- cross-posted to:
- world
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- world
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/13315139
CATL, the little-known Chinese battery maker that has the US worried
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s difficult to describe how I feel watching the US and China duke it out. It’s hard to sympathise with either side. But since I only speak English most of what I read has the pro-US spin and paints China as the big enemy that is evil because… checking notes… they’re figuring out how to design new things and not just provide cheap manufacturing labour for US profits.
The developing of “new things” is pretty international and not exclusive to any region. Universities around the world have been working on energy storage for decades, and lithium batteries are absolutely no different. US universities, European, Chinese, it doesn’t matter. They’re all hard at work in this area.
What you do see more of is marketing from Chinese companies of cells that make extremely bold claims and never make it into US or EU products for some reason. IMO that reason is the fact that these “cutting edge” cells are known to use chemistries and technologies that have not at all been proven even in lab settings. Solid state cells is one glaring example of claiming victory long before any reliable demonstration of overcoming massive hurdles has been demonstrated, but there are plenty others.
There’s also the huge question mark outstanding right now where CATL has claimed cell prices will be cut to less than half their current costs over the next year. It’s not at all likely that this is possible without a huge injection of cash from the government propping up the industry and driving costs lower intentionally. Which is a trade violation for WTO members. Whether it’s right or wrong is another question, but it’s against the trade treaty we all signed onto.
The “marketing from companies that make extremely bold claims” is also pretty universal. It is not exclusive to any region.
Which is a trade violation for WTO members.
Curious to hear more about this. Are you saying subsidized products cannot be sold on the international market? Wouldn’t creative accounting solve this, e.g., buy saying that the subsidized portion is only available domestically, which reduces demand globally, thus lowering prices?
Any nation receiving the products would obviously see through that and protest to wto
Okay, but how is it a trade violation?
Because of the rules established by wto members. They decided it was a violation, they all agreed to the terms, so it’s a violation.
The Uigers would like a word
Yes, I’m aware of that tragedy, sadly.
China is good at something and everyone loses their minds!
