European made batteries could be 60% less carbon intensive than Chinese, researchers urging Europe to support investments
European made batteries could be 60% less carbon intensive than Chinese, researchers urging Europe to support investments
But over half of Europe's battery production plans are at risk without stronger government action.
Onshoring the EV supply chain to Europe would cut the emissions of producing a battery by 37% compared to a China-controlled supply chain, according to new analysis by Transport & Environment (T&E). This carbon saving rises to over 60% when renewable electricity is used. Producing Europe’s demand for battery cells and components locally would save an estimated 133 Mt of CO2 between 2024 and 2030, equivalent to the total annual emissions of Czechia.
But over half of Europe's battery production plans are at risk without stronger government action, the researchers say.
Less than half (47%) of the lithium-ion battery production planned for Europe up to 2030 is secure, the report also finds. This is up from one-third a year ago following a raft of measures put in place to respond to the US Inflation Reduction Act. The remaining 53% of announced cell manufacturing capacity is still at medium or high risk of being delayed, scaled down or cancelled without stronger government action.
Julia Poliscanova, senior director for vehicles and emobility supply chains at T&E, said: “Batteries, and metals that go into them, are the new oil. European leaders will need laser sharp focus and joined-up thinking to reap their climate and industrial benefits. Strong sustainability requirements, such as the upcoming battery carbon footprint rules, can reward local clean manufacturing. Crucially, Europe needs better instruments under the European Investment Bank and EU Battery Fund to support gigafactory investments.”
France, Germany and Hungary have made the most progress in securing gigafactory capacity since T&E’s previous risk assessment last year. [1] In France, ACC started production in Pas-de-Calais last year while plants by Verkor in Dunkirk and Northvolt in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, are going ahead thanks to generous government subsidies.
Finland, the UK, Norway and Spain have the most production capacity at medium or high risk due to question marks over projects by the Finnish Minerals Group, West Midlands Gigafactory, Freyr and InoBat. T&E called on lawmakers to help lock in investments by doubling down on EU electric car policies, enforcing strong battery sustainability requirements that reward local manufacturing, and beefing up EU-level funding.
Securing other parts of the battery value chain will be even more challenging given China’s dominance and the EU’s nascent expertise. The report finds Europe has the potential to manufacture 56% of its demand for cathodes – the battery’s most valuable components – by 2030, but only two plants have started commercial operations so far. By the end of this decade, the region could also fulfil all of its processed lithium needs and secure between 8% and 27% of battery minerals from recycling in Europe. But T&E said processing and recycling plants need EU and state support to scale quickly.
Julia Poliscanova said: “The battery race between China, Europe and the US is intensifying. While some battery investments that were at risk of being lured away by US subsidies have been saved since last year, close to half of planned production is still up for grabs. The EU needs to end any uncertainty over its engine phase-out and set corporate EV targets to assure gigafactory investors that they will have a guaranteed market for their product.”
Besides lower carbon emissions, it's smart not to be dependent on China (or Russia, USA, or anyone really). I think we should've learned that lesson by now.
It's smart to have everyone interdependent, to make conflicts less appealing, but it can't be too asymmetrical or carbon intensive (the way it is now).
t’s smart to have everyone interdependent, to make conflicts less appealing,
Do you still believe that after the invasion of Ukraine by Russia? It seems the less appealing part only influenced the EU who refused to see the threat until the invasion actually started. But it looks like it didn't affect Putin's imperialist fantasies, it mostly funded his ambitions, and still does with the oil we keep buying from them because we're unable to reduce our dependency. https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-russia-banked-1-billion-euros-2023-eu-fuel-despite-ban/
Ya know what would reduce carbon even more and pretty much eliminate microplastics: Rail. Like all the problems with pollution from transit are mostly solved like 200 years ago with trains and trams, why do people insist on reinventing the wheel?
Ya know what would reduce carbon even more and pretty much eliminate microplastics: Rail.
Container shipping is more efficient than tail though per km travelled. Just look up the figures.
Rail would be great instead of trucks, but there's quite a few complications to go from truck to rail.
Oh yea, shipping by water is obviously more efficient but creating waterways everywhere is quite a lot harder and expensive than building rail. I'm mostly addressing transit for humans but for ships nuclear may be a better option for pollution but that's not something I have looked into.
Trains can run on renewable energy. For now almost all container ships use bunker fuel, which is absolutely terrible. Would be great to see them switch to renewables energy like sails and solar panels.
deleted by creator
Can we stop using the word gigafactory? I thought this was another Telsa fanboy tax theft attempt. But its just other random companies using the word gigafactory.
I don't like the term 'gigafactory' either, it's just that I didn't want to change the original version ... (but I altered the title now :-))
Yeah generally keeping the headline is good i think, but when there is so much info in the headline, that many people wont even click through, then that info shouldnt be misleading.
So ty for changing it :)
They claim that producing battery cells in Europe would reduce the CO2 emissions of battery cells by 60%. But they don’t explain HOW that would be done or WHY it would work. At all. Or did I miss something?
The only thing they need is a lot of money from the government (or from us taxpayers) to build the plants.
Sounds legit. I mean, it’s fighting against China, right?
Of course, European investors will make their billions in Europe or in China, that’s just how it works.
So we all should take pride in saving our free battery industry's profits from the evil Chinese workforce!
They don't explain it in the text, but in the research article the data is probably taken from. Basically it's recycled vs. virgin Lithium.