Europe’s fight to build a local EV and battery supply chain
The recent announcement of funding for 47 strategic project, in line with the EU’s CO2 targets for carmakers in force this year, suggests progress. But after the EU’s tariffs on Chinese EVs, and the US waging its own trade war with China, is Europe’s road to electrification faltering?
Join the Argus Battery Materials team — editor Tom Kavanagh, reporter Chris Welch and analyst Dylan Khoo — in discussing what lies ahead in this fast-evolving market.
Key topics covered:
- The EU’s €22.5bn for 47 critical minerals projects
- China’s investments in Europe’s EV supply chain
- What might a US-China trade war mean for Europe?
- Will the EU meet its CO2 targets for 2035?
Related news
Q&A: ElectraLith targets $2,500/t lithium refining
Q&A: ElectraLith targets $2,500/t lithium refining
London, 25 August (Argus) — Australian lithium technology firm ElectraLith recently received an $A2.9mn ($2.1mn) government grant to fund it's direct lithium extraction technology. Chief executive Charlie McGill spoke to Argus about the challenges of water scarcity and building lithium processing capacity outside China. Edited highlights follow: Your latest funding award is focused on refining rather than extraction. What does the pilot involve? The pilot will be deployed at a customer's operation in Western Australia and is designed to demonstrate the refining side of our technology. We'll take an intermediate spodumene-derived stream and convert it into battery-grade lithium hydroxide or lithium carbonate. What is important to understand is that our broader system combines extraction and refining, but the refining stage can also operate independently. That's why this pilot is valuable. It lets us prove that part of the flowsheet in a commercial setting while we continue advancing integrated opportunities elsewhere. Beyond Australia, we're progressing discussions around pilot programmes in Latin America, most likely Chile, as well as a number of opportunities in the US that we hope to advance over the next six to 12 months. Where do you think ElectraLith's competitive advantage lies? At its core, the company is an intellectual property business rather than a manufacturing business. The value does not come from building boxes or producing membranes ourselves. It comes from the way we configure existing technologies and use electrodialysis to extract and refine lithium without consuming water or chemicals within the process itself. One lesson we've learnt is that not every part of a system needs to be developed in-house. We've partnered with membrane suppliers because they are experts in membranes, just as we're focused on developing the extraction and refining technology. That approach allows us to move faster and avoid taking on unnecessary capital and technical risk. How important is water scarcity to the future of lithium development? I think water is becoming one of the defining issues for parts of the industry, particularly in regions where communities are already concerned about competing demands on scarce resources. The obvious example is Chile's Atacama desert, where water availability is under constant scrutiny, but there are also parts of North America where the same pressures exist. In those regions, reducing water use is not simply an environmental benefit. It can influence whether a project is accepted by local communities and ultimately whether it gets built. At the same time, the advantage is not limited to water-stressed assets. Removing water and chemicals also removes a large component of operating costs. So even where water is plentiful, there is still a strong economic case for simplifying the process. You've previously suggested costs could be around half that of your competitors. Can you say more? As with most things in lithium, it depends on the resource. For a good-quality brine, we generally think about costs around $2,500/t, plus or minus roughly 20pc. Some Chilean brines can perform materially better because lithium concentrations are high and power costs can be relatively favourable. At the other end of the spectrum, lower-grade resources or locations with expensive electricity will inevitably sit above that range. What matters more than the headline number is understanding that electricity and resource quality are usually the biggest cost drivers. What is the biggest challenge facing direct lithium extraction today? The industry has largely moved beyond proving that lithium can be extracted in different ways. The challenge now is proving that those technologies can operate reliably at scale. There are a number of promising approaches, including adsorption, ion exchange, solvent extraction and electrochemical systems such as ours. What separates them is not necessarily pilot-scale performance, but whether they can be deployed repeatedly across different resources and continue operating efficiently over long periods. That is why the next wave of pilot projects is so important. The sector remains relatively young and there is still no clear incumbent technology. Why are governments increasingly focused on refining? A large share of global lithium refining still takes place in China, even though lithium production is spread across countries such as Australia, Chile and Argentina. As a result, many governments have realised that mining alone does not create a complete supply chain. If you want domestic battery materials industries, you also need refining capacity and the technical expertise that comes with it. Five years ago the industry spent much of its time discussing resources. Increasingly the discussion is shifting towards processing, refining and qualification because those are the areas where some of the biggest bottlenecks now exist. Where should governments direct support if they want more lithium supply? Refining would be at the top of the list. Recycling has an important future role, but there simply are not enough end-of-life batteries available today for it to solve the industry's near-term supply challenge. In the meantime, governments that want more local lithium processing need to help projects move from pilot scale to commercial operation. Funding can play a role in that, but so can faster permitting and reducing barriers that slow the deployment of new refining capacity. By Chris Welch Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Brazil, US to meet on tariffs after Lula-Trump call
Brazil, US to meet on tariffs after Lula-Trump call
Sao Paulo, 24 August (Argus) — Brazilian and US representatives will meet this week to discuss US tariffs on Brazilian imports imposed in July, following a phone call between the presidents of both countries last week. The US' trade representative Jamieson Greer reached out to the Brazilian government shortly after presidents Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Donald Trump spoke on the phone last week , according to Brazilian officials. Lula told Trump then that the US' 25pc tariffs on Brazilian products were "unfounded". Brazil's trade minister Marcio Rosa and representatives from the foreign affairs ministry will meet with the US' Office of Trade Representative (USTR) this week, the Brazilian government said, but a specific date was not disclosed. The USTR imposed the tariffs as a result of a year-long "Section 301" investigation into unfair Brazilian trade practices, citing a restrictive ethanol market as one of the reasons for the probe. Other factors included concerns over organized crime, corruption, deforestation and unfair competition from Brazil's digital payments system, Pix. Although many products — such as pig iron, iron ore, rare-earth metals, crude, coffee and beef — are exempt from the tariffs, many others, such as ethanol, sugar and beef tallow, are not. By Lucas Parolin Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
India’s steel sector backs government mining reforms
India’s steel sector backs government mining reforms
Mumbai, 24 August (Argus) — India's reforms for mining taxation that were introduced this month will create policy certainty, remove the overhang of retrospective tax claims and strengthen domestic iron ore supply, industry experts said. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act (MMDR) 2026, which came into effect from 22 August, restricts states from independently imposing new mining-related taxes and cesses. Any levies must now adhere to conditions and restrictions laid down by the central government, according to the act. This followed a July 2024 ruling where the Supreme Court's eight-judge majority held that royalty paid by mining firms is separate from taxes and is simply a payment for the right to extract minerals. The court also ruled that state governments have the power to impose their own taxes on mineral rights. The court in August 2024 also ruled that Indian state governments can demand previous dues on taxes from mining firms but not for the period prior to 1 April 2005. "The recent [amendment] removes two very important things. One is uncertainty from your business models and two, the retrospective overhang, which after crores of investment, can completely jeopardise your economics," Rashmi Group chief of strategy and corporate affairs Arnab Kumar Hazra told Argus at an industry event in Kolkata. Rashmi Group is an industrial conglomerate with various divisions including iron and steel, ferro-alloys and power. After the 2024 ruling, states started imposing their own taxes on minerals, leading to non-uniform taxes across different regions, market participants said. The retrospective tax provision exposed the mining sector to substantial liabilities, with some estimates pegging the dues at 2 trillion rupees ($20.9bn). NMDC, India's largest merchant iron ore mining firm, estimates its potential tax liability in Karnataka at about Rs158bn, subject to the outcome of the state's proposed retrospective mineral tax law and related legislative developments. Under the amendment, any mineral tax demand is invalid if the state had not collected the tax before the new law took effect. But taxes or cesses already collected by state governments before the law was implemented will not be refunded, according to the act. The amendment has strengthened confidence in mining by creating a more uniform tax framework, curbing states' scope to introduce new levies and eliminating retrospective tax demands, industry participants said. The reforms will also raise availability of iron ore in the domestic market, strengthening raw material security and reducing import dependence, state-owned producer Steel Authority of India (Sail) said last week. "With improved viability and development of its captive mines, Sail will be able to make additional iron ore available for sale in the market, in accordance with the applicable regulatory framework," the company said in a statement. State governments are now likely to speed up the auctioning of mines to bolster revenues after the amendment, Hazra said. By Amruta Khandekar Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
US-Canada trade deal collapses as tariffs begin
US-Canada trade deal collapses as tariffs begin
Washington, 22 August (Argus) — The US began collecting new tariffs on about $28bn of Canadian imports on Saturday, and Canada vowed to retaliate, after the two countries failed to reach a trade deal after months of negotiations. Trade negotiations collapsed late on Friday, prompting the US to impose new 50pc tariffs on commodities such as cement, plywood and paper. The impasse also means, at least for now, the end of an effort to reduce US tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum. Canadian prime minister Mark Carney said he would match the tariffs "dollar for dollar", escalating a trade fight that President Donald Trump launched near the start of his second term by putting steep tariffs on vast amounts of imports coming across the border. "This evening, I have decided to suspend trade negotiations with the US," Carney said after negotiations fell apart. "Last-minute changes in the US proposed terms were unfair, uneconomic, and called into question the reliability of any deal." The US blamed Canada for the failure of talks, claiming Canada made "new demands" and walked back other commitments, despite being offered significantly lower tariffs on steel, aluminum, automobiles and lumber. "This is a missed opportunity for Canada to partner with the United States," the US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a social media post. The collapse of the deal comes as Trump is facing political blowback over the high prices consumers are paying partly because of his tariffs. On Friday, Trump said he reached a deal allowing up to 300,000 metric tons of ground beef to be imported without tariffs, which he said would lower beef prices. The latest 50pc tariffs will not apply to energy, potash or critical miners, but they will tack on additional costs on other key imports into the US. The failure of the trade talks also could derail Trump's hopes of reviving the Keystone XL crude pipeline. Trump, just days before the trade negotiations faltered, had said that under a deal Keystone XL "may be awoken from the grave" despite being cancelled in 2021. The administration had not offered details about a strategy to restart the project, which its developers abandoned years ago in favor of alternatives such as the 550,000 b/d Prairie Connector pipeline. By Chris Knight Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.