>> The real problem is that many countries don't want to do innovation because it's expensive and/or they don't want to invest in the education necessary. <<
oah, what batst nonsense is this? CATL and BYD's battery production output/capacity, or whatever innovation you claim China has achieved, is a function of the CCP's protectionist policy to prevent foreign competition and nurture domestic battery industry since 2016 -- ie, China's refusal to grant license to operate battery business in China to South Korean and Japanese battery makers such as LG Chem, Samsung SDI, and Panasonic unless they gave up their core battery technology in exchange (forced tech transfer); or blatant discrimination in EV battery maker subsides or later outright no subsidy for EVs equipped with foreign companies' batteries (illegal subsidies). Ever heard of Make-In-China 2025? Wonder where Biden got inspiration for the IRA which excludes all things sourced or made in China? BYD and CATL are #1, #2 in China, but, outside China, they have to deal with the South Korean trio, LG Chem #1, SK Innovation #2, Samsung SDI + Panasonic (Japanese) -- and they are likewise leaders in their respective battery tech: for instance, LG Chem and SK Innovation in NCM, Panasonic and Samsung SDI in NCA.
>> China is able to do China things because they produce an absolutely staggering number of STEM grads ... <<
Stop, stop, stop. That's not how it works. If we assume your fallacious theory to be true, China would have won the World's most popular sport contest, the World Cup several times over. We all know how China poured billions into training millions of their youths and spent boatload of money recruiting the World's best soccer players only to see their national team getting beaten by small South East nations like Vietnam, and certainly no match for soccer powerhouses like Honduras with 1/150 of China's population or budget.
I don't know what you are smoking but it's some good shit.
NCM, NCMA, LFP, sure chemistries are cool to talk about but all that actually matters is batteries that are actually shipping.
LG Chem is claiming they can catch up, claiming they can start building LFP by 2026... only over a decade too late. CATL didn't develop LFP but they developed all the mass production techniques which is what counts in the market. No one cares how good you can theoretically produce cells if you never do.
Right now all I see is the Koreans claiming they can make up lost ground, not today mind you, by 2026+ and somehow then they will then become the dominant producers.
They do this based on projections of CATL not growing at all which makes no fucking sense given they are entirely supply constrained right now. People end up buying EVE and other second tier cells because of how hard it is to buy from CATL right now.
Sorry but it's fantasy.
If Korea/Japan/US want to beat CATL it's going to take more than hopes and dreams. It's going to take factories, lots of them. Not just the ~1-3 plants a piece that are currently on the roadmap.
Protectionism doesn't and can't explain the sheer capacity of CATL/BYD. Protectionism 101 is that by adopting protectionism you increase the local cost of the goods as a result by disallowing other competitors. That clearly isn't the case as CATL is the best price/performance cell anyone can buy for LFP friendly workloads anywhere in the world. It's not subsidy either as they are wildly profitable at the same time, even having enough margin to eat increases in lithium costs (partially because they are big enough to own their own mines) keeping themselves competitive as others are priced out.
Korea/Japan/US dropped the ball, it's simple as that. They had the lead but choose not to pursue it. Same with EVs until Tesla came long. GM should have been dominant but again they didn't have the balls.
When push came to shove they didn't want to put the money down and that is what counts in the end. China said they were going to build EVs and that was going to need batteries. That created the appropriate conditions for battery companies to invest heavily in China. LG Chem was late to the party, their first plant in Nanjing was nearly 10 years too late, that isn't protectionism that is just missing the boat. That and they were building NCM at a time that CATL was already producing LFP at good enough energy densities to displace NCM for EVs and storage applications. NCM is a "better" chemistry sure, but it's too damn expensive for cheap ass EVs that dominate the Chinese market.
This entire debacle is entirely one of mismanaged leads and it repeats across most modern tech that China is now doing well in.
Solar? Should have been won by US/Germany/Australia. Wind? US/Germany. Batteries? Korea/Japan. Nuclear? US/France/Germany/Japan. EVs? US. Telecom? Canada/Sweden. The pattern here is China invests and doesn't let new technology get fucked over by entrenched special interest groups. It's a political advantage at it's core, something the West might find very hard to replicate.
Also your soccer comparison is beyond dumb so I'm not even going to bother addressing that.
>>. I don't know what you are smoking but it's some good shit.<<
sounds like something I hear from very misguided wumaos all the time. It's fairly apparent that you know nothing about the industry or the "shipping" numbers, much less the chemistries. You've been drinking too much CCP Kool-aid.
>> NCM, NCMA, LFP, sure chemistries are cool to talk about but all that actually matters is batteries that are actually shipping. <<
Wrong, NCM/NCA, not LFP, are the most popular/manufactured/shipped with 70% of the global EV market share. The majority of EVs in China for instance are running on NCM -- only last year China achieved almost 50/50 between NCM and LFP on new EVs. Most LDVs outside China are also NCM/NCA. Even in ESS market, NCM still dominates today; though LFP will take over since LFP is suitable for stationary, low-density use cases. I also already commented earlier that the majority of CATL's output is still NCM, which is based on LG Chem tech, not LFP.
>> LG Chem is claiming they can catch up, claiming they can start building LFP by 2026. CATL didn't develop LFP but they deve... Right now all I see is the Koreans claiming they can make up lost ground, <<
Wrong. There is nothing to catch up -- LG Chem has no plan to use LFPs for EVs; nor did they ever have any "ground" in LFPs. They are not really interested in doing LFPs because of their low margin (and absurd LFP licensing fees; though they are now all, but expired). The Japanese/Koreans stayed away from LFP b/c of their low density and weight which in turn makes it unsuitable beyond stationary energy storage. LFP is far easier to manufacturer than NCM/A and subsequently cheaper, which is the main market driver for it, but the cost advantage of LFP isn't necessarily true anymore either: LFP is 20%-30% cheaper per Wh/kg compared to much older, least densest NCM532, but not against the recent high-nickel (811), most commonly used today on new EVs, or ultra-nickel (955) batteries, the emerging de facto industry standard; notwithstanding recent wild fluation in lithium/nickel price. LFP today is largely still limited to entry-level, non-performant, low-range EVs. Tesla uses NCMs from LG Chem for high-end models even in China and LFPs from CATL for lower, entry-level EVs.
>> ... by 2026+ and somehow then they will then become the dominant producers. ... <<
No worries, it's widely expected that the Korean trio would dominate 70% of the North American market. Biden's IRA and the EU's CRMA no longer promises exclusive subsidies or ban against Japanese or South Koreans competition. LG Chem also announced last month that they are going to start enforcing patent rights on high-nickle NCM batteriese against Chinese battery makers (which is one of the main reasons why China has been aggressively moving towards LFP in and outside China).
>> ... They do this based on projections of CATL not growing at all which makes no fucking sense given they are entirely supply constrained right now ...<<
Biden's IRA also takes a few steps further limits subsides on EVs made in China or EVs with batteries/material sourced from China. As of last week, even Tesla's entry-level EVs with Chinese LFP sold in the US are now partially excluded from receivign EV credits -- which explains why Tesla is now instead offering them in Canada. You should be familliar with this, since this is exactly China used to do to promote their own domestic makers CATL/BYD over foreign ones.
As for supply-constraint, it seems you are also quite slow to realize that battery constraints has easied substantially since the end of China's EV subsidies on Jan 1, 2023. The price of Lithium has more than halved since, for instance, and some Chinese processors are idling their factories to prevent further price drop (yes, they are still falling like a rock).
The only other bottleneck in EV battery supply-chain is the new "No China" constraints for battery and raw materials under Biden's new policies -- which in turns require severing ties with Chinese material suppliers, or pulling factories out of China -- will need at leat a year or two to build new domestic supply-chain in the US or its allies.
>> Protectionism doesn't and can't explain the sheer capacity of CATL/BYD. <<
Sure, it does. You combine that with blatant IP theft, forced tech transfer, and generous subsidies, it works out. The inefficiencies born by China's protectionism are ameliorated by huge subsides that accounts for as much as 40% of the purchase cost in some Chinese EV models. Ditto, watch the US EV supply-chain and market develop under Biden's IRA over next couple of years.
oah, what batst nonsense is this? CATL and BYD's battery production output/capacity, or whatever innovation you claim China has achieved, is a function of the CCP's protectionist policy to prevent foreign competition and nurture domestic battery industry since 2016 -- ie, China's refusal to grant license to operate battery business in China to South Korean and Japanese battery makers such as LG Chem, Samsung SDI, and Panasonic unless they gave up their core battery technology in exchange (forced tech transfer); or blatant discrimination in EV battery maker subsides or later outright no subsidy for EVs equipped with foreign companies' batteries (illegal subsidies). Ever heard of Make-In-China 2025? Wonder where Biden got inspiration for the IRA which excludes all things sourced or made in China? BYD and CATL are #1, #2 in China, but, outside China, they have to deal with the South Korean trio, LG Chem #1, SK Innovation #2, Samsung SDI + Panasonic (Japanese) -- and they are likewise leaders in their respective battery tech: for instance, LG Chem and SK Innovation in NCM, Panasonic and Samsung SDI in NCA.
>> China is able to do China things because they produce an absolutely staggering number of STEM grads ... <<
Stop, stop, stop. That's not how it works. If we assume your fallacious theory to be true, China would have won the World's most popular sport contest, the World Cup several times over. We all know how China poured billions into training millions of their youths and spent boatload of money recruiting the World's best soccer players only to see their national team getting beaten by small South East nations like Vietnam, and certainly no match for soccer powerhouses like Honduras with 1/150 of China's population or budget.