CATL: World's biggest EV battery maker sees shares jump on debut
The company is already listed on China's Shenzhen Stock Exchange, where it has a valuation of more than 1tn yuan ($138.7bn, £104.3bn). Founded in 2011 in the eastern Chinese city of Ningde, it enjoyed rapid growth thanks to the boom in the country's EV industry. The battery giant employs over 100,000 people and has 13 production plants around the world. CATL is currently building its second European factory in Hungary, after opening a plant in Germany in early 2023. In December, the firm announced a tie-up with Chrysler-owner Stellantis to build a $4.3bn (£3.2bn) EV battery plant in Spain. The facility is set to be in operation by the end of next year.The firm invests heavily in new technology, with six research and development centres around the world. "The innovations that we're seeing from CATL are unbelievable, particularly in the fast charging area", said Tim Buckley founder of the independent Australian think tank Climate Energy Finance. Last month, the company unveiled a new battery that it said can be charged for 323 miles (520km) in just five minutes. CATL is a major supplier to Elon Musk's Tesla, providing lithium iron phosphate batteries for the EV makers Shanghai factory. But US lawmakers have expressed concerns about potential national security risks surrounding the Chinese company. In April, the chair of the House Select Committee on China wrote letters to the chief executives of JPMorgan and Bank of America, asking them to withdraw from working on CATL's Hong Kong listing. Despite scepticism about Chinese firms from Washington, Mr Buckley says the US should be looking to work with Beijing on the advancement of renewable energy."They're rejecting by far the best technology players in the world when it comes to clean tech", he told the BBC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
28 minutes ago
- New Statesman
How Britain lost the status game
Photo by Stefan Rousseau/AFP I've always been a bit puzzled by the 1956 Suez Crisis. The idea of Britain, France and Israel plotting together but being defeated by the honest, righteous Americans does feel, nearly a lifetime later, a little strange. But the most baffling thing about the Suez Crisis is the idea that it was a crisis. It's always described as this a great national humiliation which ruined a prime minister, the sort of watershed to inspire national soul-searching, state-of-the-nation plays and a whole library of books. And yet, compared to the sort of thing which literally every other European country had to deal with at some point in the 20th century, it's nothing. Britain was not invaded or occupied; Britain did not see its population starve. Britain simply learned that it was no longer top dog. That's all. The event and the reaction don't seem to go together. But this, of course, is to see the world from the perspective of today. Now, we all know that Britain cannot just do what it wants – that the US is the far more powerful player. At the start of 1956, though, large chunks of the map were still coloured British pink (or, come to that, French bleu), and the median opinion at home was that this was broadly a good thing. Suez was the moment when the loss of status we now date to 1945 came home. I wonder, in my darker moments, if we're going through something similar now – a less dramatic decline, perhaps, but a potentially more ruinous one. The loss of empire, after all, was mainly an issue for the pride of the political classes. Today's decline in status affects everyone. Consider the number of areas in which the current British government seems utterly helpless before the might of much bigger forces. It's not quite true to say that Rachel Reeves has no room for manoeuvre – breaking a manifesto pledge and raising one of the core taxes remains an option, albeit one that would be painful for government and taxpayer alike. But her borrowing and spending options are constrained by the sense of a bond market both far flightier than it once was, thanks to an increase in short term investors, and less willing, post-Truss, to give Britain the benefit of the doubt. The thing that much of the public would like Reeves to do – spend more, without raising taxes – is a thing it is by no means clear she has the power to do. Over in foreign policy, Keir Starmer has offended sensibilities by making nice with someone entirely unfit to be president of the United States, and whose actions place him a lot closer to the dictators of the 20th century than to Eisenhower or JFK. The problem for Starmer is that saying this out loud would likely result in ruinous tariffs, or the collapse of NATO before an alternative system for the defence of Europe can be prepared, or both. Again, he has no space to do what his voters want him to do. In the same vein, consider the anger about Britain's failure to act to prevent the horrors still unfolding in Gaza. It is not to imply the government has handled things well to suggest that at least part of the problem is that – 69 years on from Suez – the government of Israel doesn't give a fig about what the government of Britain thinks. The things the public wants may be outside the realm of things the government can actually deliver. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Even in less overtly political realms, the British state feels helplessly at the mercy of global forces beyond its control. The domestic TV industry, a huge British export, is in crisis thanks to the streamers. AI will change the world, we're told, and it's very possible that isn't a good thing: and what is Westminster supposed to do about that? And with which faculties? In all these areas and a thousand more, people want their government to do something to change the direction of events, and it is not at all obvious it can. Ever since 2016, British politics has been plagued by a faintly Australian assumption that, if a prime minister is not delivering, you should kick them out and bring in the next one. That is not the worst impulse in a democracy. But what if Britain is so changed that delivery is not possible? Researchers have found that social status affects the immune system of certain types of monkey – that the stress of lower status can, quite literally, kill. It already looks plausible the electorate might roll the dice on Nigel Farage. This is terrifying enough. But when it turns out he can't take back control either, but only trash what's there – what then? [See more: Trump in the wilderness] Related
Daily Mail
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Victims of killer self-driving Tesla on autopilot get a huge payout after four-year legal battle
A Miami jury has found Tesla was partly responsible for the 2019 crash of a self-driving vehicle that killed a woman and left her boyfriend badly injured to the tune of $242million in damages. Naibel Benavides Leon, 22, died after a Tesla Model S slammed in to her and boyfriend Dillon Angulo, then 27, in 2019. The couple had pulled over to look at the stars at the side of a road near Key Largo, Florida, when they were struck by the vehicle after driver George McGee took his eye off the road to reach for his phone. The federal jury held that Tesla bore significant responsibility because its technology failed and that not all the blame can be put on a reckless driver, even one who admitted he was distracted by his cellphone before hitting a young couple out gazing at the stars. The decision comes as Musk seeks to convince Americans his cars are safe enough to drive on their own as he plans to roll out a driverless taxi service in several cities in the coming months. Footage from the Tesla's front camera showed McGee blow through a red light as he speeds down the road at nearly 70mph. The car passes a stop sign and crashes through several other road signs before striking the couple's vehicle, which was parked 40 feet off Card Sound Road by County Road 905. Benavides Leon was thrown 75 feet and died at the scene, while Angulo suffered serious injuries, according to a wrongful death lawsuit filed against Tesla by the woman's estate. The decision ends a four-year long case remarkable not just in its outcome but that it even made it to trial. Many similar cases against Tesla have been dismissed and, when that didn't happen, settled by the company to avoid the spotlight of a trial. 'This will open the floodgates,' said Miguel Custodio, a car crash lawyer not involved in the Tesla case. 'It will embolden a lot of people to come to court.' The case also included startling charges by lawyers for the family of Leon and for her injured boyfriend Angulo. They claimed Tesla either hid or lost key evidence, including data and video recorded seconds before the accident. Tesla said it made a mistake after being shown the evidence and honestly hadn´t thought it was there. 'We finally learned what happened that night, that the car was actually defective,' said Benavides' sister, Neima Benavides. 'Justice was achieved.' The decision comes as Elon Musk (pictured) seeks to convince Americans his cars are safe enough to drive on their own as he plans to roll out a driverless taxi service in several cities in the coming months Tesla has previously faced criticism that it is slow to cough up crucial data by relatives of other victims in Tesla crashes, accusations that the car company has denied. In this case, the plaintiffs showed Tesla had the evidence all along, despite its repeated denials, by hiring a forensic data expert who dug it up. 'Today´s verdict is wrong,' Tesla said in a statement, 'and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla´s and the entire industry´s efforts to develop and implement lifesaving technology,' They said the plaintiffs concocted a story 'blaming the car when the driver - from day one - admitted and accepted responsibility.' In addition to a punitive award of $200 million, the jury said Tesla must also pay $43 million of a total $129 million in compensatory damages for the crash, bringing the total borne by the company to $243 million. 'It's a big number that will send shock waves to others in the industry,' said financial analyst Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities. 'It's not a good day for Tesla.' Tesla said it will appeal. Even if that fails, the company says it will end up paying far less than what the jury decided because of a pre-trial agreement that limits punitive damages to three times Tesla´s compensatory damages. Translation: $172 million, not $243 million. But the plaintiff says their deal was based on a multiple of all compensatory damages, not just Tesla´s, and the figure the jury awarded is the one the company will have to pay. It´s not clear how much of a hit to Tesla´s reputation for safety the verdict in the Miami case will make. Tesla has vastly improved its technology since the crash on a dark, rural road in Key Largo, Florida, in 2019. But the issue of trust generally in the company came up several times in the case, including in closing arguments Thursday. The plaintiffs´ lead lawyer, Brett Schreiber, said Tesla´s decision to even use the term Autopilot showed it was willing to mislead people and take big risks with their lives because the system only helps drivers with lane changes, slowing a car and other tasks, falling far short of driving the car itself. Schreiber said other automakers use terms like 'driver assist' and 'copilot' to make sure drivers don´t rely too much on the technology. 'Words matter,' Schreiber said. 'And if someone is playing fast and lose with words, they´re playing fast and lose with information and facts.' Schreiber acknowledged that the driver, George McGee, was negligent when he blew through flashing lights, a stop sign and a T-intersection at 62 miles an hour before slamming into a Chevrolet Tahoe that the couple had parked to get a look at the stars. The Tahoe spun around so hard it was able to launch Benavides 75 feet through the air into nearby woods where her body was later found. It also left Angulo, who walked into the courtroom Friday with a limp and cushion to sit on, with broken bones and a traumatic brain injury. But Schreiber said Tesla was at fault nonetheless. He said Tesla allowed drivers to act recklessly by not disengaging the Autopilot as soon as they begin to show signs of distraction and by allowing them to use the system on smaller roads that it was not designed for, like the one McGee was driving on. 'I trusted the technology too much,' said McGee at one point in his testimony. 'I believed that if the car saw something in front of it, it would provide a warning and apply the brakes.' The lead defense lawyer in the Miami case, Joel Smith, countered that Tesla warns drivers that they must keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel yet McGee chose not to do that while he looked for a dropped cellphone, adding to the danger by speeding. Noting that McGee had gone through the same intersection 30 or 40 times previously and hadn´t crashed during any of those trips, Smith said that isolated the cause to one thing alone: 'The cause is that he dropped his cellphone.' The auto industry has been watching the case closely because a finding of Tesla liability despite a driver´s admission of reckless behavior would pose significant legal risks for every company as they develop cars that increasingly drive themselves.
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Elon Musk staged secret $15M plot to desperately win back Trump after falling out
Elon Musk attempted a peace offering with Donald Trump after the ex-'First Buddy' split from the White House, giving $15million to Trump and Republican causes. The donations were made after the former DOGE chairman's ugly feud with Trump upon his departure, but before Musk announced plans to launch the independent 'America Party.' Musk gave $5million to three different super PACs supporting both the president and his party. According to Federal Election Commission filings, he gave to MAGA Inc., the Senate Leadership Fund and the Congressional Leadership Fund on June 27. Just eight day later, Musk launched the 'America Party,' which he said was formed 'to give you back your freedom.' Musk has donated $45 million in 2025 to his own America PAC which was largely spent on an unsuccessful Wisconsin Supreme Court election. The Daily Mail has reached out to the White House for comment. Musk announced the foundation of the America Party on his X social media platform just after Independence Day. It came after Musk created an online poll on July 4 asking his followers whether to establish the new party. The results came back 65.4 percent in favor, leading Musk to make the announcement. 'By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it!' Musk wrote. 'When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy. 'Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.' Musk had been elevated to a prestigious role within the White House acting as a special advisor to the president and overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency. But in recent months a rift has emerged and the two former friends have been embroiled in embarrassing public spats played out over social media. Many had predicted that Trump and Musk's rosy bromance wouldn't last long and some pointed to betting markets on when they would turn on each other. Betters heavily favored a fallout before July 1, 2025, less than six months after Musk joined Trump's administration as a special advisor. In just a matter of months Musk went from spending $288 million for Trump's election campaign, to slinging insults about him online, including suggesting Trump was in The Epstein files. The bust up occurred after Musk stepped down from DOGE over Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' which ends tax breaks for electric vehicles, which are Tesla CEO Musk's passion project. Musk also argued that the bill undercut DOGE's cost-cutting efforts by increasing the deficit. The rift deepened after the president rescinded his nomination offer to Musk-ally Jared Isaacman for NASA administrator over donations he made to the Democrats. Since then Trump and Musk have engaged in public mudslinging against each other. Musk accused the president of ingratitude and claimed he would have lost the election without him, while Trump branded him 'crazy '. Since their public break-up, Musk has threatened to start a new, third political party and buttress the reelection campaign of Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, one of the no votes on Trump's big bill. Trump recently outed himself as the person who leaked details about Musk's alleged drug use, according to author Michael Wolff, who penned the eye-popping book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House. The New York Times reported that during the 2024 presidential campaign, the billionaire used so much ketamine he was having bladder problems and also used Ecstasy, psychedelic mushrooms and what appeared to be Adderall.
