Showing posts sorted by date for query RAW. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query RAW. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Thursday, April 30, 2026

'Marine unicorns' aren't loving Arctic noise
DW
04/28/2026

Narwhals are fleeing Canada's far north. Researchers suspect a link to noise pollution from increasing ship traffic.

When the winter ice begins to melt, the speckled gray narwhals leave Baffin Bay and head toward the safe waters off Mittimatalik for the summer
Image: John E Marriott/All Canada Photos/picture alliance

For Alex Ootoowak, watching the speckled gray narwhals migrate in the icy waters of the Arctic during hunting season is a cherished childhood memory.

"It felt like a never-ending, looped-over scene of whales just constantly swimming past you all in the same direction, all migrating throughout the day, sometimes more than a day," said Ootoowak, who lives in Mittimatalik, also known as Pond Inlet, in Canada's far north. "You're always taught to be extra, extra quiet and careful […] because they're so sensitive."

The world's 80,000-plus narwhals mainly live in northeastern Canada and Greenland. For Ootoowak and others in Canada's Inuit communities, narwhal meat has been key to their survival for at least 1,000 years. It's an important source of protein, iron and vitamin C, and hunting is regulated by the government.



"This is our means of staying healthy and connected to the land and our culture," Ootoowak told DW. "It's not something we do just to kill and take animals for sport."
Narwhal numbers dwindling

But Ootoowak hasn't seen a migration like those of childhood for a long time. Over the last 20 years, hunters have noticed that the whales have become skinnier and harder to catch. By 2021, there were only about 2,000 left in the area — a 90% drop from more than 20,000 in the early 2000s.
Narwhal whale blubber and skin, sometimes eaten raw, is an important part of Inuit culture
Image: Yvette Cardozo/Visually/picture alliance

It's not clear why the whales are disappearing, and what's driving them away. Researchers suspect climate change may be playing a role, with the Arctic region warming four times faster than the rest of the planet.

"A whole host of things are changing — not just the ice, the water temperature, species, all the way from the bottom of the food chain all the way up," said Kristin Westdal, a marine mammal expert with Canadian marine conservation network Oceans North.

But she said the effects of climate change are gradual, and the drop in the whale population came over a relatively short time period. "And the only thing that changed that quickly in that habitat was the volume of ships coming through."

In 2015, a local mine run by a company called Baffinland opened a port nearby. Within two years, roughly 4 million tons of iron ore were shipped through the waters off Mittimatalik — and noise pollution increased dramatically.

Noise pollution may be driving whales away


Concerned about what the new noise was doing to the narwhals, Ootoowak and Westdal set up two listening stations in Milne Inlet, to the west of Mittimatalik. Within a couple of years, they were able to expand their acoustic monitoring program by collaborating with acoustics experts at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, based in San Diego.

By lowering special microphones called hydrophones through holes in the ice and 800 meters (nearly half a mile) down into the water, they've listened to the Arctic seascape 24/7 — marine life like barking seals and clicking narwhals foraging for food, but also rumbling engines from growing ship traffic. And they've found that these ship noises may be behind the drop in narwhal numbers.
The long tusk of the male narwhal, roughly 2 meters (6 feet) in length, is often mistaken for a horn
Image: Visually/picture alliance

The monitoring team published a study in 2025 which found that "narwhals appear to either move away or stop vocalizing" when vessels came within 12 to 24 miles (20 to 40 kilometers). And the whales were responding to noises below the threshold of 120 decibels — like a loud thunderclap, or a roaring chainsaw — which is considered the disturbance threshold for midsized whales like the narwhal.

Hunters, too, have noticed that narwhals begin behaving differently when a ship is nearby.

"As soon as the ship starts their engines, they move away or stop feeding, stop doing their deep dives where they're feeding on fish at the bottom of the ocean," said Ootoowak. Whales, he said, have learned to avoid the heavily traveled shipping channel when boats are in the area.

Are narwhals heading to Greenland?

Ootoowak said it wasn't clear where the whales were going, but he has a theory. On a visit to northern Greenland in 2024, to the east across Baffin Bay — where narwhals usually spend the summer months — he spoke with local hunters who told him of whales that had started showing up in their waters, right around the time shipping increased off Mittimatalik.


"They said narwhals that were appearing were 'foreign' because they were longer and skinnier and behaved very different to their narwhal," said Ootoowak. The hunters, he added, said the whales were easier prey and tasted different, too.

Outi Tervo, a senior scientist at the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, has also been researching narwhals and noise pollution. She has observed that noises from shipping and oil and gas exploration can cause narwhals to stop foraging for food, which lines up with Ootoowak's observation of seeing skinnier narwhals.

Tervo said she hasn't seen any evidence that the whales have relocated from Canada to Greenland, but said an increase in unfamiliar sounds could be pushing them to migrate.



For narwhals, who rely on echolocation to communicate and hunt, she said the ability to hear is what the ability to see is to humans. So just as bright headlights or a flashlight to the eyes would temporarily blind us humans, sounds that interfere with narwhal echolocation profoundly disrupt their activity and push them to be "ready to escape," she said.

Tervo said habitats for narwhals are limited, and they've adapted to life in the Arctic. "They can't swim to the Caribbean and spend the winter there," she pointed out. "So I do think that it's very important to take the needs of the animals into consideration and try to make some safe havens for them."

Noise a growing concern as Arctic opens up


The good news, however, is that the sound monitoring project spearheaded by Ootoowak and Westdal has raised awareness about noise pollution in Canada's Arctic.

The local mining company, Baffinland, has lowered its shipping speed to 9 knots and is using fixed routes. It's also agreed to stricter rules for when icebreakers can be deployed. Cruise ships have also been quick to get on board, agreeing to speed limits and no-go zones.
As ice retreats in the Arctic, the region is seeing increased maritime traffic
Image: Adrian Wyld/AP Photo/picture alliance

"I would say it's generally positive," said Ootoowak, pointing out that the 2025 hunt was the first time in a decade that people were happy with what they caught during the fall migration. "It's going to take some time working with industry, working with government to get these things moved forward into policy."

Westdal said stronger oversight, cooperation with local communities and much more data would be key to keeping noise pollution under control, especially as companies eye the increasingly ice-free waters of the Northwest Passage for international shipping.

"We are seeing a slow and steady increase of people showing interest and trying to get through there, whether it be cruise ships, pleasure vessels or the occasional commercial vessel," she said. "And I think that having policies and regulations in place in the Arctic is going to be really important in getting ahead of what's coming."

This article was based on an episode of Living Planet produced by Kathleen Schuster.

Edited by: Sarah Steffen
Martin Kuebler Senior editor and reporter based in Brussels, with a focus on environmental issues

Wednesday, April 29, 2026

The Problem With Eternal Vigilance – OpEd





April 29, 2026 
MISES
By George Ford Smith


“Politics in all its variants, particularly the politics of political parties, is the archenemy of freedom, prosperity, and peace. Yet wherever one looks, more government is invoked as the solution.”—Antony P. Mueller, “Is Anarcho-Capitalism Viable

People are supposed to exercise eternal vigilance to keep themselves free. How does one exercise vigilance when the entity in question can pretty much do what it wants and can back its actions with superior force? How does one exercise vigilance when nature requires him to spend his time supporting his life and the lives of those he chooses to support? How does one exercise vigilance in defending freedom when most people today would rather be the subject of a state than be free?

It is a formidable task that has little in the way of a promising future.

Imagine how life is for people in Ukraine or Gaza or Iran—or anywhere else where bombs are falling or missiles striking. Borrowing from Hobbes, you might describe their lives as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” but you’d be immediately faced with another problem. Hobbes was describing what life would be like in the absence of a state. People suffering the consequences of war are suffering at the hands of states.

Is life one vast contradiction that can only be resolved at one’s death? Is that one of the appeals of religion, that it replaces suffering with peace and good will in the afterlife? Or is it possible people still on earth can find a way to live peacefully with one another without a state?

If it is possible then anyone looking to persuade others of this position will find resistance everywhere he turns. And not just from warmongers.

More moderate positions on the state’s necessity come from thinkers who self-identify as libertarians, who promote peace, prosperity, and freedom but also claim none of it is possible without a sovereign authority to establish and enforce laws. They argue for limited government—keep the state but limit its functions to those needed to protect the Declaration’s inalienable rights.

It’s intellectually easy to criticize the state as it exists today, rather than the idea of the state itself, here understood in Oppenheimer’s sense as a predator of the producing class. Taxation is theft, inflation is deceptive theft, conscription is kidnapping—each established libertarian positions, and all attributable to the state’s aim of increasing its power. Do away with these and others, such as a standing army, and we will arrive at a version of the state that satisfies libertarians because it’s the best we can hope for. Their axiom: We will always have states. Libertarians want them as small as possible.

But even this version is alien. States grow. It’s in their nature. Their purpose is to provide security. There are always more and better ways to secure. For the state, security comes at a cost of imposing restrictions on freedom. People can turn to private security firms but they operate under state permission. If the security sought is that provided by sound money, the whole industrialized world opposes it. Fiat money, best understood as legal counterfeiting, grows the state, not sound money.

How does a state get away with growing? Usually, in response to a crisis. What is government for if not to fix or alleviate it, as FDR allegedly accomplished with his New Deal? Isn’t that how security is understood? It will require government expansion but most people are led to believe it’s worth it. Besides, under a fiat monetary regime, such as most states have, the hit on its subjects’ net worth will be mostly hidden until much later, a result of the Cantillon effect, at which time there will be market actors to blame, not the government.

Instead of demanding a flat sum immediately such as a sales tax imposes, the state has an ingenious theft installment plan of which most people are unaware. The Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee has as policy an innocent-sounding target of a 2 percent inflation rate, translated as a 2 percent hit on the purchasing power of the dollar that is achieved by creating money ex nihilo—out of nothing, like a child playing make believe, only these children are considered the best and the brightest so are obliged to do it in a very circuitous way by adjusting something called the federal funds rate. Fed monetary inflation is sometimes augmented with higher taxes on the rich that slides down to the middle and lower classeswho are mostly puzzled at this outcome. As for the benefit of state expansion, the combination of welfare and warfare has worked every time. At home it helps the “needy” often on the basis of their support for the current regime, abroad it devastates lives and destroys critical infrastructure to impose political ideals on people who don’t want them, always with the threat of blowback.

All this is how the state provides protection to ensure the freedom and well-being of its subjects. For this difficult task it claims a legal monopoly on the use of force. Monopoly defined:

A situation, by legal privilege or other agreement, in which solely one party (company, cartel etc.) exclusively provides a particular product or service, dominating that market and generally exerting powerful control over it.

The “particular product or service” a state allegedly provides is protection of your status as a human being. Did you vote to be under rule by a state? No. Did you vote for the particular constitutional state now in effect? No, your ancestors did. The Constitutional US replaced the Articles US by means of a quiet coup d’etat. Pro-Constitution delegates in 1787 argued that their purpose was “to render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union [i.e., the State]” which they claimed justified ditching the Articles. In their view, an adequate government required a monopoly central state with the power to tax.

Americans have always inveighed against monopolies, usually without making a distinction between coercive and non-coercive monopolies. Problems emerge when coercive monopolies have the force of law behind them.

In the late 19th century, for example, voluntary cartel agreements couldn’t establish the market control big business wanted so they turned to the state, the mother of all coercive monopolies, to get the legal advantages they wanted.

Always, the legal establishment of monopolies that began with the creation of the federal government was done under the moral umbrella of the public interest. The Constitution’s preamble gives it away, that it was created by “We the People . . . to promote the general Welfare . . .” A person genuinely concerned with the general welfare of the country would not agree to assign that task to the state, the historical record of which is anything but a promoter of its subjects’ welfare.

The idea of eternal vigilance suggests the task of keeping the state in line, of keeping it from overstepping its boundaries. But ask yourself: what boundaries does a nuclear superpower have today? We would be far more effective in elaborating the raw essence of any state and its threat not just to our freedom but to our lives.

About the author: 
George Ford Smith is a former mainframe and PC programmer and technology instructor, the author of eight books including a novel about a renegade Fed chairman (Flight of the Barbarous Relic) and a nonfiction book on how money became an instrument of theft (The Jolly Roger Dollar). He welcomes speaking engagements and can be reached at gfs543@icloud.com.

Source: This article was published by the Mises Institute




How U.S. Electric Vehicle Industrial Policy Created A New ‘Rust Belt’ – Analysis


April 29, 2026 
By 
Chen Li 


The United States once viewed the electric vehicle (EV) industry as a pivotal lever for both a manufacturing renaissance and a green transition. The Biden administration promoted it, where an intensive series of policies centered on the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) were rolled out in an attempt to fulfill the dual political promises of energy transformation and industrial reshoring within a condensed timeframe. However, since the beginning of 2025, this highly anticipated industry has shown clear signs of cooling or even stagnation across multiple regions. Progress on several projects has been obstructed, the pace of investment has decelerated, and employment expectations have fallen short, effectively creating an “EV Rust Belt.”

According to reporting from Reuters, on March 30, 2026, General Motors’ Detroit-based electric vehicle plant Factory Zero announced an extension of its production halt until April 13, with the plant manager citing aligning with “market dynamics” and initiating temporary layoffs for approximately 1,300 workers. Furthermore, in December 2025, Ford Motor Company announced a USD 19.5 billion capital impairment charge related to its electric vehicle operations and cut roughly 1,600 jobs at its BlueOval SK battery plant in Kentucky. Ford simultaneously announced it would cease production of the all-electric F-150 Lightning and abandon its production plans for the next-generation T3 electric pickup and electric vans. Media reports also indicate that Magna’s factory in St. Clair, Michigan, a supplier of EV components to General Motors, now sits nearly vacant; as the automotive industry recalibrates its electric vehicle investments, the plant has suffered a significant blow and is essentially in a state of shutdown or large-scale dormancy.

What once was heralded as the “hope for revival” of the American automotive industry is now facing a rapid decline. This phenomenon of “high expectations followed by a low trajectory” raises a question worthy of deeper analysis: even with aggressive policy promotion and rapid capital deployment, how did the U.S. electric vehicle industry reach this state?

The American EV industrial policy originated under the Biden administration, and it was one of the most ambitious initiatives of the Democratic Party’s political goals. The administration sought to combine green transition, blue-collar employment, and manufacturing reshoring through framing the EV policy model as being capable of simultaneously reducing emissions, building new factories, and creating unionized jobs. To achieve this, the Biden administration constructed a comprehensive policy toolkit.

First of all, there are demand-side incentives, with the primary mechanism being the Clean Vehicle Credit under IRA. This provides a tax credit of up to USD 7,500 for qualifying new EVs and USD 4,000 for used EVs, alongside specific incentives for leased and commercial vehicles. The objective was to bolster end-user demand during a transitional phase where EV prices remain higher than those of internal combustion engine vehicles. Then, there are supply-side incentives. The Advanced Manufacturing Production Credit (Section 45X) within the IRA provides direct subsidies based on output, significantly lowering the domestic production costs for EVs and their components. Simultaneously, the U.S. Department of Energy, through its Loan Programs Office, has provided low-cost financing for large-scale projects. Notably, the BlueOval SK venture, a partnership between Ford and the South Korean battery giant SK On, secured approximately USD 9.63 billion in loan support to construct three battery plants in Tennessee and Kentucky, with a combined design capacity exceeding 120 GWh. Finally, the strategy includes infrastructure support. Through the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (IIJA), the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program was established. This program plans to allocate approximately USD 7.5 billion to states by 2026 to build a public fast-charging network along highway corridors and within communities, aiming to resolve the “range anxiety” stemming from a lack of charging stations.


This multifaceted policy suite had an immediate and profound stimulatory effect on both the private sector and local governments. Between 2021 and 2024, cumulative announced investments in the North American battery and electric vehicle supply chain surpassed USD 250 billion. According to data from Atlas Public Policy, as of September 2024, announced investments specifically related to EV and battery manufacturing reached approximately USD 208.8 billion, tied to commitments for roughly 240,000 manufacturing jobs. Under these policy signals, nearly all legacy automakers recalibrated their capital expenditure strategies. General Motors initially pledged USD 35.0 billion toward electric vehicles and autonomous driving through 2025, a figure it later revised upward. Similarly, Ford announced plans to invest over USD 50.0 billion in EVs by 2026, restructuring its product roadmap around the F-150 Lightning, Mustang Mach-E, and next-generation electric platforms. Meanwhile, battery and material companies rapidly established footprints across Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Georgia, forming what has become known as the “Battery Belt”. State and local governments responded with equal urgency. Competing to secure these projects, states offered aggressive packages including land grants, tax abatements, infrastructure support, and direct subsidies. Their objective was to leverage the EV industry to replicate the historical success of the traditional automotive sector in driving local employment and expanding the tax base.


However, this policy-driven path of industrial expansion is increasingly at odds with the market-oriented economic model of the United States. Consequently, the Biden administration’s EV industrial policy quickly encountered multiple structural constraints in practice, the most immediate of which stemmed from the demand side.

The actual penetration rate of EVs in the U.S. market has fallen significantly short of policy and capital expectations, with pricing emerging as a primary constraint. Because battery costs have not declined as rapidly as early projections suggested, compounded by fluctuations in raw material prices, it has been difficult for vehicle costs to reduce. A case in point is the Ford F-150 Lightning; the manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) for the entry-level “Pro” model rose from approximately USD 40,000 at its 2022 launch to USD 54,995 by early 2024. The mid-range XLT model saw an even steeper increase of USD 10,000, bringing its starting price to USD 64,995. With high interest rates and volatile consumer confidence, American EV adoption has become heavily dependent on subsidies. Any perceived policy uncertainty or marginal weakening of incentives triggers immediate and significant demand volatility. Data indicates that while U.S. EV sales reached between 1.3 million and 1.7 million units in 2024, the growth rate plummeted from approximately 40%–50% in 2023 to just 7%–10%. By 2025, this growth turned negative, with sales contracting 2%–4% year-over-year.

The lagging development of charging infrastructure has further suppressed consumer demand for electric vehicles. Although the Biden administration prioritized the expansion of the charging network, actual progress has fallen significantly behind schedule. Public records indicate that by the end of 2024, the number of charging stations effectively operational under the federal program remained remarkably low. Some assessments even suggest that the number of stations fully completed and opened to the public was only in the single or double digits, a fraction of the original targets. This structural misalignment where vehicle production outpaces infrastructure deployment has left consumers facing significant inconveniences, thereby undermining the overall user experience and weakening the incentive to purchase.


While weak demand initially constrained the growth of the American EV sector, the 180-degree turn in policy following Trump’s inauguration has proven to be the final straw for the industry’s development. Upon taking office, Trump pursued an America First energy agenda, utilizing executive orders and legislative reviews to aggressively dismantle the EV support system established during the Biden era. On his first day in office, Trump signed the Unleashing American Energy executive order, which suspended all fund disbursements originating from the IRA and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). By January 2026, the Department of Energy announced it had restructured, modified, or rescinded over USD 83 billion in Biden-era loans and conditional commitments. The policy reversal extended to the regulatory front as well. In June 2025, Trump signed a congressional resolution revoking the Clean Air Act waiver previously granted to California by the EPA, effectively nullifying the state’s target to ban the sale of internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035. Furthermore, in September 2025, the federal government formally terminated consumer tax credits for EV purchases. This move led to an immediate crisis in the market, with total U.S. EV sales in the fourth quarter plummeting by 36% year-over-year.

This policy shift has proven fatal for an industry so heavily reliant on government scaffolding. Prior to this, firms had aggressively scaled up capacity to secure future market share and capture subsidies, often before their profit models had matured or costs had reached sustainable levels. While this strategy appeared rational under the assumption of continuous demand growth, the reality of a market shortfall has rapidly transformed those front-loaded investments into a crippling burden. It is this fundamental misalignment that has triggered the current and severe contraction of the American EV industry.


Ultimately, the challenges facing the American EV industry represent a periodic fallout resulting from a fundamental mismatch between policy mandates, market realities, and the natural rhythm of technological maturation.

The Biden administration’s EV industrial policy suffered from a clear disconnect between developmental assessments and strategic pacing. By leveraging policy instruments to force a rapid industrial expansion before the demand base had solidified, infrastructure had matured, or technical costs had reached parity, the administration generated a short-term mirage of investment and employment prosperity. However, this approach simultaneously created medium-term exposure to resource misallocation and structural risks. In several regions, these risks have already manifested as a compounding effect of idle capacity and labor volatility. This effectively created a “New Rust Belt” of the EV era. Such a development has in fact undermined the stability of the very path through which the U.S. sought to achieve a manufacturing revival.

Looking at the issue more deeply, this phenomenon shows the inherent limitations of government-led industrial development. When demand is highly dependent on policy incentives rather than organic market drivers, the policy framework itself becomes the primary variable governing industrial volatility. Once policy expectations shift, the demand side contracts rapidly, sending a shockwave through the supply chain to the production and employment sectors. During this process, risk premiums rise and the cost of capital escalates, forcing businesses to recalibrate their investment cycles. Consequently, the manufacturing layout based on the assumption of policy stability would begin to fracture. For local economies, this translates into a swift pivot from an investment boom to restructuring pressure, manifesting as a classic expansion-contraction cyclical fluctuation.

Final analysis conclusion:

The Biden administration’s state-led climate and electric vehicle initiatives initially catalyzed a rapid industrial expansion in the U.S., yet ultimately culminated in the creation of a new “Rust Belt”. This outcome is the byproduct of a fundamental misalignment between aggressive policy-driven bets and the underlying realities of market demand, technological costs, and industrial structure. Consequently, the overstated demand projections have rapidly inverted into contractionary pressures. In this process, corporate investment, supply chain configurations, and local economies have all been swept into a period of severe volatility, effectively shattering the vision of a revitalized American automotive sector. Perhaps more critically, when industrial progress is heavily predicated on policy continuity, the oscillation of that policy becomes the primary source of uncertainty. This volatility amplifies systemic risk by driving up capital costs and triggering sharp fluctuations in demand.


Chen Li is an Economic Research Fellow at ANBOUND, an independent  China think tank.

Tuesday, April 28, 2026

 

Nickel price rises to two-year high as supplies from Indonesia tighten


Stock image.

Nickel rose to the highest in almost two years, as reduced mining quotas in major producer Indonesia and a global sulfur shortage tighten the supply outlook for the battery metal.

Futures in London have risen about about 7% since the start of the Iran war, which is driving a surge in prices of sulfur — a key reagent used in processing — and fueling concerns over disruptions to global mining, including mixed-hydroxide precipitate production in Indonesia and copper leaching in Africa.

Nickel climbed as much as 2.8% on Monday, before giving up most of its gains. Other base metals were mixed, as efforts to resume peace talks between the US and Iran remained at an impasse, two months into a conflict that’s dented the outlook for global economic growth.

Nickel mining in Indonesia is already under pressure after the country slashed its production quota to revive prices for the metal. The Asian country accounts for well over half of global production, thanks to a wave of Chinese investment in smelters.

“Market sentiment on nickel remains positive as traders await further upside catalysts pointing to a substantial production cut in MHP,” Jinrui Futures Co. said in a note, referring to the mixed-hydroxide precipitate, an intermediate product containing nickel.

Nickel was up 0.7% at $19,155 a ton by 4:56 p.m. local time on the London Metal Exchange, after touching its highest level since June 2024. Copper fell 0.8%, while tin was down 2%.

Huayou cuts output at Indonesian nickel plant as sulphur costs surge


Indonesia Pomalaa Industrial Park. Credit: Huayou

Zhejiang Huayou Cobalt said on Tuesday that its Indonesian unit will temporarily halt some production lines from May 1, slashing about half of the plant’s output, after rising sulphur prices lifted costs at one of its key battery-nickel projects.

The Chinese nickel and cobalt maker said in a statement that the Huafei Nickel Cobalt plant would cut production because of the higher sulphur costs as well as maintenance required after a long period of producing at high capacity.

It did not state how long the outage would last.

Spot prices for sulphur delivered to Indonesia have risen above $800 a metric ton as the Iran war disrupted production and shipping of the key raw material from the Gulf. The region produces about a quarter of global sulphur supply and about 75% of Indonesia’s supply.

Reuters reported on April 14 that several Indonesian HPAL producers operated by Huayou, Lygend Resources and Tsingshan Group had trimmed output by at least 10% due to rising sulphur prices since March.

The outage at the Huafei plant is one of the clearest company-level signs yet that a global sulphur squeeze is hitting Indonesia’s high-pressure acid leach, or HPAL, nickel sector.

HPAL plants use sulphuric acid to process laterite ore into mixed hydroxide precipitate, an intermediate product used in electric vehicle batteries.

Huayou said it would speed up process upgrades to reduce sulphuric acid consumption and expand sulphur supply channels. It also said it would accelerate development of nickel, cobalt and lithium mining resources obtained through investment and equity stakes.

Huafei generated 14.50 billion yuan ($2.12 billion) in revenue in 2025, accounting for 17.89% of Huayou’s total revenue. It made 1.25 billion yuan in net profit, while Huayou’s share of attributable profit from the unit was 569 million yuan, or 9.32% of the company’s parent net profit.

($1 = 6.8372 Chinese yuan renminbi)

(By Dylan Duan and Lewis Jackson; Editing by Emelia Sithole-Matarise)

Monday, April 27, 2026

 

Texas A&M opens world’s largest academic controlled-explosions lab

With its ribbon now cut, Texas A&M’s colossal detonation lab officially opens, igniting explosions to reveal the secrets of combustion, materials, aerospace, and even dying stars.

Business Announcement

Texas A&M University

Texas A&M opens world’s largest academic controlled-explosions lab 

image: 

Texas A&M University officially opens the world’s largest academic controlled explosions lab, the Detonation Research Test Facility. Here, researchers turn raw energy into physical breakthroughs that could reshape industrial safety, enable hypersonic flights, advance materials and deepen our understanding of the universe itself. (Left to right: Dr. Jodie Lutkenhaus, associate dean for research of Texas A&M College of Engineering; Dr. Dimitri Lagoudas, interim department head of aerospace engineering; Dr. Susan Ballabina, recently announced as the sole candidate for president of Texas A&M University; Dr. Elaine Oran, DRTF scientific director; Dr. Scott Jackson, DRTF technical director; Dr. Rodney Bowersox, deputy director of Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station; Dr. Joe Elabd, vice chancellor for research; Dr. John Barton, executive director of Texas A&M-RELLIS.)

view more 

Credit: Texas A&M University College of Engineering

The violent forces that have leveled coal mines and devastated chemical plants, yet propel ultrafast jets, forge diamonds and power the chaotic death of stars, all share a single, brutal truth: they’re born and gone in the fleeting moments of an explosion.

It’s seemingly over before it even begins, leaving scientists chasing physics the eye can barely follow.

Now, after years of planning, construction and anticipation, scientists at Texas A&M University can finally capture those fleeting, violent moments with a front-row seat inside the world’s largest academic controlled-explosions lab, the newly opened Detonation Research Test Facility (DRTF).

The DRTF is a steel-and-concrete behemoth nearly two football fields long that stretches across the Texas A&M-RELLIS innovation and technology campus.

Here, explosions aren’t spectacles; they’re precise, deliberate strikes against the unknown, designed to turn raw energy into physical breakthroughs that could reshape industrial safety, enable hypersonic flights, advance materials and deepen our understanding of the universe itself.

Each blast is measured and dissected in exquisite detail. Researchers trace the razor-thin boundary where flames accelerate, intensify and tip into full detonations, mapping shock waves, reactive flows and the hidden physics that govern them.

It’s no longer a question of whether an explosion happened, but exactly how and why it began, grew and behaved — answers that could prevent disasters or be harnessed for flights five times the speed of sound.

The DRTF was born from the vision and leadership of world-renowned College of Engineering aerospace researchers Dr. Elaine Oran, scientific director, and Dr. Scott Jackson, technical director.

Backed by the Texas Governor’s University Research Initiative (GURI) and the Texas A&M University System Chancellor’s Research Initiative (CRI), Oran and Jackson assembled a global coalition spanning U.S. industries, national laboratories, Department of War partners and international collaborators.

Their mission: to pull the ghosts of detonation out of the shadows and into the light of real-world experimental scrutiny.

At the DRTF, that mission is now becoming a reality, at a scale no academic lab has ever reached.

“The facility enables us to observe, measure and understand one of nature’s most extreme forces in ways that haven’t been scaled before, or even been possible until now,” Oran said.

A cathedral of detonation, at an unprecedented scale

Moments before a test, the facility falls into a tense silence as Oran, Jackson and their team watch an electric current travel to the end of an exposed wire fed into a nearly 500-foot tube filled with a flammable methane-air mixture.

Then, ignition.

A controlled explosion erupts, and the music of detonation begins. Shock waves race through the confined tube at speeds five times the speed of sound. The steel walls shudder, instruments in the control room spike and a noise-suppressed blast thunders through the 90-meter, earth-covered muffler, sending dirt billowing into the sky.

In less than a heartbeat, it’s over. But, in that fleeting instant, the team captures a cascade of data.

This is the orchestral rhythm of the DRTF. Tests peel back layers of complexity in how quickly flames accelerate, destabilize and suddenly transition into full detonations.

A symphony of fire and physics, where every blast refines the next.

“At the upstream end of the facility, where we initiate combustion, we have a concrete block that the facility is anchored to. We have a gas blower that mixes air with a reactive gas, and spanning the tube is an obstacle course of metal beams that generate turbulence,” Jackson said. “Once we initiate ignition, the shockwave moves down the tube into an open cavity muffler, which knocks down the sound signature from around 220 decibels to about 120, to limit noise to the ecosystem.”

The combination of size, instrumentation and design — like turning what could be an ear-deafening sound blast into the same experience as a rock concert — bridges the gap between theories and computer simulations with the reality of detonations.

At the threshold of stability, an explosion begins

Chemical plants, fuel systems, coal mines and pipelines all run on the same physics that drives industrial innovation — and just as easily, catastrophe.

In 2005, a fuel depot in Buncefield, England, erupted into the largest explosion in peacetime Europe. A towering plume of thick black smoke poisoned the sky, dozens were injured and thousands forced to evacuate.

Events like the Buncefield Fire are sobering reminders of how quickly pressure can build, how shock waves can propagate, and how a stable flame can spiral into disaster.

“We are examining these detonation disasters to develop and inform safer industrial designs and protocols that prevent unstable flames from cascading into catastrophes,” Oran said.

In partnership with Emerson Technologies, researchers are applying this knowledge to the development of detonation arrestors, critical safety devices designed to halt flames before they escalate.

“Detonation arrestors prevent high-pressure, unstable flames from transitioning into full detonations,” Jackson said. “The data we generate could help improve these safety systems and strengthen the resilience of important energy infrastructure.”

Yet the same physics that makes explosions dangerous also holds the key to harnessing them.

Going hypersonic

Imagine taking a flight from Los Angeles to New York, not for six hours but only one.

A fraction of the time, driven by detonation.

At the DRTF, that idea moves from imagination and science fiction into experimentation. The team is studying how controlled explosions can be shaped into propulsions capable of reaching hypersonic speeds.

“Hypersonic is generally defined as speeds exceeding Mach 5, or five times the speed of sound, where the gas is heated to the point that additional chemistry and boundary layer effects become important,” Jackson said. “Detonations at the DRTF can reach Mach 5 in less than five seconds.”

Unlike conventional engines, which rely on a steady flame, detonation-based engines rely on the rapid release of explosions to generate thrust at extreme speeds.

“Rotating detonation engines are an application we are particularly interested in investigating,” Oran said. “The data we capture could help shape the future of commercial aviation and space propulsion.”

But these implications don’t end in the skies. They echo across the universe in exploding stars and the traces of diamonds left behind in the aftermath of a blast.

The cosmic to the atomic

In the final moments of a massive star’s life, energy builds, pressure mounts and a cascading chain of reactions triggers a chaotic explosion known as supernova.

“The same fundamental processes that propagate down the DRTF’s steel tube also govern grand cosmic events, including supernovae,” Oran said. “The scales are vastly different, but the physics is deeply connected.”

By re-creating and isolating the underlying physics, the researchers are gaining new insight into how energy behaves under extreme conditions, and why stars explode the way they do.

But the facility also opens a window into the microscopic world of nanodiamonds.

Roughly 10,000 times thinner than a human hair, nanodiamonds are tiny crystals forged in the aftermath of a detonation when carbon atoms are forced into tightly ordered crystal structures, producing one of the hardest materials known.

"When we push matter to extreme pressures and temperatures, we open pathways to materials with entirely new properties," Jackson said.

These tiny gems could unlock breakthroughs in quantum computing, targeted drug delivery for cancer treatment and next-generation aerospace materials for harsh environments.

“The same forces that create something as small as a nanodiamond can also tear apart a star,” Oran said. “We finally have the ability to study that continuum, from the cosmic to the atomic.”

Where the next generation ignites the future

With its doors now open, the DRTF stands as a bold statement of Texas A&M’s commitment to pushing the boundaries of science, engineering and education.

Aerospace engineers work alongside chemists, physicists with materials scientists, architects with industry partners, each bringing a different lens to the same fundamental idea.

"It’s more than a facility. It’s a convergence of ideas, disciplines and expertise working toward a shared goal," Oran said.

For students, it’s a rare kind of education, where theory meets fire and classrooms give way to impactful discoveries, applied.

“The students lead the facility,” said aerospace engineering Ph.D. student Zachary Weidman. “We’re not just studying these phenomena, we’re actively contributing and building on the knowledge that will shape future applications.”

In a place where explosions are measured and contained, the most powerful force may not be the detonation itself, but the people learning to uncover its hidden mysteries.

Texas A&M University’s Detonation Research Test Facility is a nearly 500-foot detonation tube more than 6 feet in diameter, built with three-quarter-inch-thick steel walls and paired with a 90-meter earth-covered muffler.

Credit

Texas A&M University College of Engineering

Canada Just Opened North America's First Battery-Grade Lithium Refinery

  • Mangrove Lithium's Delta, BC facility is the first commercial electrochemical lithium refinery in North America, with capacity to produce 1,000 tonnes of battery-grade lithium a year.

  • China still controls roughly half of the global lithium market, and the Canadian government is backing Mangrove as part of a broader critical minerals push under PM Mark Carney.

  • A planned Eastern Canada expansion would scale output to support up to 500,000 EVs annually by refining lithium and processing spodumene sourced from Canadian mines.

China has been consolidating its control over global lithium supplies for years now. As the lithium-ion battery sector continues to grow at a massive pace, the extreme concentration of lithium supply chains gives China a major economic and geopolitical advantage. It also creates worrying vulnerabilities for the rest of the world that has come to rely on imports of the ‘white gold’ to keep their tech and energy sectors running.

Half of the global lithium market is controlled by China alone. “For over a decade, China has meticulously orchestrated a strategic ascent in the global electric vehicle (EV) batteries market, culminating in a dominance that now presents a formidable challenge to Western manufacturers,” the EE Times reported last year. This dominance functions  as “almost a moat” around battery production in China, protecting the sector from any external competition.

Lithium-ion batteries have become omnipresent, powering everything from your smartwatch and your phone to electric vehicles and grid-scale energy storage. As oil and gas prices skyrocket against the backdrop of the Strait of Hormuz closure, the EV and energy sectors are poised for takeoff – making competition for lithium, and the resultant benefits for China, even more pronounced. But even before the current energy crisis breathed new life into the global clean energy transition, 2026 was already shaping up to be a ‘hot year for lithium.’ 

Incentive has never been higher for other nations around the world to step up their own lithium production and processing efforts. And this year, Canada may have made a major step toward breaking up China’s near-monopoly on lithium-ion battery production, thereby helping to relieve a “major choke point” in the EV supply chain. Mangrove Lithium, a lithium refining platform in Delta, British Columbia, just opened North America’s first-ever commercial-scale electrochemical lithium refining facility. 

The venture capital-backed company says that it will be able to produce 1,000 tonnes of refined battery-grade lithium per year, or about enough to support 25,000 electric vehicles. The venture reportedly uses a cutting-edge electrochemical technology that allows for more economical, flexible, and sustainable lithium refining as compared to traditional methods. 

“This is a landmark moment not just for Mangrove, but for Canada,” Dr. Saad Dara, CEO and Founder of Mangrove Lithium, was recently quoted by Interesting Engineering. “By commissioning the first commercial electrochemical lithium refinery in North America, we are proving that lithium can be refined domestically, sustainably, and competitively.”

The Delta plant is just the beginning for Mangrove, which has grand plans of creating an entire homeshored mine-to-cathode lithium supply chain. The company plans to develop a larger facility in Eastern Canada capable of producing enough material to support 500,000 EVs annually through the refining of lithium and the processing of spodumene, a raw source of lithium. These primary materials would also be sourced from Canadian mines.

Mangrove’s projects have the full support of the Canadian government, which sees these developments as critical to the country’s own energy security and independence goals. Canada’s national and energy security priorities have become heightened under the shadow of the Trump administration, and were a central platform for current Prime Minister Mark Carney. 

“Canada is leveraging our critical mineral resources — including our lithium — to unlock supply chain security, job creation and clean energy innovation,” said Tim Hodgson, Canadian Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. “Mangrove Lithium’s new headquarters will house North America’s first commercial electrochemical lithium refining facility — exactly the type of cutting-edge, sovereign Canadian project we need. By supporting projects like these, our new government is advancing Canada’s low-carbon potential, creating new careers, strengthening our security and creating reliable Canadian jobs in an uncertain time.”

While domestic lithium production and extraction will be hugely beneficial for energy independence and resilience, it does come with some significant downsides. Lithium extraction tends to be extremely environmentally costly, posing major risks for local communities and water resources. Of course, homeshoring these processes instead of outsourcing them to poorer countries is not necessarily a bad thing – in fact, it’s ethically a far sounder approach. But questions remain about which communities will host these extraction sites, and under what protections.

By Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com



Scientists at Rice pioneer faster, greener method to recycle lithium-ion batteries




Rice University

Simon M. King 

image: 

Simon M. King, a sophomore studying chemical and biomolecular engineering and first author of the study (Photo and video credit: Jorge Vidal/Rice University).

view more 

Credit: Jorge Vidal/Rice University





As global demand for lithium-ion batteries continues to surge, a team of Rice University researchers has developed a faster, more energy-efficient way to recover critical minerals from spent batteries, potentially easing supply chain pressures and reducing environmental harm.

In a new study published in Small, researchers from Rice’s Department of Materials Science and Nanoengineering introduce a class of water-based solutions that can extract valuable metals from battery waste in minutes rather than hours. The work centers on aqueous solutions of “amino chlorides,” which mimic the performance of commonly studied green solvents like deep eutectics, while avoiding their key limitations.

“Traditional recycling methods often rely on harsh acids or slow, energy-intensive processes,” said the study’s first author, Simon M. King, a sophomore studying chemical and biomolecular engineering who completed this work as a summer research fellow at the Rice Advanced Materials Institute. “What we’ve shown is that you can achieve rapid, high-efficiency metal recovery using a much simpler, water-based system.”

King worked closely with corresponding authors Pulickel Ajayan, the Benjamin M. and Mary Greenwood Anderson Professor of Engineering, and Sohini Bhattacharyya, a research scientist in Ajayan’s lab.

Lithium-ion batteries power everything from smartphones to electric vehicles, but recycling them remains a major challenge. Only a small fraction of battery materials, including lithium, cobalt, nickel and manganese, are typically recovered during the recycling process, despite growing demand and limited global reserves.

Hydrometallurgical recycling, which dissolves metals into solution followed by their chemical precipitation, is considered one of the most scalable approaches. However, commonly used solvents can be toxic and proposed green alternatives (DESs) can be inefficient. To address this, the Rice team explored aqueous amino chloride salts as alternative “lixiviants,” or leaching agents. Among the candidates tested, a solution based on hydroxylammonium chloride (HACl) delivered standout performance.

“We were surprised by just how fast the reaction occurs, especially without the involvement of high temperatures,” King said. “Within the first minute, we’re already seeing the majority of the metal extraction take place.”

The HACl-based solution achieved roughly 65% extraction of key battery metals in just one minute at room temperature with efficiencies climbing above 75% for several metals under slightly longer processing times. And unlike many existing approaches, the process does not require high temperatures or long reaction times — two major drivers of cost and environmental impact.

“A big advantage of this system is that it works under relatively mild conditions,” Ajayan said. “That opens the door to more sustainable and scalable recycling technologies.”

The team found that replacing traditional organic solvents with water significantly reduced viscosity, allowing faster movement of molecules and improving reaction speed. This shift also simplifies waste handling and lowers environmental risk.

Through a combination of experiments and modeling, the researchers identified why the HACl solution performs so well: While acidity and chloride ions help dissolve metals, the key factor appears to be a built-in redox-active nitrogen center in HACl that actively participates in the reaction.

“While the rapid metal dissolution is very interesting, what is most exciting is that this highlights the generic chemical properties that are the major drivers for efficient leaching,” Bhattacharyya said. “That redox capability gives it a major advantage over other similar systems we tested.”

The study also shows that factors like solvent polarity or pH can be outweighed by the presence of reactive chemical groups and efficient mass transport to facilitate rapid leaching.

After extraction, the team demonstrated that the recovered metals could be reprocessed into new battery materials, completing the recycling loop. The findings point to a broader design strategy for next-generation recycling systems: combining low-toxicity solvents with targeted chemical functionality to maximize efficiency.

Lithium market to enter deficit until 2035, says Canaccord


Image courtesy of SQM.

The global lithium market is set to enter a near-decade-long deficit as a lack of mine investment weighs on supply of the EV battery metal, according to Canaccord Genuity.

In a note published Wednesday, Canaccord analysts said they expect to see a “material market deficit” starting in 2026, given that tightening supply has more than offset the weakness in near-term demand.

This deficit, they added, could last until 2035. Even if rising lithium prices through 2027-28 could ignite a supply response, that would still fall short of their demand growth forecasts, the analysts said.

In recent months, lithium prices have shot up on persistent worries over supply, led by the suspension of a key mine in China, one of the world’s leading suppliers. Earlier this year, Zimbabwe, another top producer, introduced a ban on raw lithium exports, exacerbating the market conditions.

Canaccord’s outlook assumes no further disruptions in China and elsewhere, which could well extend the deficit beyond the projected period.

According to Canaccord analysts, the lithium market would require “significant” investment in new supply in the long term, even if there are no more supply risks and drastic changes to demand forecasts.