Видео

Manganese is starting to be used in LiBs as well.

To develop technology does need a certain number of highly skilled persons in several disciplines. Raw material nations usually concentrate on technologies for raw material exploration and neither Australia nor Russia has the top advanced technology/universities/experts for many other products. Lawfare is only a problem in how far it is made possible/accepted (usually easier and more strong in democracies). Not environmental laws are the problem, but the fact that many products do not charge the cost they cause as environmental damage immediately or in future/in other parts of the globe. For the sake of low cost/fine life environmental issues were disregarded completely when industrialization started, yet they got stronger year by year first in the industrialized nations suffering their negative effects like poisened water or polluted air. Recently THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM is the CO2 exhaust obviously changing the climate to become much much worse (heat waves, fire, draught and flooding by sea or rainfall and much more worse already fixed to come). From a European point of view the social programs in US are a desaster. But you are also right, because the social cost in Europe is such high that it doesn't allow any more sufficient investment into infrastructure. However, if I would be american I would also ask the question, is it really necessary for US to spent 800 billion into military. To me this is clearly exaggerated. Scale of size brought a loft of advantages. I would consider also software being an industry making things (but you are right in a more rigid view understanding under things phyiscal products). And you should consider that California is doing software for a large chunk of the world (scale of size). And last but not least, salaries for software have a higher level than salaries for producing physical things which can mostly be done in the poorest country.

@petetegan3862 "California is a failing state"? . *USA* is a failing state....... With a big Red Button and a dearth of high calibre ("Statesperson level") Politicians. . A dangerous situation. . Edit "The USA can produce ICE vehicles".... But those will increasingly be for the "home market" as others WILL be buying those Chinese (and other) EVs. . It's not a winning strategy.

I think Japan first showed that not only Europeans living in Europe and US do innovate. It may be that all humans can innovate, yet there are societies that have an internal power/strive that is not easy to keep down by the European protection sword patents/intellectual rights as can be seen on South Korea and Taiwan. Yet a friendship to US (this means democracy) seems to be mandatory, otherwise .....

​@@friedhelmschroter8124 "This means Democracy"? 🤔 I think the boundaries of "Democracy" are going to become blurred. . Also "Capitalism" Whichever way you slice it, we're witnessing a system wide(?) example of the "Capitalists" being "Out-Capitalised" but the "Communists".....?

@@rogerstarkey5390 If you mean by "the boundaries of "Democracy" are going to become blurred" that we have different levels of democracy I fully agree. Switzerland which quite often asks all people to decide on important questions is for me the most democratic country, UK and all countries having a parliamentary democracy are 2nd, US and all countries having a presidential democracy are 3rd, .... (and some countries calling themselves democratic or doing elections are barely or not at all a democracy. As "democratic" I would consider all countries who do have a functioning separation between executive, legislation and judical matters including several kind of internal control avoiding excessively wrong decisions. Communism targets to distrubute the wealth quite evenly over its population. Its largest realisation, USSR ultimately failed, because it was unable to generate/let run excessive actity/creativity of the rather few really strong and none of the other countries trying similar kind of communism did much better. China is an exception in the sense, that politically it is communist, but economically beside some communist organise state companies China let quite free run a capitalist economy and this was up to now quite a success. Yet not an exception in Asia, as Japan/South Korea and Taiwan show. What we are witnessing currently is a China so strong, that it looks communist China is capable to replace the West based on lower cost(/better performance). This is similar to the situation US faced with Japan I think in the 70's, when all US car manufacturers faced such strong pressure that they were not able to prevent bancruptcy. Such situation must be mutually understand and some agreement must be found allowing both sides a convenient life/advant. US succeeded to find such agreement with democratic Japan, yet I am not sure US is at all willing to find some agreement with communist China, because overwhelming geostrategy is involved and here US sees China as an enemy, wants to and is acting hostile. Not good and in my view both sides have to change, yet this is extremely difficult as FEAR is an extremely strong force as is the will to keep advantages once they were achieved.

In my image these 5 rules do not only apply to electrification, but to all kind of products/development.

And why is Tesla still considered the world leader on EV? (The 10 years ahead do apply only for battery production and related material processing)

@@friedhelmschroter8124 BYD is now the biggest EV maker in the world by sales volume. In what specific area is Tesla leading? Google search is your friend.

@@HyperionLogic In my understanding BYD is biggest in terms of quantity of produced cars. Yet I assume (have not checked in detail) Tesla is still larger on their USD turnover because Tesla sell less cars, but the much higher price per car is overcompensating the lower volume to result in larger USD sales. A 3rd important, yet difficult to get number is the margin. The margin determines how much new development effort a company is able to do. Generally the first comer can charge higher margin, while the 2nd and 3rd comer have to offer some price advantage to overcome the first comer's reputation it was able to earn while producing just for itself. So when doing a real comparison you should best look into all 3 of these numbers or others like how many workers, how many engineers, ..... Also when making some comparison as Mercedes vs Volkswagen you do get the surprising result that the rather low volume producer Mercedes may produce more margin than the high volume producer Volkswagen and even on turnover you may get some surprise, as Mercedes does have a huge truck division, to my last knowledge (checked several years ago) Mercedes is the worldwide No.1 in truck production (not sure if any Chinese truck manufacturer succeeded to surpass Mercedes).

The first observation misses the fact of "a slowdown" in the *Vehicle* market". NOT just "EVs". The "EV" slowdown is due to that *General* slowdown, compounded by the decision of Legacy automaker's to "pull back". WHY did they pull back? . It's the endgame of a thread which began with them ignoring a "plan" published in 2006 (I'm sure you're aware of it?) They missed the chance to "get in early", develop plans and technology, then beat "the Chinese" and "Domestic competition" (you know who) BEFORE either of those became "too big to kill". . Now, rather than dealing with "small competition" they CAN'T compete with "BIG competition" on Price (Ref Ford build costs... At least they're being honest!), on material access (China), on production capacity, OR on technology. . It's not so much a requirement for "10 years to catch up" It's a *question* of "can they SURVIVE long enough to do so?" (Are they "Too big to fail".... Again?) . The IRA is (was) a *reactive* measure which gave them a chance. However, IT was too late and THEY (still!) weren't ready. . Add the "combative stance of Government (BOTH sides) towards the only US company which COULD compete.... Talk about shooting yourself in BOTH feet? .

@@rogerstarkey5390 NO, the EV slowdown in US is stronger than the slowdown in cumbustion engine market! And this is somehow normal as there was some hype on EV, after Tesla succeeded to achieve good driving distance etc., to save the climate, but now a certain number of people made some actual experience how different EVs are performing and as EV except of the point of saving the climate does rather have disadvantages more people invest again into lower cost/better performing/climate killing cumbustion instead of higher cost/less performing/climate saving EV. Please note, in contrast to US the EU has formally legislated combustion sales stop by 2035! You should also see the point, that ONLY the decision by Elon Musk to open up Tesla's patents to everybody for the sake of saving our climate allowed Chinese and others to become strong in EV. For me, there is no question, but the Western automotive industry is much too big to fail/to go bancrupt only because of price issue. THIS IS A MATTER OF EMPLOYMENT. The IRA subsidizes the US EV manufacturers and its full influence on the market is in my understanding not yet clear, yet it clearly targets Americans to change faster to EV than would happen without these subsidies. Please note again quite some difference to the EU where each country applies different stratatgies to support EV sales. In total the change to EV is driven by the need to reduce CO2 emissions which will kill ultimately most kind of life on this earth. Yet poeple just deciding on price/performance (this means disregarding/not getting ask to pay also the climate cost) tend to prefer combustion (one major point being the lower cost, but also ....) and therefore countries push by subsidizing EV and/or legislation to increase combustion cost up to completely forbidding it. China's large cost reduction efforts and success on EV/EV batteries are welcome to realize saving the climate, yet to lose larger employement will be avoided. Seeing 1.400 million Chinese I think it is quite normal to expect in some time in future a Chinese manufacturer who will overtake the global No.1 position from Toyota/Volkswagen and also the battery market is still in turmoil (like it was in the past 10/20 years and more - initial volume production on lithium was to my knowledge Sony some 40 years ago) which can result in larger changes.

Lithium battery has already strongly changed our life for good by allowing low weight smart phones having reasonable use time and the same for laptops, this means being able to use a PC seemless. A 3rd major market are the power tools, where battery powered ones are on same power level as 110/220V supplied tools. The electric car market is expected to need much much more batteries (this means materials) yet there is still ongoing the fight of people seeing the lower cost of combustion engine compared to only slowly rising environmental cost. The problem here is, the cost of buying a car is immediately clear, the environmental cost by exhausting more and more C02 will become only clear in the future (and if catastrophic/armegeddon may be difficult to reduce/impossible to correct).

Evidence? None. Answer - the evidence is that batteries are very sad and massively safer than ICE - Google it on the fully charged show and educate yourself. Plus we’re you not listening and world class expert…….,he knows more than you!

Combustion engine cars occasionally go on fire (go figure). Do they fail on safety to a level that they should not be used?

Exactly what I thought. The reality is both GM and Ford don't stand a chance against the EV makers in China. They's why the had to lobby for the 100% tariff on Chinese EVs coming into America. They can't admit defeat and instead, will try to reinvent the wheel.

CATL and BYD have mastered the transition from a simple blue collar producer to quite successful/large companies also doing all white collar work including the development of new batteries and battery packs. Seeing the fact that chinese engineers and workers still work for a fraction of what Western engineers and workers would demand there is no chance for Western companies to be competitive. Either the West is ready to accept this situation or some kind of control is applied on "free trade".

"Cooperation must prevail...." . How can I put this "diplomatically"? We have a situation where the historically dominant "global power" is responding aggressively to the perceived threat of "demotion" while at the same time they face an apparently failing economy and a fragmenting political system. . I think the first task might be to ensure they don't become aggressive with the aim of removing what they paint as a "threat" to another region (while not admitting it's THEIR.... "Regeme" they are trying to preserve) ? . Top of the list? The need for a seasoned, reasonable Politician.... A "Statesman" ("person" 😉) . Available choices? . <Crickets> . Outcome? Painted into a corner, not playing the 'New Global game'.... I noticed Bill HR 8070.... (Essentially Automation of the requirement to register for service) Closing loopholes? Speeding the process if such data is "required"? Coincidence?

Munroe live might be a good place to start

Interesting observations

"So China can work with the US but the US has a problem and wants to exclude China." ==>I think the problem is more complex. The "work" relationship with China was, China is doing the blue collar work, the West is doing the white collar work (win-win for both). But in recent years China has shown it has not only the capability but is progressing very fast to supply at lower cost products Western manufacturers cannot compete on (win for China only), because labour cost in China is quite a lot lower. This leads to the great danger of social unrest in the West because not only workers, but also white collar engineers, .... could lose their jobs in larger numbers. With China entering the stage of being able to do also the white collar work a new kind of "controlled" free trade is necessary. Controlled in the sense that the trade balance stays at an acceptable level of deviation from the ideal of being fully balanced. This problem is esepecially in US intertwined by the fact that US has changed its gestratetigic mind on China from positive to quite negative (hostile) seeing China to progress into a 1 person dictatorship and challenging US position as hegemon at least in China. You can clearly see this in the much less aggressive import customs the EU considers to introduce on electric vehicles with initially just an announcement that is followed at this moment by negotiation how to achieve an in total basically balanced trade (while US just introduced prohibitively high levels). In my understanding China just occurred as a major lithium battery manufacturer just in the last 10 years and in my understanding the key point for this China success was and is cost (after Tesla decided not to stick to its patents on battery technology and car battery packs). Before this Toshiba was the long term leader followed by Samsung and LG, yet all 3 have in my understanding problems to compete on the price and China's advantage supporting winning a fight is for sure its domininance in processing the key battery materials. I fully agree on your point, that China has more strategic interest on lithium as US has oil and does not really care for climate change. And the move to electrify city buses in China was clearly a strong boost for chinese companies to put money/effort and develop technology for batteries much larger than needed in cars.

@@friedhelmschroter8124 So in your own word the progress and development of China must be adjusted so that the west interest is not harmed. Has the west something remotely similarly to China to warrant such reciprocation? I think the western high living standard and high labour cost are unsustainable.

@@gunsumwong3948 "So in your own word the progress and development of China must be adjusted so that the west interest is not harmed" ==> Reading above sentence is not really what I am thinking (yet it includes my main point but in a somehow twisted wording easily causing misunderstanding). The ideal in trade is win - win situation, because then both parties are happy, want and will continue the trade. What was the win of the West in the past? The not clean, rather simple blue collar work was transferred to China which allowed the West to concentrate on the rather demanding/interesting white collar work and this transfer of blue collar work did not cause any excessive stress on unemployment (only when looking into the details you will find a certain number of previous blue collar western workers who did not have the ability to upgrade to white collar work, but went in Europe into the social security net, while I think in US sufficient blue collar work was still present as rich people hired poor people to clean their swimming pool, do garden work and keep the house in order, all jobs not so well accepted in Europe as we believe more in EQUALITY/EGALITÈ of all people disfavouring the work as servant to rich people. What was the win for China in the past? A certain number of people did earn money by the blue collar work for the West, China also started to produce simple goods at low cost by themselves allowing China to earn foreign money. And while blue collar is associated with some bad smell, the reality of Western production transfer did include also quite sophisticated production methods requiring skills similar to white collar workers. With the money the people earned they could save so much to buy a flat or house which started the housing/construction boom in China and with the money China had earned China was able to buy more sophisticated machines and the West was willing to support as the total developed into a spiral getting more and more power having a lot of advantages while the clear disadvantage as huge trade deficit was somehow suppressed/did not get resolved. In my image about 5 years ago China reached in first areas a white collar knowledge/skillness that put it on par with the West, but this resulted in the West to play out how this white collar achievement by China and the 1971 introduded and never changed basically free trade relationship could end and in my image the worst end result was the West has to declare bancruptcy in all areas China is on par causing a strong increase in unemployment, while China does enjoy a strong increace in employment, this means the West strongly losing while China strongly winning. You cannot call this "that the west interest is not harmed", because the relationship worked as it resulted in a win-win situation and China's drastic progress and development brought this desired win-win realationship into the disorder/from the West not desired lose-win relationship. It now needs ideas and open discussion to mutually understand the problem, that at this time the West only forecasts, yet the problem is easy to happen within a few years when no correction back to win-win will be applied fast. And such problem is not specific to China, yet you can look into history how the Japanese car manufacturers with their continuous effort for improvement put bancruptcy pressure on the US automotive industry and Japan is only 125 Mio people while China has a pool of 1.400 Mio people. As solution Japan and US agreed that Japanese car manufacturers will set-up production bases in US while the Japanese car manufacturers put an limitation on itself by not trying to bancrupt the remaining 3 US manufacturers but rather concentrate on increasing their margin while these 3 tried to compete. So the EU interest is to bring the situation that has a clearly visible trend to run into disorder back to the desired win-win relationship. And this should also be China's interest, because if no mutual agreed solution will be found/fixed the EU will act by itself to bring the relationship back to win-win using tariffs, but at least in my image a mutually agreed solution is clearly the perferred one (yet complex EU internals are acting in addition). And this kind of thinking is reciprocal, this means should China ever fear any larger loss of jobs by something the West does sell, also China has the right to request some adjustment to avoid social unrest by too many people running into the danger of losing their job. China is neither requested to adjust the progress nor the development (both are considered rather as a win by the EU as experts are clearly aware the progress in the EU is not fast enough and by competing with Chinese products for sales European manufacturers should learn this time fast from China what is the best way and the wider range of solutions by adding China's many young people fresh ideas should give a better understanding what characteristics an electric car buyer is really deciding for. For combustion engine cars a kind of global standard appeared and I expect similar for electrical cars, yet it is not yet totally clear how this standard could look like or if increased urbanisation (more and larger cities) will result in different solutions seeing rather long distance travel in US, while city travel is rather short term. Reason for the trend into disorder lose-win is in my understanding rather the drastic difference in salary and not as probably out of formal WTO reasons said subsidizing (anyhow key point is price difference of cars offering about the same value). As there was never the situation of reciprocal salary difference (Chinese workers earning drastically more than Western workers) I cannot offer something similar to warrant to you "reciprocation" as in the past, now and for the foreseeable future it is not expected Chinese to surpass Western salary levels (rather similar levels should be expected in longer term), but as stated above avoiding larger unemployment/social unrest has a higher priority than free trade and therefore it is reciprocal. And independent of this China has somehow less yet similar power allowing it to make similar reasonable requests. Finally one very important point. You should clearly understand that US position is strongly different from the today in my understanding moderate/realistic EU position (this means using "west" in your sentence is not OK, I would limit to EU). Out of geostrategic reasons US has changed its mood on China drastically from positive since 1971 to negative or even hostile today. This means out of geostrategic reasons US does put pressure on China not possible to understand only by looking into the trade situation. The communist party/Xi Jinping should quite clearly be aware on US having got hostile on China and if and how this will change is not easy to answer for me, as I can understand and follow US position to about 80% yet there are points where I reject US strategic position and are in agreement with China against US. 2 major geostrategic points are Ukraine and Taiwan and from these you will understand how difficult/complex the China-US relation is today. I have no clear opinion on your thinking "the western high living standard and high labour cost are unsustainable". On one side I tend to agree because quite a lot of countries, most important the US, do finance their investment/spending by debt and this could result in a sudden crash yet it is more reasonable to assume a longer agony because the people/organisations owning this debt get permanently cheated for example by a zero interest policy while the inflation runs at a low level. On the other side the West has developed and is developing new technologies all people in the world are eager to buy. Look at the smart phone, a US (Apple) invention combining cellular phone, computer, camera and many other functions allowing today simple people to create videos in a quality you would have paid extremely high money and spend excessive time in learning how to correctly use. Look at artificial intelligence not being a physical product, yet again expanding simple people's possibility meaning they would be willing to spend money. There will be either a continuous or abrupt adjustment, or capable people in capable countries will grow up in salary reducing the difference may be meaning overall some reduction as more people request access to the limited ressource of our earth. Yet the largest all dominating real problem is for me the CO2 exhaust and the associated climate change that happens for long time by rather gradual temperature up, but occasionally something quite severe to happen is expected. Sorry for again long text, but trying to reply in one or only a few sentences is difficult (I am not so happy with your short 1 sentence summary) and would probably fail but it is surely possible to delete/shorten some points, yet I like to concentrate on improving my non-native english writing and wording not into perfect english, but in an easy to understand/grasp simple wording with few mistakes difficult to misunderstand.

@@friedhelmschroter8124 GM used to make 1/3 of its annual profit from China. Today no China brand has been able to sell EV in the US before the 100% tariff is imposed. That is the US win win arrangement!

"Welch"?

@@rogerstarkey5390 Jack Welch who mentored Jeff Imelt, mcnierny who ran Boeing, nardelli who messed up Chrysler........ Their modus opandai was to outsource, financialize operations, pump / manipulate their stock price , not innovate when it came to production. But always paying themselves millions and millions. At least musk concentrates on his products and not manipulating the stock market.

@@rogerstarkey5390 Already dead and buried... neutron Jack.

Other countries like Australia and Canda lead on mining….do nt sweat stuff you don’t know about……or go find out - Google BHP?

So what's your answer?

@@rogerstarkey5390 The US and Europe can take a leaf from the Chinese playbook of the 90s when foreign vehicle manufacturers had to enter 50/50 Joint Ventures with the Chinese to enter the Chinese market at the same time effectively handing over their technology. Give the Chinese no effective option but to co-operate with US Vehicle Manufacturers in the form of US Manufacturing. In this case it should be less inflationary whilst providing US consumers more choice at more competitive prices.

For me the larger and much more important irony is, the US transition to electrification gets delayed (US is obviously happy to heat up the climate/fire climate extremes/damage/....). In my understanding the inflationary effect you are seeing is rather the basic point/question does US/Europe and other car manufacturering countries allow a full take over of this industry by China in favor of achieving fast low prices. In case of your solution 50:50 cooperation you still have a 50% inflationary effect, because US/Europe is simply more expensive on both, workers and engineers. With Japan the solution was Japanese to set up production in US (and Japan companies did not exercise their power to push the remaining US manufacturers to bancruptcy, but rather optimized their margin).

​@@laowai2000 I agree... They could. Would have been a great idea in January..... . The problems? Political posturing. Who's going to be the first one to backtrack/ flip 180° from "China bad"? . "Political affiliation". AKA "The Lobby system". Which politician will "dump" their support base (in terms of votes, and "monetary benefits")? . Time. This won't be a 24 hour change. . Profit. That will still be split between participants. If it's not beneficial, China may simply say "Thanks for the offer .. but no thanks" Note the recent visit by the German finance(?) Minister to China.... They "blanked" him.... No official reception, left him talking to 3rd level officials. You disrespect them, expect the same in return.. . Need. The way things are looking, China doesn't "NEED" USA (Or Europe) They have an expanding "affiliation" with an increasing number of countries (continents!) comprising upwards of 60% (more?) Global population. . In short, they're "winning".

Yea. But it's only you that is fearful of your shadow. Like the advertisement of Guinness Stout goes: "The evil mind is always fearful of a knock at the door of his home." 😂😂😂

Can you give some clear examples? For me he could have represented an US company not willing to open all its targets, because competition and also hostile Western politicians do listen too. And yes, as a Chinese company you should be quite careful when commenting on Chinese policy. The same does apply to less extent to American companies and as example you can take S&P which dared to downgrade US from AAA to AA according their free speech judgement and got fined on this by 1 billion USD, because US had no intention to stop living a nice life on debt.

He is polite😂 watching RUclips generally it is rare to humility

That is not a very useful comment.

The closest would by Geely-owned Volvo, Lynk and Company, Polestar and Zeekr brands, and even Faraday Future and Leapmotors with the backing of Stellantis.

"Isn't that what we call capitalism? It is taken directly from the Western playbook." Yes, that is what we call capitalism. Yet there is one key difference from the Western playbook and that is that Chinese companies/production can rely on workers/engineers that ask a fraction of what Western workers/engineers demand while Western countries competed on a roughly similar salary level. You may accept this key difference or you may ask China to increase the value of their currency or you may modify free trade to a "controlled free trade", controlled in the sense that excessive bancruptcies of western companies will be avoided while still allowing competition.

seems you are not fimilar with this industry or investment. Just for your information, ALB is No.1 lithiuth producer which US company, 2nd producer SQM Chile based, and another top 5 LTM Aussie company. All of them are public list company. There are many companies in North America e.g. PLL, LAC, IND, SYA... but their share price... Obviously the interview guy just does not answer that north america are not target market. It is different with EV or engergy battery.

@@cariocaamigo542: yep and all those lithium stocks heading to 52 week lows. They've essentially missed valuable gains in the broad market. But that's a different issue. Boric has the ultimate power in Chile and since he took office, ALB has went on a downward trajectory from over $300 to $115. US lithium company or not, owning lithium stocks has been a very bad investment if you bought at the high. Why? Because the EV boom is over and countries around the world have rolled back Climate Change concerns. Demand for lithium fell off a cliff - end of story. SQM shareholders are getting screwed on the basis that Codelco will be taking over their operations after 2030. You know what happens when a gov't entity takes over? It reaps all the profits for themselves and leaves crumbs for the private shareholders. I can go on for about any lithium company. Joe Lowry was severely wrong trying to call the bottom on lithium prices.

I also think LCE prices can easily go as low as 80-90k. Problem rn is, that the opportunity costs for a lot of miners to shut down and later boot up production are higher than to run on low or negative margin for some time. Im not too well informed on this, but I think chinese miners want the price to be where it is. I wouldnt be suprised if they dont care about the price at all and are just told by CCP to supply lithium for cheap chinese batteries. With low price, competition for new lithium projects also stays low so they can further extend their market share in global lithium production. If you look at graphite, they are already at over 90%. IMO the only way to invest in lithium stocks rn, is to bet on american companies that can endure the low prices and would potentially profit from tariffs on chinese miners.

It’s not about politics or trust, it’s about economics, capitalism, & risk mitigation. If talk trust then you trust no one. Trust is a good way to get screwed.

Some people corrected your obviously wrong impression about Ganfeng strength in the supply of lithium. Here are some additional corrections on your somehow weird view: 1) The largest global consumer market is today China (US is only 2nd) 2) China does play by the capitalist rule of free market. The US is obviously not any more willing to play by these capitalist rules it pushed for over many decades! 3) Which global rule does need a company to set up production in US? I am not aware by such rule at all (yet some americans would like to have such rules because it is not any more sufficient/convient for them to live on making debt only). 4) Yes, Asian people do not have the disposable income of Americans, yet by number there are 10x (15x?) more Asians than Americans and the progress on disposable income in Asia is higher than in US. Why do you think your government wants to pivot its policy to Asia instead of Europe etc? And this despite US not being an Asian country and having even rejected to establish a free Asian trade zone!