Battery Metals

GRAND RAPIDS — Economic developers confirmed Friday that electric vehicle battery maker Gotion Inc. is planning a nearly $2.4 billion factory near Big Rapids, aiming to create 2,350 jobs in the next decade.

An application submitted to the state Thursday by The Right Place — West Michigan’s economic development agency — seeks approval for a 30-year, property tax-free Renaissance Zone on 523 acres spanning Big Rapids Township, Green Township and Mecosta County.

Creation of the Renaissance Zone would save Gotion, a Chinese subsidiary, an estimated $13 million in property taxes annually, according to the application.

Township and county leaders will vote on the request at a special meeting at 7 p.m. Monday.

Headquartered in Silicon Valley’s Fremont, Calif., Gotion makes electronics, battery packs and energy storage technology for electric vehicles at locations in Ohio, China, Japan, Singapore and Germany.

Volkswagen is the company’s largest shareholder, with a 26.5 percent stake.

The proposed facility in Big Rapids would primarily make energy storage components — batteries — according to The Right Place application.

Gotion chose the area over competing sites in Illinois, Ohio, South Carolina, Georgia, Texas and Kentucky.

For the development — dubbed “Project Elephant” in the application — Gotion would invest $2.36 billion in land improvements, buildings, machinery and equipment across four phases. The project aims to create 2,350 high-tech jobs at an average annual wage of $61,995 by the end of phase four, with hiring starting in June 2023 and wrapping at the end of 2031, according to the application.

If all goes according to plan, the company would be the largest employer in the area, a designation currently held by Ferris State University with about 1,400 workers.

Gotion would aim to create 586 jobs in the first year of operations at the factory — 2024 — 556 in the second year, and 723 by year five. Big Rapids Charter Township had a population of 3,917 as of 2020, and Green Township’s was 3,219.

The company expects to invest $365 million in year one, $363 million in year two, $453 million in the third year, $363 million in year four and $820 million in year five.

The application said an estimated $14 million in public infrastructure improvements would be needed to support the project, including $1.7 million for sanitary sewers, $3.9 million for water mains and an elevated water storage tank, $3.6 million for road improvements, and $4.8 million for design, engineering, administration and related costs.

The Right Place said the project is expected to create indirect economic impact in the area including job creation in construction, services, retail and wholesale sectors. It anticipates the development also will spur the creation of new housing and jumpstart previously stalled residential projects.

According to the application, a driving factor in Gotion’s selection of Big Rapids was its proximity to Ferris State and the fact that there are no existing renewable energy Renaissance Zones nearby.

If the local governments approve Gotion’s application Monday, the request would head to the Michigan Strategic Fund board. The MEDC said Friday it does not yet know when the MSF board will consider the request.

The Right Place and Michigan Economic Development Corporation did not respond to questions on whether the state will provide Gotion additional tax incentives, like a grant from the new Michigan Strategic Outreach and Attraction Reserve Fund.

— Crain’s Detroit Business reporter David Eggert contributed to this report.

President Joe Biden has decided against restricting imports of neodymium magnets that come primarily from China and are used in electric vehicles, wind turbines and a variety of other tech and defense applications, the White House said Wednesday.

The decision avoids a new trade fight with Beijing, as well as with Japan, the European Union and other countries that export the magnets or have hopes of doing that to meet an expected upsurge in demand in coming years. It also should allay the concerns of U.S. automakers and other manufacturers who rely on imports of the magnets to produce finished goods.

Biden’s decision is based on the results of a 270-day Commerce Department investigation which found that U.S. reliance on imports of the powerful magnets are a threat to U.S. national security and recommended a number of steps to increase domestic production.

Commerce’s suggestions included making investments in key segments of the magnet supply chain; incentivizing domestic production; working with allies and partners on supply chain resilience; supporting the development of a skilled workforce to produce neodymium magnets in the United States; and supporting ongoing research to mitigate supply chain vulnerabilities, the administration said.

The rare earth element magnets are also used in military fighter jets and missile guidance systems in addition to other commercial applications like computer hard drives, smartphones and MRI machines.

The Commerce Department, in the report ordered by Secretary Gina Raimondo, did not recommend imposing tariffs on magnet imports, as former President Donald Trump did on steel and aluminum in 2018, following a similar national security investigation under Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act.

“Obviously tariffs are a tool authorized under the Section 232 statute,” a senior administration official said. “But there are many other tools that we also have in our toolkit.”

The Biden administration already has used the Defense Production Act and other authorities to invest nearly $200 million with three companies — MP Materials, Lynas Rare Earths, and Noveon Magnetics — to increase the U.S. capacity to process rare earth elements, such as neodymium, and to boost U.S. production of neodymium magnets from current negligible levels.

“According to the Commerce Department’s findings, the efforts we’ve already taken, as well as the efforts that we’re directing coming out of this report, could lead to a significant decline in import penetration by 2026,” the senior administration official said.

More precisely, the Commerce Department report estimated that “domestic sources could potentially satisfy up to 51 percent of total U.S. demand” in only four years. Currently, the United States is “nearly one hundred percent dependent on imports to meet commercial and defense requirements,” the report said.

Noveon is the only firm in the United States that produces “sintered” neodymium magnets, which is the type the Commerce Department focused on in the report. Last year, China supplied 75 percent of U.S. sintered neodymium magnets imports, followed by nine percent from Japan, five percent from the Philippines and four percent from Germany.

The administration expects that its efforts to boost U.S. production will reduce imports from China more than from the other suppliers, the senior administration official said.

Raimondo’s decision to launch the 232 investigation in September 2021 was prompted by the White House’s 100-day supply chain review in June of that year, which found that China dominated every aspect of the neodymium supply chain. Raimondo transmitted the department’s findings to Biden in June, starting a 90-day clock for a presidential decision.

U.S. automobile and wind tower manufacturers already rely heavily on the magnets, which GM helped develop in the early 1980s. However, demand for the magnets is expected to spike in the coming years, leading to a potential global shortage. That’s because electric vehicles use about 10 times as much of the magnets as conventional gasoline-powered cars.

A report last year from the Chicago-based Paulson Institute estimated that electric vehicles and wind turbines alone will require at least 50 percent of the high-performance neodymium magnet supply in 2025 and nearly 100 percent in 2030.

That means other uses for the magnets, such as in military fighter jets, missile guidance systems, MRI machines and smartphones, could face “supply bottlenecks and rising prices as soon as 2025,” the Paulson Institute report said.

“We see a massive increase in demand in the coming years,” the senior administration official said. “We need to make sure we get out ahead of it, both to make sure they are literally available on the market, that there aren’t short supplies, and to make sure that we don’t continue to be heavily dependent on China.”

SHANGHAI, Sept 21 (Reuters) – Xpeng (9868.HK) has diversified its battery suppliers and no longer counts industry giant CATL (300750.SZ) as its primary supplier, the Chinese electric car maker’s president said on Wednesday.

The disclosure by one of CATL’s biggest clients reflects how Chinese EV automakers are starting to look for alternative suppliers in hope of better controlling costs, after dominant player CATL raised prices this year.

Xpeng was CATL’s third-largest client after Tesla (TSLA.O) and Nio in terms of battery volumes installed in 2021, according to Chinese consulting firm Gaogong Industry Institute.

Xpeng now uses several battery makers in addition to CATL, Brian Gu told reporters in an online interview on Wednesday on the sidelines of a launch for its new G9 flagship sports utility vehicle. He did not give a reason for the diversification.

But he said that Xpeng chose to work with Sunwoda (300207.SZ), a smaller Chinese battery maker, to develop a fast-charging battery for the G9 that would enable the SUV to achieve 80% charge in 15 minutes.

“We have already diversified our battery supplier arrangement. CATL is no longer our largest material supplier. We actually have worked with several high-quality battery suppliers, for example, EVE, CALB,” Gu said.

CATL did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Still, CATL remains far ahead of its competitors with a market share of 47.45% in China, while CALB ranked third and Sunwoda ranked fifth, accounting for 7% and 2.5%, respectively, of the total battery supplies in the first eight months, according to China Automotive Battery Innovation Alliance.

As electric vehicle (EV) policies are implemented around the country, and sales continue to rise, a question many ask is if vehicle batteries are recycled.

Yes, EV battery recycling is happening in facilities around the United States. The materials recovered, including cobalt, nickel, lithium, and manganese, can be used in the manufacturing of new batteries. While this recycling market is growing, there is still no federal or state law or policy that requires it – an obligation that could ensure higher recycling rates and increased efficiency.

California is taking steps to change that.

In 2019, the state convened a group of experts and stakeholders – thanks to Assembly Bill 2832 – to develop policy recommendations that would increase EV battery recycling. That stakeholder group informed a recently released report containing policy recommendations for the state.

The report outlines a package of policies that could become the first lithium-ion US battery recycling regulation – including producer responsibility for battery recycling. While this is a huge win for those of us who want to see batteries recycled, there were also a handful of policies that could make incredible strides towards increasing the sustainability of batteries but weren’t recommended.

I had the privilege of cofacilitating this group with my colleagues at the University of California, Davis along with some dedicated people at CalRecycle and the Department of Toxic Substance Control. So let me provide a (very) brief summary of the policy recommendations and some insights I gleaned.

Who were the members of the Advisory Group?

The Advisory Group had a final count of 19 members and consisted of representatives from the automotive and battery industries (6 members), waste industry (5 members), public interest organizations (3 members), and government agencies (5 members).

The final policy recommendations were based on a group vote which the government agency representatives recused themselves from. The voting members were, therefore, industry-leaning, with the automotive and battery industry representing 43% of members, the waste industry representing 36%, and the public interest organizations representing 21%. Each policy had to receive an affirmative vote by at least 50% of the group to be included as a recommendation in the report.

Did the group propose recycling requirements?

The group recommended that battery recycling be a requirement in the state and defined the party responsible for covering the costs of transporting and recycling batteries once a vehicle is retired. If this type of policy is passed it could be a great step towards increasing EV battery recycling.

Two policy options to determine the responsible party were proposed. The first says it should be the EV manufacturer (that is, the automaker like Ford or Tesla) who is responsible for ensuring their vehicles’ batteries are recycled when the car or truck is no longer on the road. This policy, called extended producer responsibility, was recommended with 67% support from voting members. The automotive companies were the only members to not support this policy, although Tesla was the outlier and in favor of this policy option.

The second option received a greater level of support at 93%. All members voted in favor of this policy, except Tesla who abstained. This second policy option defines the EV manufacturer or an automotive dismantler as the responsible party, depending on a few important factors. These factors require some nuanced knowledge about what happens to a car when it is retired under different circumstances, such as if the vehicle fails under warranty, if it needs the battery to be replaced while out of warranty, or if it crashes or ages out of usefulness. The most common route of retirement is from crashing or getting old, so that will be the version of this policy explained here.

The proposed policy states that if the automotive dismantler (also known as an automotive recycler) acquires the EV and removes the battery, the dismantler is now responsible for making sure the battery is recycled.

To provide some background, after a car is retired, it typically goes to an automotive dismantler. These are certified facilities that take cars apart to sell the parts for reuse or recycling. The disassembly of EVs is very different from the disassembly of gasoline vehicles, therefore new equipment, training, and recycling partners are necessary for dismantlers to handle this new type of vehicle. These dismantlers range from small businesses to corporations, and their trade group, the United Recyclers Group, alone represents over 800 businesses in North America.

An automaker representative explained in an Advisory Group meeting that they support this policy instead of option 1 due to the potential value of the used EV. Batteries contain valuable materials like cobalt, nickel, and lithium, but some battery chemistries contain more of the valuable materials than others. If the dismantler disassembles the EV and does not want the remaining battery, it is likely the battery has a chemistry that is of lower value and will therefore be a burden to get rid of, instead of a net benefit. So, the auto manufacturer is essentially making sure they do not risk being responsible for an EV that has already been picked apart for valuable pieces and then left with a product that will be costly to dispose of.

What other policies were recommended?

There were three other areas that the advisory group recommended policies: increased access to information, support for industry development, and safe and efficient reverse logistics.

Providing access to battery information while the battery is in the car and after it is removed is crucial to enable efficient and safe reuse, repurposing, and recycling. It was recommended that a label for batteries be required on all EVs and that it include information such as chemistry, capacity, and automotive manufacturer. Labeling EV batteries is not currently a common practice and makes it difficult to sort the batteries and evaluate the cost (or revenue) of recycling.

In addition to a label, the group recommended vehicle owners – whether that be an ordinary EV driver like you or me, or the dismantler who took the car after it was retired – have access to their battery’s state of health information, or in other words, the leftover capacity and reusability of the battery. This is important in determining if the battery should be reused or repurposed, or if it should be sent directly to recycling. Since this information is not easily accessible, batteries must be fully tested through a full charge and discharge to know the battery’s health. This is a time-consuming and expensive process that can be greatly improved by the sharing of information.

The Advisory Group recommended several policies which would support repurposing and recycling industry development. These policies include recycling incentive packages, expanding grid stationary storage incentives to include repurposed batteries, and expediting the permitting process for recycling facilities in California.

Most policies recommended by the group fell under the safe and efficient reverse logistics category. The group recognized that the high cost of transporting batteries after they have been removed from a vehicle is a large barrier to efficient and cost-effective recycling, representing 50-60% of costs. Some of the reverse logistics policies recommended include supporting research on collection and sorting networks, developing training materials for workers, lessening regulatory barriers to reusing or repurposing transporting batteries, and increasing regulations on EVs sold at auction.

US-based researchers have created niobium pentoxide, a high-performance material with a novel crystalline structure for battery electrodes.

In a paper published in the journal Nature Materials, the scientists explain that the new material shows promise for speeding up the charging of lithium-ion batteries while providing excellent storage capacity.

The team points out that during charging, lithium ions move from the positive electrode to the negative electrode, commonly made of graphite. At higher charging speeds, lithium metal tends to accumulate on the graphite’s surface. This effect, known as plating, tends to degrade performance and can cause batteries to short circuit, overheat and catch on fire.

Niobium pentoxide, however, is much less susceptible to plating, potentially making it safer and more durable than graphite. In addition, its atoms can arrange in many different stable configurations that don’t require much energy to reconfigure.

For this study, the researchers built a coin cell – or a small, circular-shaped battery device- with niobium pentoxide as the electrode material. The niobium pentoxide had an amorphous structure—in other words, a disordered arrangement of atoms. When the cell was charged and discharged numerous times, the disordered structure transformed into an ordered, crystalline one. This particular structure had never been previously reported in the scientific literature.

Compared to the disordered arrangement, the crystalline structure enabled easier, faster transport of lithium ions into the anode during charging. This finding points to the material’s promise for fast charging, and other measurements suggest that it can store a large amount of charge.

Because of the complex changes during the charge-discharge cycle, several complementary diagnostic tools were needed for a comprehensive understanding.

From electron microscopy to synchrotron X-ray diffraction

Yuzi Liu, a scientist in Argonne’s Center for Nanoscale Materials and one of the paper’s co-authors, used a technique called transmission electron microscopy to verify the structural transformation from amorphous to crystalline. This technique sends high-energy electron beams through a material sample. It creates digital images based on the interaction of the electrons with the sample. The images show how atoms are arranged.

“Since the electron beam is focused on a small area of the sample, the technique provides detailed information about that particular area,” Liu said in a media statement.

The scientist and his colleagues also used synchrotron X-ray diffraction to confirm the structural change. This technique involves hitting the sample with high-energy X-ray beams, which are scattered by the electrons of the atoms in the material. A detector measures this scattering to characterize the material’s structure.

According to Liu, X-ray diffraction is effective for providing information about overall structural changes across an entire material sample. This can be helpful in studying battery electrode materials because their structures tend to vary from one area to another.

Thus, by hitting the anode material with X-ray beams at different angles, it was possible to confirm that it was uniformly crystalline along the surface and in the interior.

Once this was done, the team used a tool called X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy to evaluate the anode material. They shot X-ray beams into the anode, ejecting electrons from it with a certain energy.

The technique revealed that niobium atoms gain multiple electrons as the cell is charged. This suggests that the anode has a high storage capacity.

“It is very difficult to make the high performance, crystalline niobium pentoxide with traditional synthesis methods, such as those that subject materials to heat and pressure,” the media statement reads. “The unconventional synthesis approach used successfully in this study—charging and discharging a battery cell—could be applied to make other innovative battery materials. It could potentially even support fabrication of novel materials in other fields, such as semiconductors and catalysts.”