#Solar Vehicle Market Research

[rjzimmerman]

Yesterday felt like an earthquake shook the foundations of our climate and environmental laws, followed by a hurricane that scattered the bits all over the place and a wildfire that burned those bits that weren't scattered. I didn't watch any part of yesterday's debauchery, either on TV or streaming or the alerts that pop up on my iPhone or iPad, or read anything (neither national, local or environmental or climate specialized media). I figured most of the crap he did yesterday will be the subject of strategic lawsuits, and much will be tossed out as contrary to legislation or regulation or unconstitutional. In other words, I'll pay attention to the reconstruction, not the destruction. But.......it was still a horse shit day.

This compilation from the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (of the Columbia Law School/Columbia Climate School) is outstanding. Click/tap on the caption of this post and you'll be able to figure out what happened and sort things out as you want. Just click/tap on the caption and go for it. But if you don't want to do that, here's the compilation, abbreviated. Italicized/red fonts are my addition, either explanatory or editorial.

PUTTING AMERICA FIRST IN INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS

Withdraw from Paris Climate Agreement

Withdraw from any other agreements made under UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

Revoke any financial commitments under UNFCCC

Revoke U.S. International Climate Finance Plan

DECLARING A NATIONAL ENERGY EMERGENCY

Declares national energy emergency, primarily based on high energy prices

Use any lawful emergency authorities “to facilitate the identification, leasing, siting, production, transportation, refining, and generation of domestic energy resources.”

Use Defense Production Act and federal eminent domain authorities

Issue emergency fuel waivers to allow year-round sale of E15 gasoline (E15 is ethanol/gasoline mix)

“Expedite the completion of all authorized and appropriated infrastructure, energy, environmental and natural resources projects”

Use emergency authorities and nationwide permits to grant approvals under Clean Water Act Sec. 404, Rivers and Harbors Act Sec. 10, and Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act Sec. 103 for energy projects

Use emergency consultation processes under Endangered Species Act, and frequent convening of Endangered Species Act Committee, for energy projects

Use construction authority of Army Corps of Engineers

The term “energy” is defined to mean “crude oil, natural gas, lease condensates, natural gas liquids, refined petroleum products, uranium, coal, biofuels, geothermal heat, the kinetic movement of flowing water, and critical minerals” [not wind or solar] (excluding wind and solar is childish and just plain stupid)

UNLEASHING AMERICAN ENERGY

“eliminate the ‘electric vehicle (EV) mandate’ and promote true consumer choice … by terminating … state emissions waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles; and by considering the elimination of unfair subsidies and other ill-conceived government-imposed market distortions that favor EVs” (the elon musk pacifier....i.e., Tesla)

“safeguard the American people’s freedom to choose from a variety of goods and appliances, including but not limited to lightbulbs, dishwashers, washing machines, gas stoves, water heaters, toilets, and shower heads”

Require all agency heads to review all existing regulations “that impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources – with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, biofuels, critical mineral, and nuclear energy resources”

Attorney General “shall consider whether pending litigation against illegal, dangerous, or harmful policies should be resolved through stays or other relief”

Revocation of many executive orders

Terminate the American Climate Corps

Council on Environmental Quality must propose rescinding its NEPA regulations (NEPA regulations are the core of our environmental laws)

CEQ to convene working group to expedite permitting approvals

“all agencies must prioritize efficiency and certainty over any other objectives, including those of activist groups that do not align with the policy goals”

“facilitate the permitting and construction of interstate energy transportation and other critical energy infrastructure, including … pipelines”

In NEPA and other permitting reviews, “agencies shall adhere to only the relevant legislated requirements for environmental considerations and any considerations beyond those requirements are eliminated”

Disband Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases; all of its guidance, recommendations, etc. are withdrawn

Consider eliminating the “social cost of carbon” calculation

EPA in collaboration with other agencies shall submit recommendations to OMB “on the legality and continuing applicability” of the greenhouse gas endangerment finding of 2009 (this is the core concept from the US Supreme Court case that provides the legal basis for greenhouse gas controls)

Immediately pause disbursement of funds appropriated through Inflation Reduction Act or Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act; review processes for issuing grants, loans, contracts, or any other financial disbursement of appropriated funds

Secretary of Energy to restart reviews of applications for approvals of LNG export projects

Maritime Administration to review approvals for proposed deepwater ports for LNG export

“identify all agency actions that impose undue burdens on the domestic mining and processing of non-fuel minerals and undertake steps to revise or rescind such actions”

UNLEASHING ALASKA’S EXTRAORDINARY RESOURCE POTENTIAL

Expedite permitting and leasing of energy and natural resource projects in Alaska

Prioritize development of Alaska’s LNG potential

End restrictions on development of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and certain other areas in Alaska

Numerous other actions to facilitate energy development in Alaska

TEMPORARY WITHDRAWAL OF ALL AREAS ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF FROM OFFSHORE WIND LEASING AND REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S LEASING AND PERMITTING PRACTICES FOR WIND PROJECTS

Stop leasing of federal waters for offshore wind

Issue no new or renewed approvals, rights of way, loans for onshore or offshore wind projects

“consider the environmental impact of onshore and offshore wind projects upon wildlife, including, but limited to, birds and marine mammals”

PUTTING PEOPLE OVER FISH: STOPPING RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM TO PROVIDE WATER TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Restart work “to route more water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to other parts of the state for use by the people there who desperately need a reliable water supply”

“The recent deadly and historically destructive wildfires in Southern California underscore why the State of California needs a reliable water supply and sound vegetation management practices in order to provide water desperately needed there”

DELIVERING EMERGENCY PRICE RELIEF FOR AMERICAN FAMILIES AND DEFEATING THE COST-OF-LIVING CRISIS

Among many other actions, “eliminate counterproductive requirements that raise the costs of home appliances”

“Eliminate harmful, coercive ‘climate’ policies that increase the costs of food and fuel”

[spacetimewithstuartgary]

New SpaceTime out Monday

SpaceTime 20240826 Series 27 Episode 103

Starliner crew to return on Dragon

NASA has decided to return the stranded Starliner crew to Earth aboard rival SpaceX’ Dragon capsule because of ongoing concerns about the reliability of their Boeing spacecraft. 

Tracking down the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs

A new study claims the asteroid which triggered the extinction of 75 percent of all life on Earth including all the non-avian dinosaurs 66 million years ago originated beyond the orbit of Jupiter during the early development of the solar system.

JUICE completes the first joint Lunar-Earth gravity assist flyby

The European Space Agency’s JUICE -- Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer – spacecraft has successfully completed the first ever joint Lunar-Earth gravity assist fly by flinging itself just as planned towards Venus.

Three more Australian satellites sent into orbit

The latest trio flew up aboard SpaceX’s transporter 11 mission on a Falcon 9 rocket from Space Launch Complex 4E at Vandenberg Space Force Base in California.  Transporter 11 is carrying 116 payloads, including CubeSats, microsats, and an orbital transfer vehicle carrying eight payloads.

The Science Report

Babies born to fathers of an older age more likely to have health complications at birth.

The bacteria that can produce rigid, heat stable plastics.

Tiny volcanic glass shards found in Tasmania came from a super-eruption in New Zealand.

Skeptics guide to body language

SpaceTime covers the latest news in astronomy & space sciences.

The show is available every Monday, Wednesday and Friday through Apple Podcasts (itunes), Stitcher, Google Podcast, Pocketcasts, SoundCloud, Bitez.com, YouTube, your favourite podcast download provider, and from www.spacetimewithstuartgary.com

SpaceTime is also broadcast through the National Science Foundation on Science Zone Radio and on both i-heart Radio and Tune-In Radio.

SpaceTime daily news blog: http://spacetimewithstuartgary.tumblr.com/

SpaceTime facebook: www.facebook.com/spacetimewithstuartgary

SpaceTime Instagram @spacetimewithstuartgary

SpaceTime twitter feed @stuartgary

SpaceTime YouTube: @SpaceTimewithStuartGary

SpaceTime -- A brief history

SpaceTime is Australia’s most popular and respected astronomy and space science news program – averaging over two million downloads every year. We’re also number five in the United States.  The show reports on the latest stories and discoveries making news in astronomy, space flight, and science.  SpaceTime features weekly interviews with leading Australian scientists about their research.  The show began life in 1995 as ‘StarStuff’ on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s (ABC) NewsRadio network.  Award winning investigative reporter Stuart Gary created the program during more than fifteen years as NewsRadio’s evening anchor and Science Editor.  Gary’s always loved science. He studied astronomy at university and was invited to undertake a PHD in astrophysics, but instead focused on his career in journalism and radio broadcasting. Gary’s radio career stretches back some 34 years including 26 at the ABC. He worked as an announcer and music DJ in commercial radio, before becoming a journalist and eventually joining ABC News and Current Affairs. He was part of the team that set up ABC NewsRadio and became one of its first on air presenters. When asked to put his science background to use, Gary developed StarStuff which he wrote, produced and hosted, consistently achieving 9 per cent of the national Australian radio audience based on the ABC’s Nielsen ratings survey figures for the five major Australian metro markets: Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, and Perth.  The StarStuff podcast was published on line by ABC Science -- achieving over 1.3 million downloads annually.  However, after some 20 years, the show finally wrapped up in December 2015 following ABC funding cuts, and a redirection of available finances to increase sports and horse racing coverage.  Rather than continue with the ABC, Gary resigned so that he could keep the show going independently.  StarStuff was rebranded as “SpaceTime”, with the first episode being broadcast in February 2016.  Over the years, SpaceTime has grown, more than doubling its former ABC audience numbers and expanding to include new segments such as the Science Report -- which provides a wrap of general science news, weekly skeptical science features, special reports looking at the latest computer and technology news, and Skywatch – which provides a monthly guide to the night skies. The show is published three times weekly (every Monday, Wednesday and Friday) and available from the United States National Science Foundation on Science Zone Radio, and through both i-heart Radio and Tune-In Radio.

[leohtttbriar]

i really just can't take any bidenomics reflection about how certain initiatives failed to influence voters seriously if the reflection fails to acknowledge the information crisis and the relative stupidity of the average swing voter--and i give less credence to any political analysis that refuses to frame "democratic failure" as even a little bit the result of republican opposition/electoral wins--

but this article's brief "to be fair" section about the accomplishments of the biden administration's major legislative victories was a neat summation and also sort of shows how rolling back parts of the IRA may not be easy or all that motivating for an already fractious and narrow-majority republican house:

Still, the market-making bills that did pass were momentous. To give credit where due: Biden’s green industrial policy was a technocratic tour de force. Learning from Obama’s fiscal timidity, his staffers understood that lightly nudging markets would not suffice to meet the climate crisis. This is because of what economists call a market failure. Developing foundational technologies is often initially prohibitively expensive, because of low immediate consumer demand or lack of economies of scale. Private investment is unlikely to take the risk—and needs a helping shove (and often some security) from the state.  Bidenomics was that shove. The clean energy strategists Lachlan Carey and Jun Ukita Shepard have described the relationship between its three bills in anatomical terms. The CHIPS Act is the “‘brains’ of the operation,” underwriting billions to foundational research in energy biofuels, advanced battery technology, and quantum computing. The Infrastructure Act is the backbone, supporting not only traditional roads, ports, and water infrastructure but also clean hydrogen, low and zero-emission transit buses, and EPA Superfund projects to clean up contaminated sites. The IRA is the financial heart of the machine, subsidizing both the production and consumption of green technology. The lions’ share of federal spending has been directed at foundational research and development and the initial scaling up of markets—the stage, as Carey and Shepard put it, “where private markets are less likely to invest in research, development, demonstration, and early commercialization.” 

Bidenomics also aims to onshore entire supply chains. For instance, the Section 45X Advanced Manufacturing Tax Credit supports the domestic production of components for wind and solar energy, battery development, and electric vehicles. Take solar panels: the credit offers $3 per kilogram for manufacturing polysilicon, which transforms sunlight into electricity. Companies turning that element into components for solar cells receive $12 per square meter. The next links up the chain receive credits—ranging from $40 to $70 per kilowatt—based on how much electricity their cells and panels produce. Along with a range of other subsidies for aluminum and other core components, these credits are projected to reduce the costs to producers of domestic solar by more than 40 percent, according to Advanced Energy United, a consortium of green energy businesses. They have been effective: the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that wind turbine service technicians and solar photovoltaic installers will be the fastest-growing occupations through 2033. As far as energy and component production goes, the IRA was responsible for some 646 energy projects (either announced or underway) that have produced 334,565 jobs as of August 2024. The Swiss firm Meyer Burger used 45X to complete building facilities in Goodyear, Arizona. The US manufacturer First Solar made a $450 million investment in a new R&D center in Perrysburg, Ohio, which they commissioned in 2024; hiring is underway for an estimated three hundred new positions to be filled this year. Perhaps most impressive, the South Korean corporation Qcells invested more than $2.5 billion on a solar-cell and module production facility in Dalton, Georgia—which anchors a region devastated by the decline of the textile industry. That campus employs two thousand full-time workers who produce 5.1 gigawatts worth of solar panels each year, the most of any site in the country. 

Clean energy manufacturing requires semiconductors, which are the building blocks of solar cells as well as the digital components of wind turbines, electric vehicles, and advanced energy storage. Every electric vehicle contains between two to three thousand chips. As the pandemic shortage made clear, US industries relied overwhelmingly on foreign production. This is where the CHIPS Act came in. The legislation granted $50 billion to the Department of Commerce: $11 billion for semiconductor research and development and $39 billion for chip manufacturing and workforce training. The resulting surge of private investment has been impressive. According to the Financial Times, by April 2024 some thirty-one projects worth at least $1 billion had been founded since the act was passed, compared to just four in 2019. By that point the government had spent just over half of the act’s incentives. Since the election the Biden administration has been working to get the rest of the subsidies to businesses. Leading recipients include Intel, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC), Samsung, and Micron. In December the commerce department announced that Texas Instruments could receive as much as $1.61 billion in direct CHIPS funding for projects in Texas and Utah. The department now predicts that by 2030 domestic markets could produce a fifth of the world’s chips; until very recently, the US produced none.

[...] The Trump administration could theoretically shut down many of Biden’s green initiatives. But the electoral benefits to Republicans would be unclear: most of the IRA’s recent projects are based in congressional districts with Republican representatives. It’s more likely that they will redirect subsidies to their districts and preferred businesses—including in the extractive sector—and brag about job growth. They are already at it. In 2023, when Kamala Harris appeared at the Qcells plant in Dalton, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene accused her of “trying to take credit for jobs that President Trump and Governor Kemp created in Georgia back in 2019.”

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

May 14, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

MAY 15, 2024

Today the White House announced tariffs on certain products imported from China, including steel and aluminum products, semiconductors, electric vehicles, batteries and battery components, solar cells, ship-to-shore cranes, syringes and needles, and certain personal protective equipment (or PPE). According to the White House, these higher tariffs are designed “to protect American workers and businesses from China’s unfair trade practices.” Tariffs are essentially taxes on imported goods, and altogether the tariff hikes cover about $18 billion in imported goods.

In 2018, Trump abruptly ended the economic era based on the idea that free trade benefited the global economy by putting tariffs of 25% on a wide range of foreign made goods. This was a cap to a set of ideas that had been sputtering for a while as industries moved to countries with cheaper labor, feeding the popular discontent Trump tapped into. Trump claimed that other countries would pay his tariffs, but tariffs are actually paid by Americans, not foreign countries, and his have cost Americans more than $230 billion. Half of that has come in under the Biden administration. 

Trump’s tariffs also actually cost jobs, but they were very popular politically. A January 2024 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper by David Autor, Anne Beck, David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson established that the trade war of 2018–2019 hurt the U.S. heartland but actually helped Trump’s reelection campaign. “Residents of regions more exposed to import tariffs became less likely to identify as Democrats, more likely to vote to reelect Donald Trump in 2020, and more likely to elect Republicans to Congress,” they discovered.

Now Trump is saying, that if elected, he will impose a 10% tariff on everything imported into the United States, with a 60% tariff on anything from China and a 100% tariff on any cars made outside the U.S. 

In contrast, the administration’s new tariffs are aimed only at China, and only at industries already growing in the U.S., especially semiconductors. Tariffs will rise to 50% on semiconductors and solar cells, 100% on electric vehicles, and 25% on batteries, a hike that will help the Big Three automakers who agreed to union demands in newly opened battery factories, as well as their United Auto Workers workforce. “I’m determined that the future of electric vehicles be made in America by union workers. Period,” Biden said.

The administration says the tariffs are a response to China’s unfair trade practices, and such tariffs are popular in the manufacturing belt of Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Democratic senators from that region have asked Biden to maintain or increase tariffs on Chinese imports after “[g]enerations of free trade agreements that prioritize multinational corporations have devasted our communities, harmed our economy, and crippled our job market.” 

In other economic news, a new rule capping credit card late fees at $8, about a quarter of what they are now, was supposed to go into effect today, but on Friday a federal judge in Texas blocked the rule. The new cap was set by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the brainchild of Massachusetts Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren, and was part of the Biden administration’s crackdown on “junk fees.” 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Bankers Association sued to stop the rule from taking effect, and U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman, appointed by Trump, issued a preliminary injunction against it. His reasoning draws from an argument advanced by the far-right Fifth Circuit, which oversees Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana, arguing that the CFPB itself is unconstitutional because of its funding structure. "Consequently, any regulations promulgated under that regime are likely unconstitutional as well," Pittman wrote. 

On Friday, major airlines, including American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, JetBlue Airways, Hawaiian Airlines, and Alaska Airlines—but not Southwest Airlines—sued the U.S. Department of Transportation over its new rule that requires the airlines disclose their fees, such as for checking bags, upfront to consumers. The department says consumers are overpaying by $543 million a year in unexpected fees. 

The airlines say that the rule will confuse consumers and that its “attempt to regulate private business operations in a thriving marketplace is beyond its authority.”

The other big story of the day is the continuing attempt of the MAGA Republicans to overturn our democratic system. 

This morning, House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), second in line for the presidency and sworn to uphold the Constitution, left his post in Washington, D.C., to appear with former president Trump at his trial for falsifying business records to deceive voters before the 2016 election. The House was due to consider the final passage of the crucially important Federal Aviation Authority Reauthorization Act, but Johnson chose instead to show up to do the work the judge’s gag order means Trump cannot do himself, attacking key witness Michael Cohen, Trump’s former fixer. Johnson described Cohen as “clearly on a mission for personal revenge” and, citing his “history of perjury,” said that “[n]o one should believe a word he says in there.” 

“I do have a lot of surrogates,” Trump boasted this morning, “and they are speaking very beautifully.” Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), who was also at the trial this morning, later said on Newsmax that they had indeed gone to “overcome this gag order.” 

Johnson went on to call the trial “corrupt” and say “this ridiculous prosecution…is not about justice. It’s all about politics.” He left without taking questions. Meg Kinnard of the Associated Press called out the moment as “a remarkable moment in modern American politics: The House speaker turning his Republican Party against the federal and state legal systems that are foundational to the U.S. government and a cornerstone of democracy.”

Peter Eisler, Ned Parker, and Joseph Tanfani of Reuters explained today how those attacks on our judiciary are sparking widespread calls for violence against judges, with social media posters in echo chambers goading each other into ever more extreme statements. According to her lawyer, Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels, wore a bullet-proof vest as she came and went from court, an uncanny echo of the precautions necessary in mob trials.   

In a different attack on our constitutional system, House Republicans are trying to replace the administration’s foreign policy with their own. Over the weekend, they introduced a bill to force President Biden to send offensive weapons to Israel for its invasion of Rafah, overruling the administration’s decision to withhold a shipment of 2,000-pound and 500-pound bombs after Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced his government would invade Rafah despite strong opposition from the Biden administration. 

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters: “We strongly, strongly oppose attempts to constrain the president’s ability to deploy a U.S. security assistance consistent with U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives.”

The Constitution establishes that the executive branch manages foreign affairs, and until 2015 it was an established practice that politics stopped at the water’s edge, meaning that Congress quarreled with the administration at home but the two presented a united front in foreign affairs. That practice ended in March 2015, when 47 Republican senators, led by freshman Arkansas senator Tom Cotton, wrote a letter to Iran’s leaders warning that they would not honor any agreement Iran reached with the Obama administration over its development of nuclear weapons. 

The Obama administration did end up negotiating the July 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran and several world powers, under which Iran agreed to restrict its nuclear development and allow inspections in exchange for relief from economic sanctions. In 2018 the extremist Republicans got their way when Trump withdrew the U.S. from the deal, largely collapsing it, after which Iran resumed its expansion of the nuclear enrichment  program it had stopped under the agreement.  

Now extremists in the House are trying to run foreign policy on their own. The costs of that usurpation of power are clear in Niger, formerly a key U.S. ally in the counterterrorism effort in West Africa. The new prime minister of Niger, Ali Mahaman Lamine Zeine, whose party took power after a coup d’état threw out Niger’s democratically elected president, defended his country’s turn away from the U.S. and toward Russia in an interview with Rachel Chason of the Washington Post. Recalling the House’s six month delay in passing the national security supplemental bill, he said: “We have seen what the United States will do to defend its allies,” he said, “because we have seen Ukraine and Israel.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[xtruss]

Zimbabwe’s ‘White Gold’! Critical Minerals Law Favors China

Harare has Africa’s largest lithium reserves and Beijing is poised to benefit, despite an export ban.

— By Nosmot Gbadamosi | Foreign Policy | August 16th, 2023

A foreman looks on as an earth mover works on the slippery road at Arcadia Mine on Jan. 11, 2022 in Goromonzi, Zimbabwe. ​Tafadzwa Ufumeli/Getty Images

The world’s clean-energy transition will be impossible without African minerals—and a degree of resource nationalism from African countries is benefiting China, which has for decades invested in the African Green-Energy Market and accounts for 59 percent of the world’s lithium refining. Chinese companies run the majority of Zimbabwe’s mines and are better positioned to expand domestic processing there.

Lithium, often referred to as “White Gold,” is essential to producing Solar Panels and the Rechargeable Batteries that power electric vehicles; and in 2022, demand pushed prices up by more than 100 percent. Africa could supply a fifth of the world’s lithium needs by 2030, but to best serve citizens, African leaders are demanding that miners go beyond extraction and add value by locally processing the raw mineral.

Last December, Zimbabwe 🇿🇼, which has Africa’s Largest Lithium Reserves, imposed a ban on raw lithium ore exports, requiring companies to set up plants in the country and process ore into concentrates before export in order to boost local jobs and revenue. Those seeking to export and not process domestically would need to provide proof of exceptional circumstances and receive written permission to export raw lithium ore.

Zimbabwe’s ban, called the Base Minerals Export Control Act, will stop the country losing billions in mineral proceeds to foreign companies, officials said. Namibia 🇳🇦 has followed suit; and in 2020 around 42 percent of African nations, excluding those in North Africa, had implemented restrictions on raw exports, including the Democratic Republic of Congo 🇨🇩, Ghana 🇬🇭, and Nigeria 🇳🇬.

Traditionally, “mining companies after extraction enjoy all the benefits [while] leaving communities in their catchment areas to bear the brunt of life-threatening dangers associated with their operations,” Edmond Kombat, research and finance director of Ghana’s 🇬🇭 Institute for Energy Security, told ESI Africa. “It is time to stop that practice.”

However, China, which controls the world’s critical minerals supply chain, is ideally placed to reap benefits in these situations, because several Chinese owned companies have recently completed processing plants in the country. Chinese-owned Companies have Spent more than $1 Billion acquiring and developing lithium projects in Zimbabwe, which in contrast has seen Very Little Western investment.

Last month, Chinese minerals giant Zhejiang Huayou Cobalt opened a $300 million lithium processing plant at its Arcadia Mine in Zimbabwe, which it bought last year from Australia-based Prospect Resources for $422 million. The plant currently has the capacity to process around 450,000 metric tons of lithium concentrate annually. Under Zimbabwean law the refined lithium can then be exported for further processing into battery-grade lithium outside Zimbabwe.

In May, another Chinese company, Chengxin Lithium Group, commissioned a lithium concentrator to produce 300,000 metric tons per year at the Sabi Star mine in eastern Zimbabwe. And China’s Sinomine Resource Group said last month it had completed a $300 million lithium plant, after it bought Bikita Minerals, one of Africa’s oldest lithium mines, for $180 million.

Zimbabwe hopes to satisfy 20 percent of the world’s total lithium demand when it fully exploits its known lithium resources. “If we continue exporting raw lithium we will go nowhere,” Deputy Mines Minister Polite Kambamura told Bloomberg last year. “We want to see lithium batteries being developed in the country.”

New rules stipulate that a 5 percent royalty rate will be payable on lithium exported, due half in cash and half in processed final products so that the country can build cash reserves it could use for government-backed borrowing.

U.S. sanctions on Zimbabwe 🇿🇼, imposed since 2001, have impacted the country’s access to borrowing and investment, leaving few options but China. Last year, Zimbabwean Finance and Economic Development Minister Mthuli Ncube claimed the country has lost more than $42 billion in revenue as a result of Western sanctions. The Zimbabwe Investment Development Agency reportedly received 160 lithium investment applications from investors based in China in the first half of 2023 compared to just five from the United States.

Even among Zimbabwe’s regional peers, U.S. companies have been left on the backfoot. Nigeria Rejected Elon Musk’s Tesla in favor of Beijing-based Ming Xin Mineral Separation to build Nigeria’s first lithium processing plant in Kaduna State, in the country’s northwest region. Nigerian officials reportedly rejected Tesla’s proposal because it did not align with the country’s new policies. “Our new mining policy demands that you add some value to raw mineral ores, including lithium, before you export,” Ayodeji Adeyemi, special assistant to Nigeria’s mines and steel development minister, told Rest of World.

For decades, African economists complained that foreign companies extracted minerals without benefit to citizens. In 2015, Zimbabwean researchers estimated the country had lost $12 billion due to illegal trade involving multinational companies in China 🇨🇳, Canada 🇨🇦, the United States 🇺🇸, and the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 —enough money to pay off Zimbabwe’s foreign debt.

Africa holds more than 40 Percent of Global Reserves of Key Minerals for batteries and hydrogen technologies. Yet it’s predicted that, by 2030, more than 80 percent of the world’s poor will live in Africa, and about 75 percent of them in resource-rich countries.

It makes sense for African Nations to step up efforts to increase quality jobs. “The United States and Europe must ensure that the partnerships they are building in Africa are mutually beneficial and non-extractive,” Theophile Pouget-Abadie and Rachel Rizzo recently wrote in Foreign Policy. “Otherwise, they will run headlong into the walls erected by an increasingly dominant Beijing.”

Washington in January signed a memorandum of understanding to help the Democratic Republic of Congo 🇨🇩 and Zambia 🇿🇲 develop an electric battery supply chain. But China is going beyond this in terms of thinking about what African nations need. Beijing, for example, with support from the United Nations 🇺�� Development Program, is facilitating a joint research center in Ethiopia 🇪🇹 to fast-track access to renewable energy in the country.

Experts warn that more African countries banning critical raw minerals exports will impede global decarbonization. Zimbabwe’s ban is perceived as unrealistic because the country lacks skilled workers. Some countries (Kenya 🇰🇪, Tanzania 🇹🇿, and Zambia 🇿🇲) have implemented policies requiring mining companies to train locals, according to a recent World Bank report. The report suggests national export bans alone can make countries worse off because investors simply move their business elsewhere, but that training requirements could ensure retention of investment and the creation of a skilled workforce.

[sagarg889]

Sirens Market Research by Key players, Type and Application, Future Growth Forecast 2022 to 2032

In 2022, the global sirens market is expected to be worth US$ 170.1 million. The siren market is expected to reach US$ 244.0 million by 2032, growing at a 3.7% CAGR.

The use of sirens is expected to increase, whether for announcements or on emergency vehicles such as ambulances, police cars, and fire trucks. A siren is a loud warning system that alerts people to potentially dangerous situations as they happen.

Rapidly increasing threats and accidents have resulted in more casualties and missed business opportunities in developing economies. Demand for sirens is expected to rise during the forecast period as more people use security solutions.

As a result of rising threats and accidents in developing economies, the number of victims and lost business opportunities has rapidly increased. Adopting security solutions, such as sirens, is an effective way to deal with these challenges. Long-range sirens are used in mining and industrial applications, whereas motorised sirens are used in home security. Hand-operated sirens are used when there is no power or when a backup is required.

Some additional features of sirens include a solar panel upgrade system to keep the batteries charged and a number of digital communication methods, including Ethernet, satellite, IP, fiber optic and others. Sirens have conformal coatings on their electronics, which help protect them against harsh environments. Some of the systems are made in such a way that they can be expanded or scaled depending on future capabilities.

Omni-directional sirens can be used in areas of high noise levels and those with large population densities as they provide a greater area of coverage. Sirens have external controls with triggers, which can be customized according to needs. The lightening types of sirens include bulb revolving, LED flashing and xenon lamp strobe. The loud speakers in sirens are adopted from latest piezoelectric ceramic technology.

Get a Sample Copy of this Report @ https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/sample/rep-gb-4274

Other sirens are hydraulic or air driven and mostly find applications in plants and factories. Lithium batteries have replaced alkaline batteries in sirens now, since lithium batteries need not be replaced for several years. Modern sirens use latest technologies and find applications in civil defense, emergency vehicles, security systems and others. Typically, sirens are made of stainless steel, aluminum or UV stabilized polycarbonate to avoid corrosion and are equipped with protection cages. An LED flashing siren has a light source with a semi-permanent lifespan and it is used in places where bulb replacement is a problem.

Region-wise Outlook

In the global sirens market, the dominant share is held by the U.S., India, China, Japan, Australia, Germany, Singapore and the UAE. This can be attributed to the demand for security solutions in developed as well as developing economies.

The regional analysis includes:

North America (U.S., Canada)

Latin America (Mexico. Brazil)

Western Europe (Germany, Italy, France, U.K, Spain)

Eastern Europe (Poland, Russia)

Asia-Pacific (China, India, ASEAN, Australia & New Zealand)

Japan

The Middle East and Africa (GCC Countries, S. Africa, Northern Africa)

The report is a compilation of first-hand information, qualitative and quantitative assessment by industry analysts, inputs from industry experts and industry participants across the value chain. The report provides in-depth analysis of parent market trends, macro-economic indicators and governing factors along with market attractiveness as per segments. The report also maps the qualitative impact of various market factors on market segments and geographies.

Market Participants

Some of the key market participants identified in the global siren market are Acoustic Technology Inc., Sentry Siren Inc., MA Safety Signal Co. Ltd, Whelen Engineering Co. Inc., Federal Signal Corporation, B & M Siren Manufacturing Co., Projects Unlimited Inc., Phoenix Contact, Mallory Sonalert Products and Qlight USA Inc.

Rising population and rapid urbanization have led to an increase in demand for security solutions. The need for implementation of security has paved way for the use of electronic equipment on a large scale globally, which in turn has created opportunities for the global sirens market. As these products are durable with a high voltage capacity and easy to install, they find high selling propositions. Characteristics and properties of electronic and pneumatic equipment play a vital role in security solutions, thereby driving the global sirens market with a rise in diverse end-user applications, such as industrial warning systems, community warning systems, campus alert systems and military mass warning systems.

Report Highlights:

Detailed overview of parent market

Changing market dynamics in the industry

In-depth Polishing / Lapping Film market segmentation

Historical, current and projected market size in terms of volume and value

Recent industry trends and developments

Competitive landscape

Strategies of key players and products offered

Potential and niche segments, geographical regions exhibiting promising growth

A neutral perspective on market performance

Must-have information for market players to sustain and enhance their market footprint.

Browse Detailed Summary of Research Report with TOC @ https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/sirens-market

Key Segments

Product Type:

Electronic

Electro-mechanical

Rotating

Single/dual toned

Omnidirectional

By Application:

Civil defense

Industrial signaling

Emergency vehicles

Home/vehicle safety

Security/warning systems

Military use

Others

By Installation Type:

Wall mounting

Self-standing

Water proof connector

By Regions:

North America

Europe

Asia Pacific

Latin America

MEA

[mariacallous]

Editor's Note: This piece was originally published by The American Prospect.

Thanks to the clean energy revolution, batteries are no longer in the public eye just in the form of that unstoppable bunny in TV ads. Batteries—like computer chips, electric vehicles, solar panels, and other hardware—are having a moment.

Last fall, with funding from 2021’s mammoth bipartisan infrastructure law, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) awarded nearly $3 billion in grants to 20 manufacturers of electric vehicle (EV) battery components in 20 states. That’s just a portion of the taxpayer money appropriated to dramatically expand battery production and enlarge the EV supply chain in the U.S., which is, in turn, a small part of the trillion-dollar surge in federal investment.

In February, the Commerce Department announced the terms of competition for $39 billion in federal subsidies for manufacturers to expand domestic production of semiconductors. Among other conditions, the CHIPS Incentives Program limits stock buybacks and requires applicants to provide the child care that’s so crucial to enabling more women to work in manufacturing.

The question now is how these big bets to expand advanced manufacturing and boost research and development in America—taken together, what the Biden administration calls our country’s “new industrial strategy”—will create broadly shared economic gains, including good jobs, for workers and communities across the country.

This “how” is not without controversy, to put it mildly. Beyond the conservative critics who have lambasted the child care requirement and other conditions, influential liberal voices have aired serious skepticism as well. In a recent column (and clever pop culture mash-up), Ezra Klein of The New York Times decried “everything-bagel liberalism” that pursues “everything everywhere all at once.” But he, too, lumps everything together—from permitting requirements confronting nonprofit housing developers to these new, conditional industrial-policy incentives meant to embed meaningful economic opportunity for workers and communities into the DNA of some of the world’s most important and massively subsidized growth industries. Klein—whom we agree with on many things—gets it wrong when it comes to CHIPS and other promising government efforts to chart a new course.

Advocates have worked for decades in many parts of the country on how to make the economy work for all, on a foundation of good jobs and racial and gender equity. From that work, one essential lesson emerges: Attaching clear, consistently enforced expectations to public investment is indispensable. And with the enactment of last year’s landmark legislation, public officials now have a once-in-a-generation set of tools and resources to do this. The “how,” however, remains an open question, especially for jobs outside of construction.

For much of the past half-century, America’s dominant economic paradigm held that free markets and freewheeling capital alone have created the nation’s critical industries and enabled them to flourish. That paradigm denied the important role that government plays in shaping the nation’s economy. Indeed, innovation has long required and received government-backed R&D, contracts, and other investments in discovery and commercialization. Today, that investment is also focused on the making of a lot of stuff: batteries, electric vehicles, charging stations, computer chips that put the brains in all that hardware, and more. So how did we approach that challenge for the past few decades, given that influential economists and political leaders across the political spectrum often questioned whether America needed manufacturing at all?

Consider the evolution of the DOE and how it impacts our economy and communities. Created with a wartime sense of urgency—to address the energy crisis of the 1970s—the DOE quickly found itself in the crosshairs of American politics, especially as high gas prices receded and renewable energy seemed a pipe dream. For years, the DOE was a favorite target for those keen to attack public investment and many of the other tools of entrepreneurial government. By that we mean, as economist Mariana Mazzucato argues in her book “Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism,” a government that is both equipped and directed to help solve national challenges—not just address market failures and economic calamities.

Despite the lack of broader political support, the DOE quietly became a vital source of the R&D dollars that helped develop new technologies. Thanks to the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2008, the agency also became an important supplier of the financing that, in principle, could have helped turn great ideas into great companies that committed to good jobs in addition to great products.

Famously, the DOE bet $465 million in taxpayer dollars, in the form of a direct loan, on the ambitious domestic production plans of Tesla, now the world’s most valuable car company. That was well before the private capital markets were ready to make that bet on a largely unproven company and its first major factory in Fremont, Calif.

The DOE’s investment in Tesla paid off in terms of demonstrating the viability of mass-produced electric vehicles. But in terms of generating good jobs and racial and gender equity in this critically important new industry, the investment proved to be a bust. The company leads all carmakers in the U.S. in workplace safety violations—as Forbes put it, “racking up more infractions and fines in the last three years than all other automakers in the U.S. combined.” CEO Elon Musk has fought workers’ attempts to unionize by spying on them, firing organizers, and refusing to stop anti-union social media attacks. The company is also being sued by the state of California for alleged widespread anti-Black racism, and by several women for alleged sexual harassment.

There’s a moral to this story: Tesla may be the world’s biggest example of how much harder it is for government to push for high-road labor standards after a company has grown with the help of taxpayer financing. If something important is not part of the deal up front, it tends not to happen.

Tesla is not alone. Particularly in the South and many rural areas around the country, even in ostensibly pro-labor states such as California, innovative manufacturers are mass-producing low-quality jobs. The good manufacturing job is mostly gone, outside of the less than 10% that are unionized. There is, therefore, no guarantee that a significant chunk of the publicly supported clean and high-tech production jobs will pay much more than minimum wage or that they will provide opportunity for training and advancement.

That is, unless certain choices are made to incentivize and embed good jobs and equity into the deals.

[researchvishal]

Rail Wheel and Axle Market Analysis by Size, Share, Growth, Trends up to 2033

During the forecast period, the global rail wheel and axle market size is expected to expand at a steady CAGR of 5.6%. At its present growth rate, the global market for rail wheels and axles is expected to be worth $4,402.3 million by the year 2023. In 2033, the demand for rail wheel and axle is projected to reach US$ 7603.4 Mn.

Competitive Landscape

The global rail wheel and axle market is highly competitive, with many companies operating in this space. These companies are engaged in a range of activities, including the production of rail wheels and axles, the repair and maintenance of these products, and the supply of related services.

There are several key players in the global rail wheel and axle market, including Amsted Rail, ArcelorMittal, Bradken, GE Transportation, Klöckner Pentaplast, Lucchini RS, NSSMC, Vyatka, and Wabtec. These companies are well-established players with a strong presence in the market and a reputation for producing high-quality products.

Overall, the global rail wheel and axle market is highly competitive, with a diverse range of companies operating in this space. Companies in the market are constantly seeking ways to differentiate themselves from their competitors, such as through the development of new technologies or the expansion of their product offerings.

For more information: https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/rail-wheel-and-axle-market

Due to the growing sophistication of rail networks and trains, as well as the present trend toward autonomous technology, train makers are devoting significant resources to R&D to develop lighter materials for wheels and axles for freight trains, passenger trains, and short-distance trains.

Nearly 7 billion people take trains each year, and they all want to travel as quickly, easily, and economically as possible. It's for this reason that the research and development of fully driverless trains is continuing to advance. Computerized monitoring systems installed on autonomous trains can detect problems with rail wheels and axles.

There are numerous benefits to using a solar rail system instead of traditional diesel trains. Diesel-powered trains usually have two engine cars. In contrast, solar-powered trains use solar gears in place of traditional gears. Solar panels have been put on the bogie roofs, and electric motors and batteries have been installed in the second diesel compartment.

The electrical needs of railway engines, which normally require 750 V to 800 V to move the rails, may be met by solar panels set atop trains providing voltages of 600 V to 800 V. Demand for these trains is likely to rise, which is good news for manufacturers of rail wheels and axles.

The rail wheel and axle market is an important segment of the global rail transportation industry. Rail wheel and axle products are essential components of rail vehicles, such as trains, trams, and subway cars, and are used to support and propel these vehicles. There are several factors that are driving the global rail wheel and axle market, including growth in rail transportation, urbanisation and population growth, environmental concerns, and technological advancements.

However, the demand for rail wheel and axle is also facing several restraints or challenges, including high capital costs, cyclical demand, a complex supply chain, competition from other modes of transportation, and regulatory challenges. Despite these challenges, the rail wheel and axle market is expected to continue growing in the coming years, driven by increasing demand for rail transportation and ongoing technological advancements in the industry.

Key Takeaways

It is estimated that the US market for rail wheel and axle will be worth $570.8 million in 2022.

Market value in China, the world's second largest economy, is projected to reach $878 million by 2026, expanding at a CAGR of 6% from 2023 to 2033.

Over the projection horizon, both Japan and Canada are predicted to grow at rates of 2.9% and 3.8%, respectively.

The demand for rail wheel and axle in Germany is projected to expand by 3.3% this year.

[rjzimmerman]

Lithium-ion batteries have ruled for decades. Now they have a challenger. (Washington Post)

Excerpt from this story from the Washington Post:

After decades of lithium-ion batteries dominating the market, a new option has emerged: batteries made with sodium ions.

Scientists have been researching alternatives to lithium for years. Much of the world relies on this kind of battery, but the mining and processing of its materials can be harmful to workers, local communities and the environment.

Sodium has recently emerged as one of the more promising options, and experts say the material could be a cheaper and more environmentally friendly alternative to lithium.

In the past few years, sodium-ion battery production has increased in the United States. Last month, sodium-ion battery manufacturer Natron Energy announced it would open a “gigafactory” in North Carolina that would produce 24 gigawatt hours of batteries annually, enough energy to charge 24,000 electric vehicles.

But sodium-ion batteries are still early in their development compared with lithium-ion, and they have yet to hit the market on a massive scale.

“It’s unlikely sodium-ion could displace lithium-ion anytime soon,” said Keith Beers, polymer science and materials chemistry principal engineer at technical consultancy firm Exponent.

Here’s what to know about these batteries.

How sodium-ion batteries work

There are many types of sodium-ion batteries, but the ones that will be manufactured in North Carolina are produced in the same way as lithium-ion batteries, just with different ingredients. Instead of using expensive materials like lithium, nickel and cobalt, these will bemade of sodium, iron and manganese.

In a battery, ions move between electrodes during a charging and discharging process to generate electricity, explains Alvaro Acosta, a senior director at the solar developer Lightsource bp. In a sodium-ion battery, sodium ions carry the charge, and the negative electrode is made up of common materials like iron, carbon and nitrogen. Natron’s batteries use iron and manganese for their negative electrodes.

The biggest limitation of sodium-ion batteries is their weight. Sodium weighs nearly three times as much as lithium, and it cannot store the same amount of energy. As a result, sodium-ion batteries tend to be larger.

Jens Peters, an economics professor at the University of Alcalá in Madrid, said the energy density could be improved over time in sodium-ion batteries. But, he added, “what we found out so far in our assessments is that it is not a game changer.”

Sodium-ion batteries are touted to be the environmentally friendly alternative to their lithium-ion counterparts, thanks to their raw materials. Sodium, iron and manganese are all abundant elements on the planet, so they require less energy to extract and cost less.

“Everyone knows that lithium-ion batteries are the pulse of mobile phones, transportation,” said Yang-Kook Sun, professor of energy engineering at Hanyang University in Seoul. “The issue over lithium-ion batteries is that they use highly expensive materials like lithium, nickel and cobalt.”

[batteryrecyclingcompany]

The Future of Sustainable Lithium-Ion Battery Disposal and Repurposing: A Key Step toward a Greener Tomorrow

As the global shift toward electrification accelerates, lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries are at the heart of nearly every electric vehicle, laptop, smartphone, and renewable energy storage system. Their critical role in combating climate change cannot be overstated. However, with the increasing demand for these batteries, a major challenge looms—what happens when these batteries reach the end of their life cycle? Understanding the importance of Li-ion battery disposal regulations and the potential of lithium-ion battery repurposing companies is key to unlocking a sustainable future.

The Growth of Battery Demand: A Call for Sustainable Solutions

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the battery market is expected to grow tenfold over the next decade. This surge in demand for electric vehicles (EVs) and energy storage systems will inevitably lead to an equally significant rise in the number of batteries reaching the end of their useful lives. By 2030, analysts predict the annual retirement of over 2 million metric tonnes of batteries, with over half a million EVs potentially reaching the end of their lifecycle each year.

This presents an urgent need for scalable and efficient solutions to manage battery disposal and recycling. Without proper management, millions of batteries could end up in landfills, contributing to environmental degradation and resource depletion. However, through effective recycling and repurposing, valuable materials like lithium, nickel, cobalt, and copper can be recovered, reducing the reliance on virgin materials and supporting a circular economy.

The Role of Li-Ion Battery Disposal Regulations

As the number of electric vehicles on the road rises, it is crucial to address Li-ion battery disposal regulations. Many regions are already moving towards stronger regulations to ensure safe disposal and recycling practices, but these regulations are still in their infancy. The development of comprehensive policies will play a crucial role in promoting the collection and recycling of spent batteries, ensuring that they are not left to pollute landfills but instead repurposed or recycled for reuse.

California, for example, is working to implement policies that ensure 100% of electric vehicle batteries sold in the state are recycled or reused at their end of life. These policies aim to close the loop on battery production and reduce the carbon footprint of battery manufacturing. Regulations such as extended producer responsibility and standardization of battery labeling can significantly streamline recycling efforts and ensure that all parties involved in the battery lifecycle adhere to best practices.

The current market for battery recycling is also dominated by traditional smelting processes, which involve high temperatures to extract valuable materials from the spent batteries. However, new methods are emerging that promise to revolutionize the recycling process. Research is now focusing on direct recycling techniques, where cathode materials are kept intact and repurposed for use in new batteries. This reduces energy consumption and minimizes the environmental impacts of recycling.

Lithium-Ion Battery Repurposing Companies: Extending Battery Life

While recycling remains a vital part of the battery life cycle, repurposing is emerging as another promising avenue for reducing the environmental impact of Li-ion batteries. Many lithium-ion battery repurposing companies are now exploring ways to give second-life batteries a new lease on life, using them for stationary energy storage applications. These repurposed batteries can still provide valuable energy storage capacity, but without the high energy demands of electric vehicles.

Repurposing involves taking used batteries that are no longer suitable for their original purpose and reconfiguring them for secondary applications, such as solar energy storage or grid balancing. This not only reduces the need for new batteries but also helps to extend the overall lifecycle of the battery, thereby reducing the environmental footprint of battery production.

One major challenge to the large-scale adoption of battery repurposing is the improving performance and decreasing cost of new batteries. With new batteries becoming cheaper and more efficient, there is less incentive to reuse older batteries. However, some repurposing companies are finding ways to overcome these obstacles by refining their processes and developing more efficient testing and repurposing technologies.

The Economic and Environmental Benefits of Battery Recycling and Repurposing

The economic and environmental benefits of battery recycling and repurposing cannot be overstated. For one, it reduces the dependence on mining for critical minerals such as cobalt, nickel, and lithium—minerals that are often sourced from regions with questionable environmental and ethical practices. By recycling and repurposing existing batteries, we can reduce the demand for new raw materials, slow the depletion of finite resources, and lower the environmental impact of mining.

Additionally, recovering materials from used batteries helps to reduce waste and prevent millions of batteries from ending up in landfills, where they pose significant environmental hazards. Lithium-ion battery recycling also reduces the need for expensive and energy-intensive mining operations, which are often associated with ecological damage and the depletion of local water resources.

A Bright Future for Battery Recycling and Repurposing

The growing market for electric vehicles and renewable energy storage presents a clear opportunity to create a sustainable supply chain for lithium-ion batteries. With advancements in recycling technologies, such as direct recycling of cathode materials and innovations in battery repurposing, we are on the cusp of a revolution in how we handle end-of-life batteries.

To make this vision a reality, policymakers, businesses, and researchers must continue to work together to strengthen Li-ion battery disposal regulations, promote responsible recycling practices, and encourage the development of battery repurposing technologies. As we move towards a greener future, these efforts will help to close the loop on battery production, reduce the environmental impact of battery manufacturing, and ensure that critical resources are used responsibly and sustainably.

The path ahead is clear: by embracing a circular economy model for batteries, we can minimize waste, reduce reliance on raw materials, and pave the way for a more sustainable future. It is time for the world to take action and ensure that we have the necessary infrastructure, policies, and technologies in place to make the most of every lithium-ion battery.

Visit us at: Reverse logistics for lithium-ion batteries

Originally published on: Medium

[psychicsheeparcade]

Wire & Cable Market Growth and Status Explored in a New Research Report 2034

The Global Wire and Cable Market is expected to increase at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 3.8% between 2024 and 2034. Based on an average growth pattern, the market is expected to reach USD 302.35 billion in 2034. In 2024, the worldwide wire and cable industry is projected to generate USD 233.59 billion in revenue.

The global wire and cable market plays a crucial role in powering industries, infrastructures, and modern technology. From telecommunications and energy transmission to consumer electronics, wires and cables are vital components ensuring seamless connectivity, data transfer, and power distribution. The market has witnessed significant growth due to the increasing demand for renewable energy, smart grids, and high-speed data networks.

Get a Sample Copy of Report, Click Here: https://wemarketresearch.com/reports/request-free-sample-pdf/wire-and-cable-market/1611

Wire & Cable Market Drivers:

Rapid Urbanization & Industrialization: The demand for power infrastructure is increasing as urban areas expand and industries grow.

Renewable Energy Expansion: Wind and solar energy projects require specialized cables for efficient energy transmission.

Growing Demand for High-Speed Data Transmission: The rise in internet penetration and data consumption fuels the need for advanced fiber optic cables.

Automotive Sector Transformation: The shift toward electric vehicles (EVs) drives demand for specialized wires and cables in EV batteries and charging infrastructure.

Wire & Cable Market Restraints:

Fluctuating Raw Material Prices: The cost of copper and aluminum, essential components for cables, is volatile, affecting production costs.

Environmental Regulations: Stricter regulations on materials and manufacturing processes may pose challenges to manufacturers.

Wire & Cable Market Opportunities:

Adoption of Smart Grids: With increasing investments in smart cities and smart grids, demand for advanced power cables is growing.

Technological Advancements: Development of lightweight, durable, and high-capacity cables offers new growth avenues.

Key Industry Challenges

Counterfeit Products The rise of counterfeit cables, especially in developing countries, affects product reliability and safety, posing a challenge to reputable manufacturers.

Complex Regulatory ComplianceDifferent countries have varying standards for wire and cable manufacturing, making it difficult for companies to comply with multiple regulatory frameworks.

Supply Chain DisruptionThe COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical tensions have disrupted the global supply chain, leading to raw material shortages and price fluctuations.

Wire & Cable Market Segmentation,

By Type:

Power Cables

Communication Cables

Specialty Cables

By Voltage:

Low Voltage

Medium Voltage

High Voltage

By End-Use Industry:

Energy & Power

Telecommunications

Building & Construction

Automotive

Aerospace

Key companies profiled in this research study are,

The Global Wire & Cable Market is dominated by a few large companies, such as

Prysmian Group

Southwire Company, LLC

Nexans

Prysmian Group

Leoni AG

Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.

Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd.

LS Cable & System Ltd.

Incab

Kabel Deutschland GmbH

Turktelekom

Belden Inc.

Amphenol Corporation

Helukabel GmbH

Nexans Cabling Solutions  

Wire & Cable Industry: Regional Analysis

North America: Driven by the expansion of renewable energy projects and modernization of infrastructure.

Europe: Focus on green energy initiatives and smart grid development fuels the wire & cable market.

Asia-Pacific:The largest market due to rapid industrialization, urban development, and increasing power demand in countries like China and India.

Middle East & Africa:Investments in power generation and oil & gas sectors drive growth in this region.

Conclusion

The global wire & cable market is a cornerstone of modern infrastructure, facilitating energy transmission, data connectivity, and industrial automation. With the rising demand for renewable energy, high-speed internet, and smart technologies, the market is on a trajectory of sustained growth. Key innovations in eco-friendly, fire-resistant, and high-capacity cables are reshaping the industry landscape. Furthermore, as investments in smart grids, electric vehicles, and advanced communication networks surge, the wire & cable market will continue to expand, offering immense opportunities for manufacturers and suppliers. Strategic advancements and technological developments will be critical in ensuring that the industry keeps pace with evolving global demands.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the market size of Wire & Cable Market in 2024?

What is the growth rate for the Wire & Cable Market?

Which are the top companies operating within the market?

Which region dominates the Wire & Cable Market?