Yves here. Hopefully it will not be hard for readers to correct for the commodities-oriented slant of this piece. However, it weirdly skips over the elephant in the room, that a big reason for the stall of electric vehicle uptake is cost. Or more accurately, that the cost issue results from the US refusal to allow China to sell electric vehicles at the low prices at which they are marketed elsewhere. Of course, that’s not the only impediment. Grid capacity, still not enough charging stations, and some buyers leaning more towards hybrids (which are still an improvement over conventional cars) also factor into slowing uptake.
The US coming up with security pretexts to further check Chinese car sales, here of self-driving cars, is cheeky but hardly surprising. One can see the US extending the information/communication restrictions on software to further limit market access and/or product competitiveness. Yours truly is too much of an optimist, but what if China were to respond by ginning up a no spyware vehicle and hawking it as cheap and secure?
By MetalMiner, the largest metals-related media site in the US. Originally published at OilPrice
- Contrary to expectations, the electric vehicle revolution has not significantly boosted overall metal demand, with prices for key metals like lithium, cobalt, and nickel remaining lower than anticipated.
- Several factors, including high EV costs, limited charging infrastructure, and range anxiety, have contributed to slower-than-expected EV adoption rates.
- The sluggish EV growth has broader implications for the metal industry, climate goals, and even national security, as the US considers banning Chinese software in autonomous vehicles due to cybersecurity concerns.
The Automotive MMI (Monthly Metals Index) maintained a steady sideways trend month-over-month, only moving down 2.53%. Overall steel demand remains tepid, which left little bullish sentiment for hot-dipped galvanized steel. Meanwhile, other metals prices, including copper, dropped after their speculative rallies cooled off in July. Overall, the components of the automotive index had little to show in terms of bullish price action, leaving metals prices fairly level.
The automotive market has only managed to add a little support to most metals, with demand as a whole remaining quite weak. As EV continues to fail to meet estimates, metals like copper and rare earth elements can not get the boost they need.
Metals Prices Lower than Expected Amid Weakening EV Demand
In recent years, experts projected that the “electric vehicle revolution” would increase both metal demand and metal prices, especially when it comes to rare earth elements and crucial raw materials like lithium, cobalt, and nickel. However, the U.S. metal markets continue to suffer from lower-than-expected EV demand.
Several variables prevented the expected boom in EV adoption from happening at the predicted rate. The high cost of EVs continues to hinder the market’s growth, as does the lack of a widespread infrastructure for charging them and persistent consumer anxiety regarding range. All in all, consumer acceptance of electric vehicles has not kept up with the output of automakers like Tesla, Ford and General Motors.
Metals markets are more severely affected by slowdowns in EV demand than other markets. EV batteries require large amounts of lithium, cobalt and nickel. However, global demand for these essential raw resources continues to decrease due to EV production rates failing to meet projections. In the cases of cobalt and lithium, this continues to stoke an excess supply, causing prices to stagnate and hindering investment in new mining operations.
Slower EV Growth Could Hinder Climate Targets and Metals Prices
The ramifications of lackluster EV growth go far beyond these metal components. For instance, the decline in demand also continues to negatively impact the manufacturing and processing sectors of the metal industry. For example, manufacturers of EV infrastructure and battery parts are also seeing slower growth, which affects the labor market and economic activity in areas dependent on these businesses.
Another issue revolves around delays in the expected environmental benefits of mainstream EV adoption. The fact that there are fewer EVs on the road than anticipated means greenhouse gas emission reduction efforts are falling short of targets, which puts larger climate goals at risk.
The U.S.’s weakening demand for electric vehicles is a reminder of the challenges that come with adopting new technologies. While the electric vehicle revolution is still in its early stages, its trajectory is proving to be not quite as straight as predicted. This fact has important ramifications for the metal markets, which were counting on a strong increase in demand for EVs. Going forward, stakeholders will need to recalibrate expectations and plans as they traverse this changing terrain. This will help ensure that both are in line with real market dynamics.
Will U.S. Vehicles Restrict Chinese-Made Software?
The U.S. is considering banning certain types of Chinese-made software in autonomous vehicles. This decision, driven by mounting security concerns, could reshape the landscape of the automotive and technology sectors.
In the past few years, concerns over national security and data security have become more and more prevalent. Since most autonomous cars rely on intricate software systems to operate, they are vulnerable to hacks from various bad actors.
Meanwhile, the use of Chinese software presents an even larger concern because these cars gather a lot of data, which could potentially include personal and location information. Authorities worry that foreign entities may access and utilize this data, jeopardizing user privacy and national security.
The possibility of cyberattacks and security breaches remains the primary source of anxiety. There is also the issue that Chinese software companies may be required to give the government sensitive data due to Chinese government laws. Autonomous vehicles pose a significant concern as they are not just a transportation innovation but also an essential part of the infrastructure.
Removing the possibility that Chinese software could obtain confidential information would enhance both national security and vital infrastructure. It would also emphasize the significance of protecting digital systems against external attacks and set a precedent for other high-tech enterprises.
Strengthen Cybersecurity Amid Potential Chinese Software Crackdown
Prohibiting certain types of Chinese software could also promote economic growth, as it would incentivize U.S. businesses to create their own software solutions for driverless vehicles, resulting in a rise in R&D spending. This might lead to a more competitive tech sector where American companies would lead the way in developing cutting-edge technologies.
Additionally, the ban could fortify ties with other nations that have similar reservations about Chinese technology. In such an event, the U.S. and its partners could unite against possible cyber threats by exchanging in best practices and working together on security measures. Beyond the auto industry, this collaboration may impact more general defense and technological plans.
46 comments
Comments are closed.
Blocking Chinese spyware only forces American spyware.
Huh? One, cars are already full of spyware.
Two, I suggest selling a cheap low electronics car, like one only with enough to do diagnostics and things like low-tech cruise control and automatic windows. The entertainment center would just be a speaker dock for the driver to provide his own electronic music device and maybe also have a nice display for the driver’s GPS on his phone.
That’s exactly the car I want! Decent battery, electric motor and all the usual safety items, but cut out all the software ‘farts’ and light shows.
We were all sold by the “environmentalists ” that 45Kw electric motors in economy vehicles would save the planet. What we got (from the idiots running the governments and auto companies in the nations selling this BS) was $60k 115+Kw monster vehicles that take insane times and power sources to charge (making them very uneconomical for an average driver) with $20k of insanely ridiculous computers doing everything including trying to drive for you! Like this is all insanely stupid. Am i making a point? I am using “insanity” here because there seems to be some kind of mass insanity to this whole charade.
From about 2010 I saw the Chevy Volt as a possible hybrid solution. It strongly used an electric motor, a smaller one, rather than a “150+Kw monster”, as it only was designed to run about 50 miles on a charge. Then it, pretty seamlessly from reports, switched to a gasoline motor. It thereby eliminated “range anxiety”, that big electric car bugaboo. With the real-life car usage being that few cars are even driven 50 miles most days, it was effectively an electric car the large majority of the time. By measure of the mileage on the gas engine, overall with the model’s usage, it got some kind of pretty insane mileage of between 100 and 200 MPG. I don’t know just what, but something very high.
Unfortunately, GM, being GM, was unable to make it seem much “cooler” than an ancient Soviet model car. I mean, it had the tres-dorky name, “Volt”, for heaven’s sake! It never really took off and was discontinued after several years.
I can’t understand why it’s hybrid model, a “series-hybrid”, or something, hasn’t really been adopted. I’ve heard of a couple. I don’t think they’re particularly popular.
Lots to unpack here.
First off, there is no evidence of a worldwide drop in demand for EV’s (the US is a special case due to intense marketing/misinformation by established auto brands). There is an issue – and its with supply. In Europe in particular, there are issues with the supply chains for the most popular brands, most notably VW. There is also consumer reluctance to go for the new Chinese brands, especially as there are many rumours (justified or not) of poor quality. There have been many stories in the motor press of cars (specifically BYD’s) being stacked up in European ports due to very poor overall domestic demand for all cars in China. But they have not been discounting the cars, probably because they know that too much discounting will destroy their profit margin. A lot of consumers are probably also waiting for some much hyped new EV’s from established brands, such as Dacia. So there is definitely a 2024 ‘issue’ with EV’s, but its almost entirely on the supply side, not demand side.
The IEA give probably the most accurate ‘big picture’ assessment of supply and demand, but they haven’t updated their figures since the first quarter, so its impossible to know for sure. But the available evidence does not provide any indications yet of a specific demand issue for EV’s.
As for commodities. The issue with lithium is well known. There is a supply glut, mostly due to artisanal mining in Africa.
From Reuters:
As for cobalt and nickel – there have likewise been very big increases in supply, but the big issue is most likely that they aren’t being used so much now for EV batteries. Most of the major battery manufacturers are focusing on lithium-iron-phosphate batteries for EV’s and fixed storage. As so often with commodities, there are constant shortages and gluts due to suppliers having to make longer time scale predictions than purchasers. Changes in battery technology have left those who invested in cobalt and nickel high and dry. It could well be that a renewed interest in sodium could do the same for lithium.
Second that. Speculation on commodities is fiendishly difficult and a risky endeavour even for professionals. There are so many potential rivals for Li ion batteries and respective recycling technologies in various stages of development that it’s difficult to predict prices, to say the least. Long term there should definitely an upward trend but just how much is anyones guess. From my time in commodities I can tell that there’s almost no way to beat the professionals on their game and I would put this close to currency speculation in terms of risk.
Further to your point on LifePO4 batteries, the chemistry itself is not only cheaper than the nickel and cobalt chemistries now, but much less explodey as well. Another good battery abuse video here with various lithium chemistries compared.
LifePO4 is far more tolerant of abuse generally (ie more charge/discharge cycles, not being damaged by deep discharges, more tolerant of accidental overcharging). They have been gaining traction with mom-and-pop solar installations for the pricing (cheaper than lead acid nowadays!) and good safety. The downsides are that LifePO4 chemistries offer less total energy density than the nickel and cobalt chemistries and they aren’t tolerant of charging below 0 Celsius. Winterized batteries need to include some kind of cell heating to keep them happy.
This is not directed at you, PlutoniumKun, but is just an overall comment on the Orwellian term Artisanal Mining, which is now in such widespread use that it has its own acronym.
While attempting to hold back the tide of language use (even when politically or class-charged) may be futile, this term has more than a little greenwashing and deception built into it, suggesting craft workers humming about their ateliers, instead of the reality of young men and children being used up, when not injured and dying, in toxic pits.
Black Market Mining… Wildcat Mining… Subsistance Mining… Low Capital Mining… anything but this insidious euphemism that masks what our “civilized” comforts and conveniences are based upon.
Thank you
In South Africa we just call them ZamaZamas.
They’re technically illegal miners, but they’re protected by the big mining companies which take the crudely refined minerals they produce at huge cost to life and limb and sell them at whacking markups, and so our captured government refers to this as “artisanal miners” unless they are not working adequately under big mining companies, in which case the government sends the army in.
I don’t remember Mandela and Tambo promising us this, but perhaps I slept through some of their speeches.
Yes, in the EU EV car sales are all up, varying degrees but amongst bigger economies between 12 to 16% That’s for 2023.
Whilst there is a growing recognition that Electric is not ‘the answer’ as far as energy expenditure is concerned they are still a lot cleaner so it makes sense to buy if you live urban and want cleaner air for your kids to breathe. (forcing all that pollution out into the country where the fossil fuel burning power stations are!)
Maybe EU wide, but apparently not in Germany:
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Germanys-EV-Sales-Sink-37-as-Subsidies-End.html
And yearly EV sales growth rates are declining, which suggests that previous fast growth rates were driven by government $ incentives, and non-incentivized EV market demand may be approaching saturation, that is to say, nearly everyone who wants an EV probably already has one:
https://www.abiresearch.com/blogs/2024/04/11/global-ev-market-analysis-2024-trends-and-forecasts/
Even Norway, which has the highest rate of EV adoption, may be close to peak adoption. This VOX article supports your second point that EVs are not ‘the answer’, especially due to adverse impacts on transit, and how EVs have “entrenched car dependence” [VOX]:
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23939076/norway-electric-vehicle-cars-evs-tesla-oslo
I do think the USA has a problem, in that the distances driven are higher than other countries. So buyers want an EV that has a big range and that just means larger batteries (at current tech).
Chinese EV sales are growing at over 30% per year, and close to two thirds of all EV sales globally happen in China. In July, EV sales (BEVs and PHEVs) were 51% of all light vehicle sales in China. Yes, sales in the US and Europe may be moribund (although Europe will get an uptick with the new EU regulations in 2025), but global sales are not. The writer of this article needs to get out more.
The real reason for the lack of impact on metals prices is that there is both a lagged increase in supply (it takes time to boost output/startup a new mine) that is now hitting the market, and the battery makers have got more and more efficient at using the source materials and in using new materials. At the low end, battery makers are using Sodium Ion batteries (e.g. the BYD Seagull). In China, battery prices are falling while demand is increasing – a classic case of increased manufacturing efficiency and materials science sidestepping shortages.
It is amazing how so many commentators seem to be blind to the elephant in the room, the Chinese market and the expansion of Chinese EV makers across Asia, Latin America, Russia and the MENA. That’s the real story, while the US and Europe become EV backwaters if they are not careful.
Part of the reason for EV uptake in China is the difficulty and considerable expense of getting a license plate for an ICE vehicle. EVs don’t have to go through the auction process.
France just increased the eco tax on new vehicles to astronomical proportions. To replace my 2013 diesel 4×4 (need it out in the muddy countryside) with a new one would incur a €60,000.00 tax. Anything over 194g/km CO2 gets hit with this insane tax. Obviously looking at keeping my current vehicle for much longer than I thought I would. And it will pollute more than the new model so what’s the gain? I’d buy an EV but there’s really nothing in a 4×4 under 70k!
‘while the US and Europe become EV backwaters if they are not careful.’
Maybe not just with EV technology. I am seeing the makings of a ‘not invented here’ campaign as in the US and EU restricting technology that is not native to them. Regardless, I found the following section very meaty-
‘In the past few years, concerns over national security and data security have become more and more prevalent. Since most autonomous cars rely on intricate software systems to operate, they are vulnerable to hacks from various bad actors.’
What they actually mean is that the US security services want direct access to that data themselves for the purposes of spying such as listening to the voices in those cars, seeing were they go and if necessary immobilizing them. If they are running foreign software then they can’t very well do that.
Exactly, that’s why they hate Huawei network routers. US routers are available spies on every network they are attached to.
Well said Roger.
Here is video explaining how Chinese car companies are going to get around sanctions.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4D21v7uUxAw
“Chinese EV sales are growing at over 30% per year, and close to two thirds of all EV sales globally happen in China. In July, EV sales (BEVs and PHEVs) were 51% of all light vehicle sales in China. Yes, sales in the US and Europe may be moribund (although Europe will get an uptick with the new EU regulations in 2025), but global sales are not…”
https://english.news.cn/20240714/789737f84c704215b86128fd943962b0/c.html
July 14, 2024
Chinese electric vehicles transforming livelihoods of Kenyan taxi drivers
Kenya is encouraging the taxi industry to switch to electric vehicles because the move will help reduce carbon emissions from the transportation sector, which translates into more revenue for taxi drivers…
Roger Boyd:… the US and Europe become EV backwaters if they are not careful.
Become?
“range anxiety”
Can I vent about how much I detest this phrase? It takes it for granted that we have some kind of mental issue rather than simply being aware of the plain fact that there are not enough charging stations and they take too long to charge. I don’t have “anxiety” I am just aware that your product does not fit my requirements.
Everything is some kind of mental issue nowdays, except stuff given letters by the alphabet people.
I dunno, I’ve had the equivalent feeling in ICE cars and the feeling when you’re driving and you think you might run out of juice is definitely one of anxiety.
“Yours truly is too much of an optimist, but what if China were to respond by ginning up a no spyware vehicle and hawking it as cheap and secure?”
It seems like a cost saving step as well for the manufacturer.
And it’s also an environmentally friendly step with fewer parts contributing to the manufacture of things.such as requiring energy hog data centers, fresh water use (manufacture of all those chips), and the associated additional moning for resources.
Then it might be worthy of the name EV revolution. Until then, I just consider it part of the Surveillance and Rentier Revolutions and nothing at all to be excited about.
The American car manufacturers refuse to produce a low cost car without all the bells and whistles because that is how they increase their margins. I wish I could buy a car with no Bluetooth, manual windows and locks, no backup camera, manual seat movement, etc. You can’t. In fact, you even have to pay a premium for manual transmissions these days.
I don’t care about “localized” automated features as much.
All that sending info to servers automation is much of what I’m referring to.
Amen: my 2014 Subaru hatchback sedan is basically free of everything but diagnostic electronics, and has a wonderfully simple dashboard and control panel; I dread ever having to replace it with the kinetic surveillance vehicles – many of them as expensive as houses were not long ago – that are being forced on people.
Giant SUVs and pickups — gasoline-powered, of course — currently make up 80% of new car purchases in the U.S. These will soon become millstones around the necks of commuters when MENA instability and/or regional war pushes oil prices through the roof, increasingly likely in the coming months and years. Imagine the right-wing revolutionary fervor that $8/gal gasoline will inspire in the U.S. — a propaganda field-day for the MAGA militias. And yet the Biden admin is preventing Americans from buying $10,000 Chinese EVs by slapping on a 100% tariff, protecting an uncompetitive US industry which is years behind the curve. So much for “decarbonization” and the so-called “energy transition.” The lack of foresight in our ruling elites is absolutely astonishing.
Giant ICE SUVs and pickups have what’s called a payload capacity, it’s allowing 100 million trades people / ranchers / farmers in North America to move their tools, gear and supplies to their job sites. An EV vehicle with a very heavy curb weight and a low energy density battery does not have any practical payload capacity. Moreover, every city and county regulates and enforces gross vehicle weights on their roads, the heavy weight EVs just don’t fit into any practical business model. In summary, a high payload capacity and a low curb weight of a vehicle equals profits. The price of fuels is not that important anymore, it’s being billed back to the customers – just an ordinary inflation.
An EV with a low curb weight and 50% payload capacity would sell exceptionally well. Recommend to invent one.
There are no 100 million trades people etc in the US.
That is getting close to the total werking population
Most people don’t need a truck
All this talk about ICE and EVs, SUVs, cars, and pickups.
I had an uncle who was full time yard worker and handyman and carried all his supplies in a very modest Toyota two-door, compact, no frills, no nothing, pickup. It would probably be exactly what many people would want having great fuel economy, easy maintenance, and useful for everything including commuting except for carting children around. Even then, you can seatbelt in three people. Almost any kind of vehicle can use an ICE, hybrid, or EV engine. Electronics are useful in the right place. Choosing an engine is merely the right engine to the right intended use and location.
Of course, he bought his pickup thirty years ago when there was still a very, very slight effort to match customer needs and desires, but like much in the world, it has become financialized with the product then offered, regardless of industry, being crapified or enshittified. Selling the customer what they want or need is unimportant.
The total population of North America is 592 million people ( 2021 ) as per wikipedia.
And that definition includes Cuba. Mexico has a 3.5 metric ton maximum for normal driving licences so if you only include USA and Canada than you only get 380 million people. 100 million working in trades etc. is way to high.
Yeah, I’m thinking for 85% of the truck sales, the customer doesn’t really need a truck except for dude-status. Mom don’t need no ginormous SUV, either, except, again, for status. Both are 85%-95% (hyperbolic guesses) status symbols, as used.
Yep. Liberal Democrats having it both ways: Climate is both a crisis, and not such a big deal after all. If liberals really cared about Climate… well, yeah, because markets, so Climate cannot ever be addressed by Democrats, but pretending they did want to address in the bounds of capitalism, we should be importing every EV that China makes, and can you please make more?
This is the stupidest timeline.
Perhaps China will get around the issue by licensing their electric car tech to US manufactures? I understand that CATL will likely be licensing its its battery tech to Ford and Tesla. I imagine that if the US started to produce cars like the Zeeker 007 or the 4wd station wagon version 001 or the 7x suv with a range of 900 km (550 miles) for ~ $40K that would solve much of the “anxiety”. Not sure anyone really needs the over 1000 hp model, unless maybe you plan to tow your motor home with your station wagon. I’m still a big fan of Aptera, which are made here in the US and are designed to optimize efficiency though they are getting closer they still haven’t started production so not currently an option.
https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1821089792467026175
Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand
This is a good read by a former GM executive, analysing the extraordinarily fast rise of China’s domestic car makers and the resulting drop in the sales of foreign car brands:
https://newsletter.dunneinsights.com/p/china-is-done-with-global-carmakers *
The key driver was of course the rise of EVs: “The EV share of total car sales in China will jump to almost 50% this year, up from just 6% in 2020. Think about that. China has sprinted from 1 million to more than 10 million annual EV deliveries in just four short years.”
It’s largely a story of complacency by foreign car brands who thought they could remain dominant in China forever (“China is our forever profit machine,” the author quotes his colleagues at GM as saying a decade ago) and are simply too slow to adapt in the face of Chinese competition (“We’ve never seen competition like this before,” says Ford CEO Jim Farley).
The author says there’s no coming back: “We are stepping into a new era where Chinese automakers dominate their home market. Many will say that this outcome was inevitable. But no one saw it coming this fast… The reality is that China as a growth and profit paradise for global automakers has disappeared. It will never return.”
According to him many foreign automakers will adopt a “if you can’t beat them, join them” strategy, selling largely Chinese EV cars under their brand name. We’ve already seen Stellantis (Fiat, Citroen, Jeep, Chrystler, etc.) take a minority position in Leapmotor, a Chinese EV maker, so that they’ll build EVs for export and carry one of the Stellantis’ nameplates. Same for VW who made a similar investment into Xpeng, another Chinese EV company.
Taking a step back, this is a natural evolution for China: rising up the value chain as it keeps developing. It’s very hard to do in existing mature industries but when a technological shift occurs – like the rise of EVs in this case – it provides an opportunity. And technology always keeps changing so it’s fair to assume this will happen in many more industries.
* China Is Done With Global Carmakers: “Thanks For Coming”
3:43 AM · Aug 7, 2024
EVs are a pain in the Ass. High weight, and long recharge times coupled with limited range..
When one can pull into a battery station, replace batteries and be on om ones way in less than 5 minutes then there might be a mass market. And there was a standard set of battery s.
We have had had a number of then, as local runabouts and the recharge process is much more fiddly than putting gas in the tank. Including yanking a expensive charge out out for every refill not at home.
That’s why they have taken off in China, extensive charging network, not ridiculously sized SUV’s and trucks, and good range for a reasonable price. PHEVs now priced the same as ICE, with 100+km range in the battery – so most days you don’t use the ICE.
“EVs are a pain in the Ass”
I’ve found my EV the easiest car ever. I get up and the “tank” is full and ready to go ~240 miles (200 in the cold). I get home plug it in, nothing could be simpler. No maintenance to speak of so far at 4 yrs. Yes, a mouse chewed up my cabin filter, forcing me to replace it, this time with a hepa filter, which was a bonus with all the smoke I’ve had to drive through. Yes, I have to remember to get window cleaner to clean the windshield since I’m never stopping at gas stations and there are still bugs around here, though fewer after all the smoke. Yes, it is only ~40 miles to get to town so I’m well within its range even in winter and after running a bunch of errands. I’ve only had to charge at a fast charger 3 times so far and I agree it would be a pain to do that regularly unless you tend to shop at wallmart, so I wouldn’t take a trip across the country in it. I love the one pedal driving in city traffic and the 1 or 2 second improvement in response time since it can be set to start slowing down when your foot comes of the “gas” pedal is comforting for us older folk. I suspect in another 4 years when the battery warranty has expired it will be obsolete and I will likely have to sell it for the 70% charge capacity left in the battery to be used as someones battery back up given that Chinese cars are already getting 500 mile range and potentially 12 minute charge times. It will be like owning an apple II. Then again, with fracking wells exponential decline rate and the US isolating itself from the resource rich nations it could be that energy you can produce yourself and a vehicle that runs on it will become more valuable. I’ve experimented with producing syngas from wood. The Germans did run vehicles on it, but at least at home you tend to produce a lot of carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas so not the safest way to power a vehicle though I’ve thought about running my generator on it in an emergency. If it comes to that I probably won’t have anywhere to drive to anyway. The process does also produce as a by product heat, valuable in the winter and biochar, useful in the garden.
Synoia: When one can pull into a battery station, replace batteries and be on om ones way in less than 5 minutes then there might be a mass market. And there was a standard set of battery s.
You can. These capabilities exist now.
Chinese smart-battery swap stations can change EV batteries automatically
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kZgG58zz8U
Alternatively ….
China supercharges construction of ultra-fast EV charging facilities
These things just aren’t possible in a technologically backward country like the US, sadly.
I suspect a significant part of the ‘artisanal’ supply PK refers to was not in fact artisanal at all, but from the waste tip as Uis Mine in Namibia. That was worked for tin in the 1970s and 1980s, accumulating a very large waste tip in the process which was known to contain low grade lithium. At the time that had negligible value but, already above ground and crushed, it would have been easy to ship.
A bigger issue for the car companies is that for 2030 if you want to design an ICE competitor for a BMW 3 or a F150 than the way to do it is take an EV, a generator and a small but high powered battery.
It will cost less and be a few months faster to design. Is cheaper to make with parts that will be made in larger numbers. The buyer will have a faster and lighter car which also uses less gas
Yet the article starts with:
As I explain immediately after, it omits that the high cost is due to the US refusing to allow the import of cheap Chinese EVs. So I should have put the full point in one sentence for clarity of exposition. I have instead revised the next sentence to make the idea clearer.
Thanks for the catch.