North America Is Now the Growth Leader For New Battery Factories (electrek.co) 74
North America has emerged as the fastest-growing market for new battery cell manufacturing factories, driven by incentives provided by the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), according to a report by Clean Energy Associates. Electrek reports: CEA says that China is still the leading battery cell manufacturing hub, but its share will decline in "coming years." Europe has seen delays and cancellations of several planned battery factories, mostly due to high energy prices and other countries' pro-clean energy and EV manufacturing policies luring projects away. Global EV battery usage increased by 72% in just a year, from 2021 to 2022. And going forward, CEA forecasts an impressive two-year 186% growth rate on the 1,706 GWh of batteries produced in 2022.
The reason is obvious for the rapid increase in battery factories: The International Energy Agency's "Global EV Outlook 2023" reports that EV sales exceeded 10 million in 2022, and 14% of all new cars sold were electric in 2022 -- up from around 9% in 2021 and less than 5% in 2020. And battery and EV manufacturing are only going to continue to experience huge growth.
The reason is obvious for the rapid increase in battery factories: The International Energy Agency's "Global EV Outlook 2023" reports that EV sales exceeded 10 million in 2022, and 14% of all new cars sold were electric in 2022 -- up from around 9% in 2021 and less than 5% in 2020. And battery and EV manufacturing are only going to continue to experience huge growth.
Re: (Score:3)
If that's so, then let me run this by you: WTF are you even here for? Could you be making more money from Russia by posting to (anti)social media, rather than here?
Or, as we used to say on usenet,
Go away, boy, y'bother me!"
Re: (Score:2)
If the goal of building factories is to reduce reliance on China for products then this must also come with mining for raw materials since there's plenty of raw materials coming from China.
Predicting the collapse of China is easy because their system of government makes it very inefficient in advancing technology and creating the wealth needed to take advantage of any technological advances. Much of the technology China has today is what they've reverse engineered from their adversaries. With theft of int
Re: (Score:2)
Predicting the collapse of China is easy because their system of government makes it very inefficient in advancing technology and creating the wealth needed to take advantage of any technological advances.
Considering that China is the most progressive nation on the planet.
You must be a kind of ChatGPT robot who was feed with the wrong text input.
But: if you are not. You can read up.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, the proponents of switching over all armor are idiots.
Thank you for your perspective, G.I. Joe. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And flight suits redesigned for pregnant pilots (Score:4, Informative)
Flight suits are used by more than pilots and even flight crew in the USAF...
There's also arguments about uniformity - IE if "everybody" in the unit is wearing flight suits, just because the woman is pregnant doesn't mean that she wants or should be wearing a different uniform.
Note: Retired USAF, so I get the mindset. It's not exactly a civilian viewpoint. Makes more sense in the service.
Re: (Score:3)
Flight suits are used by more than pilots and even flight crew in the USAF...
There's also arguments about uniformity - IE if "everybody" in the unit is wearing flight suits, just because the woman is pregnant doesn't mean that she wants or should be wearing a different uniform.
Note: Retired USAF, so I get the mindset. It's not exactly a civilian viewpoint. Makes more sense in the service.
Exactly. Pregnancy uniforms are nothing ew, and flight suits are just one more uniform; yet some people act like it's the end of the world. It's time for them to grow up.
Re: (Score:2)
It's incredible that there are still people out there getting mad about the "woke military" even after seeing the super no-homo masculine russia shit itself in front of the whole world.
Re:And flight suits redesigned for pregnant pilots (Score:5, Informative)
Who cares? The didn't make the existing suit everyone else uses worse for pregnant women they just designed one a bit different to fit them, as the AF put it
"Pregnant aircrew who are not flying are still conducting squadron business," she said. "They're still instructing classes, working in simulators, giving briefings, and representing their organizations. It makes a big difference to be able to continue to represent ourselves professionally in a well-fitting uniform throughout a pregnancy."
https://www.military.com/daily... [military.com]
This is just argument from emotion, you are insinuating we should be concerned about this with no reason given why.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me about the redesigned flight suits, to accommodate pregnant jet pilots, and reality.
You're telling us the pilots don't change shape when they get pregnant?
Maybe it's the idea of a woman flying a 'plane that's bothering you?
Re: (Score:2)
You'd have to have redesigned suits for guys, too... as they get fat.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Hybrid military vehicles makes a lot of sense. EVs less so.
1. Less fuel usage means less fuel you need to ship into the warzone, making logistics easier. As recent events have shown, logistics are king.
2. The Abrams is noted for being very quiet for a tank because of its turbine. It manages to sneak up on people regularly because of that. Remember, battlefields tend to be very loud environments anyways, so it can still be loud, just not as loud as other tanks and such. So giving vehicles th
Re: (Score:2)
But that's not what the post I replied to was scaremongering about. Oh, no, they're just going to jump to some as-yet nonexistent pure EV without thinking first, just you wait and see.
Re: (Score:2)
The next generation Abrams X [thedrive.com] already has hybrid drive, including making short moves siliently, and twice the range as the current Abrams with the same fuel load.
But that's not what the post I replied to was scaremongering about. Oh, no, they're just going to jump to some as-yet nonexistent pure EV without thinking first, just you wait and see.
Actually you responded to someone you agree with. The post you responed to referred to hybrid vehicles for the "last mile" as feasible, but mocked those who think a heavy armored vehicle like a tank can go EV. Again, these believers are not talking about an electric drive which may be powered by an engine or battery. The engine used for the vast majority of travel. They believe that through political mandate today we can be converted by 2045.
Re: (Score:2)
They believe that
"They" are a figment of your imagination. It doesn't matter what "they" believe because "they" don't exist, much like the issues you've hallucinated.
Re: (Score:2)
They believe that
"They" are a figment of your imagination. It doesn't matter what "they" believe because "they" don't exist, much like the issues you've hallucinated.
A bill in Congress that requires all non-tactical vehicles to be EV by 2035 and tactical vehicles by 2045.
The President saying everything will be converted in a public statement. Now he was speaking offhand, going off script.
Re: (Score:2)
Who do you think you're fooling? Your own words:
those who think a heavy armored vehicle like a tank can go EV
A bill in Congress that requires all non-tactical vehicles to be EV by 2035 and tactical vehicles by 2045.
You right wing nuts are just too much.
Re: (Score:2)
Who do you think you're fooling? Your own words:
those who think a heavy armored vehicle like a tank can go EV
A bill in Congress that requires all non-tactical vehicles to be EV by 2035 and tactical vehicles by 2045.
You right wing nuts are just too much.
You highlighted the 2035 bit regarding non-tactical vehincles, you might want to keep reading and notice the 2045 goal for *TACTICAL VEHICLES*.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually you responded to someone you agree with. The post you responed to referred to hybrid vehicles for the "last mile" as feasible, but mocked those who think a heavy armored vehicle like a tank can go EV. Again, these believers are not talking about an electric drive which may be powered by an engine or battery. The engine used for the vast majority of travel. They believe that through political mandate today we can be converted by 2045.
It will be interesting to see how electrics play on the battlefield. An M1 has about a 250 mile road range and half that cross country; at max speeds of 45 and 25 MPH or so. If battery tech can match that and a battery swap takes the same amount of time as refueling., the logistics chain changes. Batteries can be stored at dispersed locations and don't require large storage tanks, transported by truck or air or even have a carrier embedded with the tanks. Less engine maintenance as well. Not by 2045, how
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? Armored vehichles already make ways for humans to get in and out, why couldn't they do the same for a battery pack?
Also the military already has an entire logistics chain and crews to the sole purpose of lugging heavy flammable liquids to where it's needed. Certainly couldn't say there are some advantages to instead moving around stacks of batteries. No pumps needed, no leaking issues.
I'm not even saying it's better but as the above you stated, its different. Of course we are talking a future wh
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of going electric is to eliminate big parts of the fuel logistics chain. Providing those kind of logistics to front-line troops is one of the more dangerous tasks the military undertakes, since those logistics chains tend to be pretty attractive and strategically important targets for an adversary to take out. Hence the reason why the military is looking for ways to reduce or eliminate reliance on fossil fuels as much as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of going electric is to eliminate big parts of the fuel logistics chain.
The proponents for the 2045 switchover are speaking entirely about climate change.
Providing those kind of logistics to front-line troops is one of the more dangerous tasks the military undertakes, since those logistics chains tend to be pretty attractive and strategically important targets for an adversary to take out. Hence the reason why the military is looking for ways to reduce or eliminate reliance on fossil fuels as much as possible.
Batteries for heavy armor will be too large, it won't be practical with chemical batteries. Now an electric drive train power might be more practical than current transmissions and etc tech. Liquid fuels may be switching from fossil fuel based to green fuels. Carbon neutral, bio, etc ... still not anytime soon.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not how war works.
The first objective is either to destry (bad for yourself) or conquer the enemies logistics.
Aka the enemies oil fields etc.
Because: you do not ship fuel for a tank from America to Iraq, for example. You take it from there.
So, do you bomb the enemy power plant or conquer it? If you have conquered it, how do you operate it? What happens if the enemy lets you get it, and then bombs it himself?
For having battery vehicles on the battle field you need a complete different logistics and w
Re: (Score:2)
We ship fuel from all over the place to where it's needed. There are entire ships and planes dedicate to the task. I doubt when w first entered Iraq they were left with the refining systems necessary to support the US presence there, we shipped in fuel from other logistics operation depots. For the US this is our extensive bases around the globe.
In a future world with batteries dense enough to display diesel or JP1 it's absolutely feasible, just different than fuels but the military already has massive o
Re: (Score:2)
Why not?
Its about the size of a battery necessary to drive a heavy armored vehicle long distances.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, that's why my last sentence stated we are not there yet, not even close. 20, 30, 40 years? Not unfathomable by then batteries are dense enough to displace diesel or jp1 pound for pound.
Re: (Score:2)
There won't be "battery swaps" with armored vehicles.
The idea is stupid to begin with; thinking that lugging extra batteries around is going to improve military logistics is sheer idiocy.
Considering what goes into keeping M1 Abraham's running; a battery swap may not be that far fetched; even if it is not a viable near term design possibility.. What is idiocy, however, is writing off technology simply because it appears unfeasible today.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that will pan out, maybe not. But either way, the Army isn't going to jump into anything without a decades-long transition period to be certain it will work in all condi
Re: (Score:2)
But either way, the Army isn't going to jump into anything without a decades-long transition period to be certain it will work in all conditions, that much is certain.
That's the point. You can't just politically mandate 2045.
Re: (Score:2)
Another idea that's not totally fanciful is using "flow" batteries with liquid electrolyte. It would be carried in tanker trucks similar to fuel, the difference being the 'fuel' could be recharged at the rear (even from a nuclear reactor, if one were floating nearby) without having to transport it all the way from another continent.
Maybe that will pan out, maybe not. But either way, the Army isn't going to jump into anything without a decades-long transition period to be certain it will work in all conditions, that much is certain.
The US Navy has been working on a system to produce jet fuel at sea using seawater as raw material and nuclear power for the energy. No need to haul electrolyte back to the ship this way, and no need to change anything about how the tank operates as it already runs on jet fuel. This is as carbon neutral of a process because the CO2 released from the burning fuel is "washed" out of the air in the rain, ultimately ending up in the sea where the Navy pulls it back out to make more fuel.
There's no decades lon
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that small nuclear powered ships are very wide. This is the reason we don’t have more of them. It seems like a big concession to deal with a problem that’s already solved through underway replenishment. Now oilers on the other hand, I could definitely imagine those getting fitted with this technology and used to replenish other ships.
Besides not fitting in small ships there are additional damage control issues trying to run a nuclear reactor next to a turbine plant. That once
Re: (Score:2)
An Abraham needs *twice* as much Diesel than an Leopard II for the same operational range.
On first glance that might not sound so bad, but then you consider you want to field a thousand of them ...
The batteries might ot be so much the problem, but you have to keep them charged.
A tank that can run on a variety of liquid fuels simply has to find a comrade to share. For a battery that is not so easy, especially if the trucks shipping the batteries: still run on gasoline/diesel and can not share it with a tank.
Re: (Score:2)
There won't be "battery swaps" with armored vehicles.
The idea is stupid to begin with; thinking that lugging extra batteries around is going to improve military logistics is sheer idiocy.
Considering what goes into keeping M1 Abraham's running; a battery swap may not be that far fetched; even if it is not a viable near term design possibility.. What is idiocy, however, is writing off technology simply because it appears unfeasible today.
The tech isn't being written off. When we have a Mr Fusion (ala Back to the Future) :-) to power an electric drive chain sure. But a chemical battery required to drive a heavy armored vehicle a large distance will be too large to be practical.
Re: (Score:2)
There won't be "battery swaps" with armored vehicles.
The idea is stupid to begin with; thinking that lugging extra batteries around is going to improve military logistics is sheer idiocy.
Considering what goes into keeping M1 Abraham's running; a battery swap may not be that far fetched; even if it is not a viable near term design possibility.. What is idiocy, however, is writing off technology simply because it appears unfeasible today.
The tech isn't being written off. When we have a Mr Fusion (ala Back to the Future) :-) to power an electric drive chain sure. But a chemical battery required to drive a heavy armored vehicle a large distance will be too large to be practical.
My point is that we do not know how battery tech will evolve and get better, maybe never, but to write it off because it won't work now is not a good idea. Better to continue reserving an see where it goes, IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
There won't be "battery swaps" with armored vehicles.
The idea is stupid to begin with; thinking that lugging extra batteries around is going to improve military logistics is sheer idiocy.
Considering what goes into keeping M1 Abraham's running; a battery swap may not be that far fetched; even if it is not a viable near term design possibility.. What is idiocy, however, is writing off technology simply because it appears unfeasible today.
The tech isn't being written off. When we have a Mr Fusion (ala Back to the Future) :-) to power an electric drive chain sure. But a chemical battery required to drive a heavy armored vehicle a large distance will be too large to be practical.
My point is that we do not know how battery tech will evolve and get better, maybe never, but to write it off because it won't work now is not a good idea. Better to continue reserving an see where it goes, IMHO.
The point is you don't mandate a 2045 switchover, that is the problem, not the research.
Re: (Score:2)
There won't be "battery swaps" with armored vehicles.
The idea is stupid to begin with; thinking that lugging extra batteries around is going to improve military logistics is sheer idiocy.
Considering what goes into keeping M1 Abraham's running; a battery swap may not be that far fetched; even if it is not a viable near term design possibility.. What is idiocy, however, is writing off technology simply because it appears unfeasible today.
The tech isn't being written off. When we have a Mr Fusion (ala Back to the Future) :-) to power an electric drive chain sure. But a chemical battery required to drive a heavy armored vehicle a large distance will be too large to be practical.
My point is that we do not know how battery tech will evolve and get better, maybe never, but to write it off because it won't work now is not a good idea. Better to continue reserving an see where it goes, IMHO.
The point is you don't mandate a 2045 switchover, that is the problem, not the research.
I agree, as I said in earlier posts about 2045.
Re: (Score:3)
Doubtful a battery pack would be part of a design for an Abrams type vehicle. Any space, size, or weight savings that can be achieved in designing a vehicle for electric power will be implemented. I know a number of years ago, the military was doing a bunch of research into structural batteries -- essentially designing batteries to double as structural elements in a vehicle or weapon.
Re: (Score:2)
How about considering the flip side - the tip to tail for the US military is around 1:10 - for every soldier at the front line, there's 10 in the background working to get them what they need?
One of the biggest supply chain issues? Fuel. Russia's learned it the hard way.
Say what you want, but elect
Re: (Score:2)
Really? We do? Prove that statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? We do? Prove that statement.
A bill in Congress that requires all non-tactical vehicles to be EV by 2035 and tactical vehicles by 2045.
I'm wondering... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm wondering if there's anything the "Inflation Reduction Act" doesn't do, other than reduce inflation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm wondering if there's anything the "Inflation Reduction Act" doesn't do, other than reduce inflation.
Reality suggests otherwise. Inflation is at its lowest level in two years. Also, most of what people were calling inflation was just price-gouging.
Facts are facts. You'll need to find something else to get outraged about.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Reality suggests otherwise. Inflation is at its lowest level in two years. Also, most of what people were calling inflation was just price-gouging.
That isn't really a distinction that's important.
CPI can increase for lots of reasons. Price gouging is one of them.
i.e., if prices go up because of systemic price gouging, that is still inflation.
Where this all got stupid is everyone's stupid fucking braindead politicized theory on what the source of the inflation was.
Re: (Score:2)
Not important? I'd say it's incredibly important, as would any reasonable person.
if prices go up because of systemic price gouging, that is still inflation.
Nonsense. Inflation and price-gouging are not the same thing. Trying to conflate the two is transparently dishonest.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Not important? I'd say it's incredibly important, as would any reasonable person.
You, and they, would be wrong.
Nonsense. Inflation and price-gouging are not the same thing. Trying to conflate the two is transparently dishonest.
Wrong. Price inflation is any broad increase in prices over some period of time. The causes can be manifold.
There's even a cute name for it- greedflation [nytimes.com]
In the US, inflation is measured as the change in CPI. Price gouging can cause the CPI to increase, as can traditional causes of inflation, or other non-traditional causes of inflation that have existed in the past, that we still called inflation. Because that's the correct term for it.
Re: (Score:1)
You're being dishonest again. Did you think I wouldn't notice? Let's look at your bullshit again:
That isn't really a distinction that's important.
To which I replied that it was very important. How consumers, and voters, react to price increases varies greatly depending on the cause.
Again, inflation and price-gouging are not the same thing. You can try to argue that price-gouging is a form of inflation, though I don't know why you would, but to say that making that distinction isn't important is absurd. That distinction is essential.
Like most infor
Re: (Score:1)
You're being dishonest again. Did you think I wouldn't notice? Let's look at your bullshit again:
No, you're simply ignorant. It's a common theme for you.
To which I replied that it was very important. How consumers, and voters, react to price increases varies greatly depending on the cause.
CPI matters a lot to consumers. Why, a lot less. That's a macroeconomic problem. ;)
But I do love watching you squirm after trying to pretend like price gouging wasn't inflation
Again, inflation and price-gouging are not the same thing.
Nobody said that. Nice strawman.
You said it wasn't inflation. That is categorically incorrect.
Inflation is any increase in CPI. Ergo, price gouging is categorically, inflation.
You can try to argue that price-gouging is a form of inflation, though I don't know why you would
I do. Because it's correct, and your claim was not.
but to say that making that distinction isn't important is absurd. That distinction is essential.
In the context by which you used it: "Also, most
Re: (Score:2)
that distinction doesn't matter.
Yes, it does. That you're still pretending otherwise tells me that you're either willfully ignorant or completely incompetent. Now, that is an example of a distinction doesn't matter.
Stop wasting my time.
Re: (Score:2)
Facts are facts... unless of course when you're claiming they are, in which case, they're probably flat out falsehoods, lol.
Re: (Score:1)
Hey dude, whatever makes you feel less stupid about the exchange above.
Brutal. :D
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it is the same thing.
Or how actually do prices rise during "not price gouging"?
Obviously some people can raise the price of their products and services, and still stay in business, and that is: inflation.
Re: (Score:2)
I've explained this already. Both cause price increases, but they have very different causes. The cause, as I've explained matters a great deal. To insist otherwise is to ignore reality.
Re: (Score:2)
You fucking love being wrong, don't you?
Inflation = any upward change in CPI.
Simplified, inflation.causes = [ demand-pull, cost-push, mere expectation, corporate greed, plus many, many, many more ];
"Inflation and price gouging both cause price increases..." is a fucking stupid statement.
To insist otherwise is to ignore reality.
Stop saying this, you stupid motherfucker, lol.
You can't add weight to your flatly incorrect argument by adding "And to disagree with me is to ignore reality" at the end of every fucking statement. Fucking
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, kid, reality disagrees with you. Cry harder.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to see you cite said reality.
News flash- you can't, because you're wrong.
Flat out, ignorant dumbshit wrong.
No matter how many times you scream "If you disagree with me you're stupid!" you are wrong.
Any and all increases in CPI are inflation, period, end of discussion. This is by definition.
Corporate Greed (which you call price gouging) is one of the many things that can lead to an increase in CPI.
Inflation is not price gouging, but price gouging is inflation
Because it leads to an
Re: (Score:2)
Yawn... I've already proven your bullshit claim was bullshit. One more time is nothing.
Your claim, as you seem to have forgotten was:
That isn't really a distinction that's important
My claim is that the distinction is important, which I've proven over and over again.
If you want "citations", you'll find no shortage of articles that make that distinction. Here are just a few:
1 [npr.org]
2 [chn.org]
3 [theguardian.com]
4 [cbsnews.com]
5 [house.gov]
Oh, look at that last one. Is that house.gov? Our elected representatives are making that distinctions as well? Could it be because they think it's important?
That's because it
Re: (Score:2)
Yawn... I've already proven your bullshit claim was bullshit. One more time is nothing.
You've proven nothing, you smooth-brained imbecile.
My claim is that the distinction is important, which I've proven over and over again.
Context is king, remember?
You said:
Also, most of what people were calling inflation was just price-gouging.
The distinction to, "most of what people were calling inflation", is not relevant.
That's because price gouging is a form of price rise, inflation is the aggregate price rise.
Ergo, what you said is:
"Also, most of what people are calling aggregate price rise was really just 1 particular reason for price rise"
Not. Fucking. Relevant.
From 1:
and that has many wondering if corporate greed is actually the driving force be
Re: (Score:1)
That isn't really a distinction that's important.
Sure it is.
If your legislative goal is reducing inflation, it matters quite a lot where that inflation is coming from.
Re: (Score:2)
I meant that it didn't matter in the context that they said it.
I.e., he corrected someone and said, "it wasn't inflation, it was price gouging".
1) This is a stupid thing to say, because price gouging is inflation.
2) The person who was bitching about inflation couldn't care less if the cause was price gouging, a supply-side shortage, or a massive increase in employee wages.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
So, lowest since after Biden took office? LOL
I don't see how it has anything at all do with the highly deceptive naming of this bill, which contains zero inflation reduction measures, yet spends hundreds of additional billions we don't have, creating the need to print more money.
I just thought it was hilariously named.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, I see the problem: You're incompetent. Stop wasting my time.
Re: (Score:2)
You're so fucking transparent, it's pathetic.
Do you think nobody can see the bullshit you're trying to pull? "Fuck- I've just been shown to be stupid, I'll accuse them of being incompetent!"
You're not clever dude. You're a bad fucking joke.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how it has anything at all do with the highly deceptive naming of this bill, which contains zero inflation reduction measures, yet spends hundreds of additional billions we don't have, creating the need to print more money.
This is correct.
So, lowest since after Biden took office? LOL
This is stupid.
Inflation has nothing to do with the dude in the Oval.
Small wonder (Score:2)
People use giant trucks to go shopping for ice-cream.
Long overdue (Score:1)
With the US being a wealthy nation, having a technologically advanced industry, and one of the biggest (if not em>the biggest) emitter of greenhouse gasses, it's about time they step up to the plate.
For Big Oil, the time of reckoning is coming. I'm eagerly awaiting the day when those rats head for the exit to jump from the sinking ship.
Re: (Score:2)
" (if not em>the biggest) "
Per capita, it is.
https://www.wri.org/insights/c... [wri.org]
Total overall, China is more than double the US.
https://www.wri.org/insights/i... [wri.org]