Raízen e BYD anunciam hubs de recarga de elétricos
A Raízen Power – braço de energia elétrica da sucroalcooleira Raízen – e a montadora chinesa BYD fecharam parceria para construir polos de recarga de veículos elétricos pelo Brasil.
A iniciativa criará centros para recarga de veículos elétricos com a solução Shell Recharge em oito capitais, utilizando energia de fonte renovável fornecida pela Raízen Power.
Cerca de 600 novos pontos de carregamento serão instalados, adicionando 18 megawatts (MW) de potência instalada para recarga no país, disse a Raízen – uma joint venture entre a Shell e o conglomerado Cosan.
O anúncio segue o início da construção do primeiro complexo industrial da BYD no Brasil, que produzirá 150.000 carros/ano na Bahia, com operações programadas para começar em dezembro.
"Vemos o continente como um mercado potencial para a BYD e a transição energética", contou Alexandre Baldy, conselheiro especial da empresa e ex-ministro das Cidades do governo Temer, à Argus.
A Associação Nacional dos Fabricantes de Veículos Automotores (Anfavea) projeta que as vendas de veículos elétricos movidos a bateria aumentem para 24.100 unidades em 2024, ante 15.200 no ano passado. A entidade prevê a alta mesmo considerando a volta da tarifa de importação em janeiro.
Related news posts
Q&A: Corporate reporting and certification schemes
Q&A: Corporate reporting and certification schemes
London, 28 June (Argus) — Corporate reporting standards and obligations are becoming more granular and falling under greater scrutiny across the EU, after new rules came into force at the start of 2024. Argus spoke to net zero adviser Nils Holta at environmental solutions provider Ecohz to review changes to EU legislation and consider their impact on wholesale energy attribute certificates markets. Edited highlights follow: Let's start by decoding the acronyms and taking stock of changes to reporting standards this year. What do the principles of the CSRD and ESRS look like? How do these align with the EU Taxonomy? These are all thematically related pieces of legislation, that are not formally linked to each other. The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the EU Sustainable Investment Taxonomy are two of the angles of a sustainability transparency triangle completed by the Green Claims Directive (GCD). Through these policy mechanisms, the EU seeks to cover sustainability reporting, sustainability criteria for investments, and marketing information to consumers. Essentially, the EU is trying to add sustainability as a new dimension of the single market, alongside standardised comparisons on quality and price. The CSRD relates more to the finance side. Through the annex with the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), it details how companies should report on their sustainability impact, their sustainability-related risks, and any financial opportunities that arrive as a result of sustainability matters. It has been developed as an addition to European financial disclosure requirements, and in Norway, for instance, it has been transposed through amendments to the "accounting law" (Regnskapsloven). For financial undertakings, the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) plays much the same role, albeit at a higher level of granularity. On the consumer-facing side, companies will soon be required to adhere to the GCD when promoting their products' environmental profiles to final consumers in what the EU calls "explicit environmental claims". While not quite the same as sustainability reporting, it fits in a market dynamic where the EU expects economic actors to be more transparent about the environmental qualities of their products — like we are used to for price and quality. Finally, we have the EU Taxonomy for sustainable activities, or just the Taxonomy. The Taxonomy is a list of economic activities with clear criteria on how they can be performed sustainably, and, in some cases, how they can be considered a transitional activity to more sustainable options. The Taxonomy also mandates that large undertakings and financial actors disclose the percentage of their Capex [capital expenditure], Opex [operating expenditure], and turnover that is invested in, finances, or derives from activities that are considered sustainable under the Taxonomy. Here is the link to the CSRD (ESRS), GCD and SFDR. If you are required to report on the percentage of your investments or turnover that is associated with sustainable activities, you need to know how all the companies you invest in are performing. And through the CSRD they are required to share this information in a transparent and streamlined manner. If, as a company, you want to make a claim about a product's environmental profile, you are now also required to possess and sort the information necessary to found that claim through the same directive. So here we have the triangle — the Taxonomy and SFDR push investors towards sustainable investments. The GCD provides consumers with a choice to consume sustainably, and the CSRD and ESRS ensure that companies have the information necessary for the other two to work. So the EU wants you to base Taxonomy reporting or environmental claims on the information published in your CSRD reporting? Not quite. I should stress at this point that EU law does not require companies to use the same methodologies for their CSRD reporting as for explicit environmental claims under the GCD or for showing criteria alignment with the Taxonomy. The simple reason is that communication to different audiences — shareholders, financial sector institutions, consumers — might require different approaches. It is, however, very simple to base claims under the Taxonomy or GCD on information gathered for CSRD reporting, and I have seen companies rely on CSRD reporting for claims of Taxonomy-alignment in their annual reports. How are things changing within the CSRD in terms of how industrial and corporate (I&C) companies will need to document energy — power and gas — consumption throughout their supply chains? What does it mean in terms of scope 2 and 3 emissions? This is a good place to clarify terminology. The CSRD is an EU directive that mandates sustainability reporting, sets out how member states are responsible for making sure companies report, and details which categories of companies need to report. All in all, we are taking about at least 50,000 EU-based companies and maybe another 10,000 non-EU companies with operations in the EU, as a rough assessment. The ESRS are the technical standards, outlining — over some 300 pages — how companies can assess what information they need to report and how this can be reported. The ESRS go into detail regarding how questions about energy consumption and climate transition plans or supply chains are asked and framed. Thank you for the clarification, and now back to the market-based vs location-based reporting? In general, the ESRS move towards market-based reporting. Emissions are to be reported by scope — 1, 2 and 3 — separately and using both market-based and location-based methodologies for Scope 2. They are also to be reported against total turnover, so investors can see the greenhouse gas intensity of their investments' turnover. At the same time, the ESRS clearly state that energy consumption must be reported using the market-based methodology in the case of Scope 2, and that it "can" be market-based in Scope 1, which for most companies would primarily relate to gas. The latter is highly technical and is tied to the EU emissions trading system monitoring and reporting requirements. Disclosing companies must report Scope 3 as it was reported to them. There is no option to not report on Scope 3 emissions outside of Europe, which means that these 60,000 or so companies will push their own reporting requirements through their entire value chain. It also means that oil and gas companies will finally need to include emissions from combustion of their own products in their sustainability reporting. Considering that changes to the CSRD will lead to greater focus on Scope 3 emissions, how is this likely to impact the energy attribute certificates (EAC) markets? Are you already seeing changing approaches to EAC procurement? How do biomethane and hydrogen fit into the picture, and is there a role for carbon offsets? What we are seeing is a greater corporate interest in understanding their own value chain and getting their suppliers to cover Scope 2 consumption with EACs. They can even use the divergence between location and market-based reporting to stress how much they actually achieve by sourcing renewable energy. The result is quite literally the difference between the two numbers. The ESRS do not open for carbon offsets as a way of reducing total emissions. Any offsets must be reported separately. Biomethane and hydrogen would both serve to decarbonise your gas combustion, so mainly Scope 1. However, the requirements for credible claims to consumption are tied to a bundled model, so we expect less focus on certificate trade and more focus on efficient value chains to deliver the product as a whole. There are a lot of open questions here tied to member state transposition of the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) III — and in some cases RED II — and to the coming Union Database for renewable fuels. How will the GCD impact consumer disclosure requirements and how does it tangentially relate to the Taxonomy? Do you expect this to also drive more granular purchases in EAC markets? When procuring EACs, will additional specifications such as eco labels become more prominent in the market? There is no specific link between the GCD and the Taxonomy, but Taxonomy-alignment would definitely be one of the things that can be communicated and substantiated in a way that is aligned with the GCD. Using an eco-label is a way to distinguish your product among several who all use renewable electricity. However, it is difficult to assess exactly how companies and consumers will react to this information in the long term. In the near future, we expect the GCD to lead to a reduction in environmental performance claims overall, at least until companies have a decent understanding of what and how they should communicate. The fine is up to 10pc of total turnover. There are often questions around how nuclear power is viewed in the EU Taxonomy — can you clarify that? And how do you see nuclear power — through scope 2/3 — playing a role in I&C companies documenting carbon neutrality through disclosure mechanisms? There has been a growing trend of energy suppliers offering carbon-neutral tariffs as opposed to renewable owing to the greater cost of documenting renewables through EACs, on top of already higher outright power and gas prices. Do you see I&C customers taking a similar route? Under the Taxonomy, nuclear is not considered renewable. It is, however, acknowledged as carbon-neutral, and we see several EU initiatives targeted at promoting "low-carbon" rather than renewable solutions. There is also an addendum to the Taxonomy, where nuclear and gas-fired power plants can be considered Taxonomy-aligned under certain circumstances. For gas, this relates to replacing coal and being time-limited in nature; while for nuclear, it is tied to a series of environmental and waste-treatment requirements. As long as the market recognises a qualitative difference between renewable and nuclear, EACs for each will be priced differently. Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
UK HRC market ponders early closure of Tata BFs
UK HRC market ponders early closure of Tata BFs
London, 28 June (Argus) — The UK hot-rolled coil (HRC) market was pondering the potential premature closure of Tata Steel's blast furnaces today. Tata Steel UK could close both its furnaces and the wider heavy end at its Port Talbot site by 5 July because of the impending and "indefinite" strike by members of the trade union Unite, due to start on 8 July, company chief executive Rajesh Nair said in a note to employees on Thursday. Tata had initially planned to maintain blast furnace 4 until September, with blast furnace 5 going down this month. The strike, involving 1,500 workers, would mean Tata could not "maintain safe and stable operations", Nair said. Tata is trying to bring Unite back to the negotiating table, alongside other unions Community and GMB. The company said it will pursue legal action to challenge the validity of Unite's strike ballot — it has questioned whether the union met the 50pc participation threshold requirements at certain sites. Sources were caught somewhat off-guard by the news, which is complicated by the failure of the UK government to approve the Trade Remedies Authority's recommendation to suspend import quotas for HRC . With HRC import quotas still in place, supply from ‘other countries' sellers will be increasingly constrained — the duty-free quota is around 23,000/t quarter, but almost 50,000t could clear into this in 1 July, partially because of Tata's increased importation of Indian HRC. Should Tata's furnaces go off line early next month, it would need to increase imports of overseas tonnage, including from its parent company in India. Sources suggest HRC supply from its parent company could be booked for end-August arrival at the earliest. If quotas have not been suspended, there could again be duties payable for other countries' sellers. In a typical market, the disruption would clearly propel prices higher. But demand remains low, with mill tied and independent service centres competing to sell sheet as low as £620/ddp, a price which leaves no margin, based on average stock cost. Europe's imposition of a 15pc cap on countries selling into its own other countries quota is another complicating factor. That move effectively caps any country selling into that quota to 141,849t/quarter and could lead to material being diverted to the UK. The UK has not amended developing nation status as part of its latest safeguard review, meaning Vietnam — a major seller into the EU other countries' quota — can sell into the UK without quota. Vietnam is bearing the brunt of increased Chinese HRC exports, taking 3.9mn t over the first five months of this year, compared to 6.1mn t over the whole of 2023, which was a record high. By Colin Richardson Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Lynas to produce heavy rare earths in Malaysia by 2025
Lynas to produce heavy rare earths in Malaysia by 2025
Beijing, 28 June (Argus) — Australia-listed mining company Lynas Rare Earths plans to start producing two separated heavy rare earth (HRE) products at its Malaysian facility by 2025. Lynas will start production of separated dysprosium and terbium at one of Lynas Malaysia's solvent extraction circuits in 2025. The facility is designed to separate up to 1,500 t/yr of a mixed heavy rare earth compound containing mixed samarium, europium, gadolinium, holmium, dysprosium and terbium (SEGH). The HRE project has completed initial engineering and detailed engineering design is underway, with commissioning and ramp-up expected in mid-2025. Lynas' HRE product range will increase to five products — dysprosium, terbium, unseparated samarium/europium/gadolinium, holmium concentrate and unseparated SEGH — after the separation of dysprosium and terbium from the SEGH compound. Dysprosium and terbium are needed to produce high-performance rare earth magnets, which are used in consumer electronics, electric vehicle engines and other automotive applications. Lynas is also progressing pre-construction activities for its planned rare earth processing facility in the US. Its facilities in Malaysia and the US have been designed to accept third-party feedstocks once they start operations. The heavy rare earths production provides a pathway to accelerate Lynas' commitment to processing all of the elements at the firm's Australian Mount Weld ore site, said Lynas' chief executive officer and managing director, Amanda Lacaze. Supply chains More national governments have been taking action to build or diversify more resilient and sustainable rare earth supply chains, to keep up with a fast-evolving clean energy transition and reduce their heavy reliance on China-origin supplies. China is the largest supplier of medium and heavy rare earths in the world, and it has been implementing stricter export control policies for rare earth extraction and separation technology. There is limited progress on the development of rare earth projects outside China, especially in the HRE market, mostly because of exploration technique restrictions, ore resource shortages, production costs and capital pressure and environmental consideration and so on. US-based rare earth producer MP Materials aims to develop a facility to produce HREs in the next few years. It has started neodymium-praseodymium oxide production since the third quarter of last year and targets commercial production of finished magnets by late 2025. Australian mineral producer Iluka Resources plans to achieve an output capacity of up to 23,000 t/yr of rare earth oxide, including 5,500 t/yr of neodymium-praseodymium oxide and 725 t/yr of dysprosium and terbium oxide from its refinery in Australia. Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
China, EU launch talks ahead of EV provisional duties
China, EU launch talks ahead of EV provisional duties
Beijing, 28 June (Argus) — China and the EU have launched talks on the EU's anti-subsidy investigation on battery electric vehicle (EV) imports from China ahead of the planned start of provisional duties for early next month, according to China's ministry of commerce. The European Commission on 12 June announced provisional duties on Chinese battery EV manufacturers, setting an additional rate of 17.4pc for BYD, 20pc for Geely and 38.1pc for SAIC, as well as 21pc for other producers that co-operated in the investigation, from the current 10pc duty. "Minister Wang Wentao held video talks with the European Commission's executive vice-president and trade commissioner Dombrovskis on 22 June," said the ministry's spokesperson He Yadong. "The working teams of the two sides have maintained close communication and stepped up consultations." When asked for comments regarding industry discussions on whether the two sides are likely to set minimum import prices and volumes to replace the duties, similar to the approach taken in the EU-China photovoltaic dispute in 2013, He Yadong did not answer directly, saying "We hope that the EU will push for positive progress in the consultation as soon as possible and reach a solution acceptable to both sides so as to avoid the adverse impact of escalating trade frictions on China's and EU's economic and trade relations." The European Commission said on 12 June that if talks with the Chinese government do not lead to an "effective" solution, the provisional countervailing duties will start from 4 July and definitive duties would be published before November, it said. China's main economic planning agency the NDRC on 17 June said the EU's punitive duties on battery EV imports from China will increase the EU's dependence on fossil energy . But many industry participants remain hopeful that the duties can be negotiated down via the talks before the duties are imposed. The EU, China's largest trade partner since 2020, has introduced more protectionist moves against China in recent years, especially in the EV and battery raw materials sectors, including anti-subsidy duties on EVs and the Critical Raw Materials Act. China's exports of battery EVs to Europe fell by 15pc in January-May from a year earlier and by 22pc in May, according to data from the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA). Exports to main European destinations during January-May consisted of 115,318 units to Belgium and 67,956 units to UK. Chinese EV producers complained that the EU was requiring them to provide far more information than they needed for an anti-subsidy investigation. "Chinese EV and battery companies were required to provide information such as their battery components and chemical formulations, EV production costs, EV parts and raw material procurements, sales channels and pricing methods, customer information in Europe, and their supply chains," He Yadong said. China has taken up more than 60pc of the world's EV sales, driven by its decarbonisation targets and ambition of making up for its slower development of internal combustion engine vehicles. But it is facing more geopolitical restrictions from the US, EU and some other western countries. The US has raised its duty on China's EVs to 100pc from 25pc. Canada will also launch a consultation on 2 July for a potential punitive duty on China's EVs. Turkey has also imposed a 40pc duty on all Chinese vehicle imports. China exported 519,000 new energy vehicles during January-May, up by 14pc from a year earlier, according to data from the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM). But exports in May fell by 9pc from a year earlier and by 13pc from the previous month to 99,000. Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Business intelligence reports
Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.
Learn more