being investigated in the EU, the products themselves will not have to be developed with the same environmental and circularity requirements. This puts electric vehicles at a disadvantage.
European manufacturers may be disadvantaged
However, the authors' main concerns relate to market players. They fear that battery manufacturers supplying mainly the European market will be more restricted than those in the US, where requirements are lower. This will give a competitive advantage to players in the US market. They can choose from a wider range of possible suppliers and products, and they can offer lower prices than players that are large in Europe.
In contrast, the battery markets in China and South Korea are already regulated in a way that is somewhat similar to the forthcoming European regulatory framework. The Asian market for lithium-ion batteries is much larger than the European one. This favours Chinese and Korean operators as they already have good access to recycling markets and an established management of such supply chains. Here, EU requirements could potentially create higher thresholds for European battery manufacturers. These companies are less well equipped than Asian competitors to meet the new requirements.
Similarly, the authors see a risk that far-reaching requirements favour large players, particularly those already established. New entrants and small innovative companies may find it more difficult to enter the market.
Detailed requirements may hamper technology development
A detailed regulatory framework can be conservative. Detailed requirements risk not being sufficiently adaptive as markets change. Recycled material requirements may slow down new technologies. There is also a risk that manufacturers will look to unregulated materials to reduce costs. All this suggests that the rules need to be reviewed and adjusted.
But at the same time, the proposed regulation is one of the most advanced environmental standards in the world. It could serve as a model for regulating other industries, the authors conclude.
European Parliament wants to tighten requirements
When the European Parliament's Environment Committee presented its report in February this year, it wanted to significantly tighten requirements in several areas [3].
Some of the Committee's proposals:
- Include battery requirements in light transport vehicles (electric park bikes, mopeds etc).
- Requiring carbon footprint declaration from 2025 instead of 2026 and bringing forward the carbon emission thresholds by six months from July to January 2027.
- Minimum requirements for recycled content of cobalt, lead, lithium and nickel in 2028 instead of 2030, and increased requirements in 2033 instead of 2035.
- Increased recycling requirements for nickel-cadmium batteries.
- Recycling requirements for more battery types by 2030.
- Increased requirements in 2026 for the percentage of cobalt and copper recycled from 90% to 95% and for lithium from 35% to 70%. Increased requirements from 2030 for cobalt and copper from 95 to 98%, for lithium from 70 to 90% and for nickel from 95 to 98%.
- New rule to adjust the directive when new battery technologies change the conditions for which materials can be recycled.
Additional wording on due diligence.
Saft and Umicore hesitant about tightening
A recent webinar discussed the possible effects of the directive. It can be viewed in retrospect [6]. Here are some comments from the seminar.
Battery manufacturer Saft says it broadly appreciates the Commission's proposal. It is considered to be balanced. However, the Parliament's proposal with new requirements needs further analysis. According to Saft, it has not been preceded by the same investigations and scientific studies. They also pointed out that the new rules will be much more onerous to comply with. The current requirements from 2006 are a 14-page document. The new one is 130 pages with some 30 annexes and addenda. There are many details that can complicate.
Recycling company Umicore expressed much the same view. The Commission's proposal contains "balanced" objectives. Like Saft, Umicore believes that the proposed tightening needs to be analysed further. At the same time, it believes that the requirements for recycled lithium are achievable provided that recycling capacity is expanded in Europe.
Instead, the environmental organisation Transport & Environment highlighted that the requirements for maximum emissions targets from battery production will benefit European industry as EU electricity is less carbon intensive than Asian electricity. The association supports the Parliament's proposal for stricter recycling levels. In a world where battery production is increasing rapidly, we cannot afford to do without very high levels of recycling, is their reasoning. It would drive up prices and ultimately disadvantage both manufacturers and buyers.
ACEA warns of tightening
The European Automobile Manufacturers Association, ACEA, expressed a similar view to Saft and Umicore on the process in December 2021 [7]. The Commission's proposals are good, but a faster introduction and higher recycling targets are not compatible with the development of battery technologies and market conditions. The requirements need to be analysed in more detail and otherwise risk putting European industry at a disadvantage. In the document, the organisation gives some examples of how they think the Commission's proposal should be handled.
On the contrary, Northvolt and others want to speed up the introduction of
But not all industry representatives want to rush things. In a letter to EU environment ministers in December 2021, Northvolt and seven other companies (Automotive Cells, EIT Innoenergy, Eramet, Verkor, Talga, Vulkan Energy and Skeleton Technologies) advise European member states against delaying the introduction of the Battery Directive [8]. They believe that a delay would disadvantage the European battery industry. These companies believe that European companies would gain a competitive advantage from high environmental standards, and that faster implementation would give Europe's battery industry a boost.
Own comment
In many respects, this is a traditional tug-of-war between actors and interests. The arguments and issues are familiar from other environmental issues. But there are new elements. The battery regulation can be seen as an expression of the legislator's broadening view of environmental and health issues. Traditionally, the content of products, the working environment during production and emissions from factories are regulated. Here, the law also addresses manufacturing in third countries, includes social responsibility in the supply chain and has a greater focus on circularity. Perhaps similar laws will come in other areas.
The Science article shows some dilemmas with policy decisions. Strict sustainability requirements may disadvantage some established industries or domestic companies. The future winners are not always easy to identify. Respectfully, such decisions can be difficult. However, the authors' conclusion that electrification may be slowed by increased battery costs is not a foregone conclusion in the short term. At present, the main driver is regulatory requirements for lower CO2 emissions. These requirements will have to be met even if battery costs do not fall as fast as in the past. In the longer term, when electrification is commercially driven and the importance of the emission constraint is reduced, cost may play a more important role.
It now remains to be seen how the Council of Europe will handle the final directive. It is not unusual for environmental ambitions to be higher in the Parliament than in the Council. But the Council's environment committee expressed its support. We will come back to this issue."
https://omev.se/2022/04/20/tankbara-effekter-av-eus-kommande-batteriforordning/
Last edited:
cosors
👀
Now I know which picture you mean .)
These should be the first photos from the new headquarter?!