Get in touch with us to learn more about our services, ask for assistance with a technical difficulty, or if you would like a product demo.

Singapore
68 Circular Road, #02-01 049422, Singapore

Jakarta 
Revenue Tower, Scbd, Jakarta 12190, Indonesia

Mumbai
4th Floor, Pinnacle Business Park, Andheri East, Mumbai, 400093

Bangalore 
Cinnabar Hills, Embassy Golf Links Business Park, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560071

Connect With Us

Thank you for submitting the form

Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

BlogsRequest Custom Report Contact Us

Cart

Get in touch with us to learn more about our services, ask for assistance with a technical difficulty, or if you would like a product demo.

info@nextyn.com

Singapore
68 Circular Road, #02-01 049422, Singapore

Jakarta 
Revenue Tower, Scbd, Jakarta 12190, Indonesia

Mumbai
4th Floor, Pinnacle Business Park, Andheri East, Mumbai, 400093

Bangalore 
Cinnabar Hills, Embassy Golf Links Business Park, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560071

Connect With Us

Thank you for submitting the form

Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Get in touch with us to learn more about our services, ask for assistance with a technical difficulty, or if you would like a product demo.

info@nextyn.com

Singapore
68 Circular Road, #02-01 049422, Singapore

Jakarta 
Revenue Tower, Scbd, Jakarta 12190, Indonesia

Mumbai
4th Floor, Pinnacle Business Park, Andheri East, Mumbai, 400093

Bangalore 
Cinnabar Hills, Embassy Golf Links Business Park, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560071

Request Custom Transcript

Thank you for submitting the form

Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

What's Covered?

Report Summary

How do hydroprocessing costs compare between tall oil and used cooking oil feedstocks?
What minimum pipeline modifications enable co-processing SAF in existing refineries?
Which blockchain solutions verify sustainable feedstock provenance for CORSIA compliance?
How are cold flow additives improving SAF performance in arctic flight conditions?
What insurance products cover offtake agreement risks for pre-revenue SAF plants?
Which catalyst regeneration protocols extend reactor run times in Hydrotreated Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA) processes?
How do maritime biofuel specifications differ from aviation-grade SAF?
What strategic partnerships and joint ventures are proving most effective in scaling SAF production capacity across North America?
Which AI models optimize regional feedstock collection routes to minimize CI scores?
How are airport hydrant systems being modified for high-blend SAF distribution?
What capital recycling strategies are oil majors using to fund refinery conversions?
Which membrane separation technologies improve alcohol-to-jet fuel yields?

Transcript & Expert Details

Last Updated: September 2025

Expert's Experience: 22 Years

Relevant Experience: 12 Years

Call Duration: 122 Minutes

Base Year: 2024

Estimated Years: 2025 - 2030

Proceed To Buy

Thank you! Your submission has been received!

Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Download Free PDF

Want a More Customized Experience?

Request a Customized Transcript: Submit your own questions or specify changes. We’ll conduct a new call with the industry expert, covering both the original and your additional questions. You’ll receive an updated report for a small fee over the standard price.
Request a Direct Call with the Expert: If you prefer a live conversation, we can facilitate a call between you and the expert. After the call, you’ll get the full recording, a verbatim transcript, and continued platform access to query the content and more.

‍

Request Custom Transcript

Get in touch with us to learn more about our services, ask for assistance with a technical difficulty, or if you would like a product demo.

info@nextyn.com

Singapore
68 Circular Road, #02-01 049422, Singapore

Jakarta 
Revenue Tower, Scbd, Jakarta 12190, Indonesia

Mumbai
4th Floor, Pinnacle Business Park, Andheri East, Mumbai, 400093

Bangalore 
Cinnabar Hills, Embassy Golf Links Business Park, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560071

Request Custom Transcript

Thank you for submitting the form

Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Related Transcripts

China’s EV Export Domination vs. Western Trade Barriers: Policy Risks, Competitive Response & Supply Chain Realignment (2025–2030)

China EV Exports

Global EV Trade

China

USA

Europe

1. China’s EV Export Growth (2024–2030)

China’s EV exports are projected to grow from 1.8M units in 2024 to nearly 5M units annually by 2030. Europe remains the top destination with over 50% share, while Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia emerge as secondary growth markets.

2. Tariff Impacts on EV Prices

The EU’s proposed 10–20% anti-subsidy tariffs could raise EV prices in Europe by 8–12% by 2030. In contrast, U.S. IRA rules fully exclude Chinese EVs from subsidies, effectively pricing them out of the U.S. market.

3. Supply Chain Realignment

Trade barriers are forcing diversification of EV supply chains. By 2030, China’s share of global EV supply chains is projected to fall from 70% to ~55%, with India, Mexico, and Southeast Asia gaining a combined 15% share.

4. Western OEM Strategic Responses

Western OEMs are increasing investments in localized production, joint ventures, and battery partnerships to reduce reliance on Chinese imports and comply with trade rules.

5. Tariffs and EU EV Adoption

The imposition of tariffs raises EV costsfor European consumers. By 2030, EU EV adoption could be 5–7% lower thanbaseline if tariffs remain at 20%. Germany and France are the most affected dueto high reliance on Chinese imports, while Italy and Spain diversify sourcingfaster.

6. Battery & Component Supply Chains

Battery cell and component sourcing remainsChina-dominated, but new plants in Hungary, Poland, and Mexico are capturing~10% share by 2030. Restrictions on Chinese graphite and lithium inputs couldadd $15–20/kWh to EU pack costs.

7. Role of India, Mexico & Southeast Asia

India, Mexico, and Southeast Asia attractsignificant OEM investment to diversify supply chains. By 2030, these regionscould account for ~15% of EV exports to the West, reducing China’s dominance.

8. China’s Cost Advantage

Even under tariffs, Chinese EVs maintain a15–20% cost advantage due to economies of scale, integrated supply chains, andstate subsidies. However, stricter trade rules and logistics costs could erodemargins by 5–7% by 2030.

9. OEM Alliances & JV Risks

Joint ventures between Chinese and Western OEMs face political scrutiny. Examples include potential reviews of BYD–Teslacollaborations in Europe and CATL supply deals. JV risks include blockedapprovals, stranded Capex, and IP exposure.

10. Scenarios for Trade Tensions

Two scenarios dominate outlook: (a)Escalation – tariffs expand to 25–30%, further reducing EU adoption andsparking WTO disputes. (b) Relaxation – post-2030 gradual rollback of tariffsif Chinese OEMs localize production in Europe. Base case assumes moderatedtariffs but permanent partial restrictions.

Key Takeaways

• China’s EV exports projected to hit 5M units annually by 2030.

• EU investigating anti-subsidy tariffs of 10–20% on Chinese EV imports.

• U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) effectively excludes Chinese OEMs from subsidies.

• Western OEMs (VW, Stellantis, Tesla EU) increasing localization of battery/assembly plants.

• Global battery supply chain diversification: India, Mexico, Southeast Asia gaining share.

• Trade barriers could raise EU EV prices by 8–12% by 2030.

‍

$ 1345

October 2025

NACS Connector Revolution (SAE J3400): Infrastructure Economics, OEM Strategy & Regulatory Alignment (2025–2030)

EV Charging Infrastructure

OEM Strategy & Standards

USA

1. NACS Adoption Rate (2024–2030)

By 2030, over 80% of new EVs sold in North America will be NACS-compatible. The transition begins with Ford and GM in 2025, followed by VW and Toyota by 2026. Tesla’s early dominance accelerates standardization and consumer adoption.
‍

2. Tesla’s Supercharger Network

Tesla’s Supercharger network is expected to account for ~55% of public fast-charging capacity by 2026. Its decision to open NACS to competitors set the foundation for industry-wide adoption. Partnerships with Ford, GM, and Rivian expand access while maintaining Tesla’s first-mover advantage.

3. Economics of Retrofitting CCS to NACS

Retrofitting existing CCS chargers to NACS will cost $2–4B between 2025–2030. Each retrofit costs ~$5,000–$8,000 per charger, but consolidation reduces hardware duplication. Overall, operators achieve 10–15% cost savings due to standardized equipment.

4. OEM Commitments & Timelines

Ford, GM, Rivian, and Hyundai have announced NACS adoption starting 2025, while VW and Toyota plan to align by 2026. This collective shift ensures over 80% of new EVs in North America will adopt NACS by 2030.
‍

5. Interoperability & Consumer Adoption

NACS reduces charging anxiety by offering a single connector type across most EVs. Interoperability improves charging station utilization by 15–20% and accelerates consumer adoption, particularly in suburban and rural areas.

6. Federal & State Alignment

The FHWA and DOE require NEVI-funded charging projects after 2025 to include NACS. State-level energy commissions in California, Texas, and New York have already issued guidelines mandating dual compatibility with CCS and NACS until 2027.

7. Impact on Charging TCO & ROI

Standardization under NACS reduces per-charger equipment and maintenance costs by 10–15%. Operators achieve higher ROI through better utilization and reduced redundancy in multi-standard hardware.
‍

8. Impact on Independent Operators

Independent charging operators may face higher upfront retrofit costs compared to OEM-backed networks. However, improved interoperability increases utilization rates and revenue potential, offsetting the initial expenses.

9. Risks of Uneven Adoption

If some OEMs or regions delay adoption, interoperability could suffer. Canada is expected to align by 2027, but Mexico may lag until 2029. Fragmentation risks persist if global standards diverge (e.g., CCS in EU vs NACS in U.S.).

10. Roadmap for 2025–2030 Alignment

By 2030, Tesla’s share of public fast charging will decline from 55% to ~40% as non-Tesla networks scale under NACS. This creates a more balanced and competitive charging ecosystem, ensuring universal compatibility for EV drivers.
‍

‍

Key Takeaways

• By 2030, 80%+ of new EVs in North America will support NACS.

• Tesla’s Supercharger network to represent ~55% of public fast charging capacity by 2026.

• Retrofitting CCS sites to NACS expected to cost $2–4B cumulatively (2025–2030).

• OEM commitments: Ford, GM, Rivian, and Hyundai already aligned; VW and Toyota finalizing by 2026.

• Regulatory alignment: FHWA & DOE mandating NACS interoperability for NEVI funds post-2025.

• Infrastructure cost savings of 10–15% per charger due to standardization.

‍

$ 1432

October 2025

EV Battery Price Collapse to $115/kWh: Margin Optimization, Supply Chain Winners & Future Cost Curves (2025–2030)

EV Battery Pricing

Supply Chain Strategy

Europe

China

1. Global Battery Price Curve (2024–2030)

Average global battery pack prices are projected to drop from $139/kWh in 2024 to $115/kWh by 2030, reflecting economies of scale, raw material efficiency, and cathode innovation. China maintains a structural advantage due to vertical integration and lower energy costs.
‍

2. OEM Margin Impact & Pricing Strategies

A 17% reduction in pack prices boosts OEM margins by 3–5% per vehicle, assuming partial cost pass-through. Automakers like Tesla, BYD, and Hyundai are using lower pack costs to improve affordability while sustaining profitability.

3. Dominant Battery Chemistries

LFP batteries gain significant market share due to lower costs and safety advantages, expected to reach ~40% by 2030. NMC maintains use in premium models, while solid-state R&D remains a long-term play with commercialization post-2030.

4. Cost Reduction Drivers Across Value Chain

Three key levers — raw material optimization, localization, and recycling — account for over 80% of total cost savings. Localized production in the U.S. and Europe reduces logistics and tariff costs by up to $10/kWh.

‍

5. Recycling & Second-Life Applications

Battery recycling contributes up to 15% cost reduction through recovery of lithium, nickel, and cobalt. Companies like Redwood Materials and CATL’s recycling divisions are scaling closed-loop systems that reduce raw material dependency.

6. Supply Chain Winners

Suppliers leading in cathode production (CATL, LG Energy Solution) and LFP chemistry (BYD, Gotion High-Tech) benefit the most. Anode and separator innovations from SK On and Panasonic strengthen their position in high-energy density segments.

7. Regional Cost Comparison (2024–2030)

Regional disparities persist with China maintaining sub-$100/kWh packs, while U.S. and EU stabilize around $125–130/kWh due to energy and labor costs.

‍

8. OEM Margin Optimization Levers

OEMs are leveraging in-house cell manufacturing, pack standardization, and supply contracts with miners to stabilize costs. Tesla’s 4680 cells and BYD’s blade batteries exemplify scale-driven cost efficiency.

9. Risks to Cost Decline

Key risks include raw material volatility (nickel, lithium), regulatory delays, and underinvestment in recycling infrastructure. If lithium prices spike above $35,000/ton again, cost parity could be delayed by two years.

10. Battery Chemistry Market Share (2030)

By 2030, LFP chemistry will command 40% of the global market, followed by NMC at 35%, solid-state at 15%, and others (LMFP, Sodium-ion) at 10%. This diversification improves supply resilience and cost predictability.

‍

Key Takeaways

• Battery pack prices to fall ~17% from $139/kWh (2024) to $115/kWh (2030).

• LFP chemistry to reach ~40% market share by 2030, displacing NMC dominance.

• China sustains cost leadership with sub-$100/kWh packs by 2030.

• Recycling and second-life recovery to cut raw material costs by 12–15%.

• Localized cell production in U.S. and EU narrows cost gap by $10–15/kWh.

• Solid-state tech remains 5–7 years from commercialization but influences future curves.

‍

$ 1430

October 2025

Carbon Markets Post-2025: Credit Pricing Volatility, MRV Tech & Corporate Offset Demand

Carbon Markets

Corporate Offset Demand

USA

Europe

Key Takeaways

1) Treat compliance prices as the baseline carbon cost; set internal shadow prices accordingly.

2) Expect persistent price dispersion in the VCM driven by integrity tiering and methodology updates.

3) Shift from spot buying to structured multi‑year offtake with collars, replacement rights, and quality ratchets.

4) Embed MRV tech (sensors, satellites, AI) in contracts to reduce measurement uncertainty and audit lag.

5) Anchor claims in CCP/VCMI‑aligned frameworks; build Article 6 awareness to avoid double counting.

6) Segment procurement by business unit: aviation, industrials, consumer brands, finance have distinct playbooks.

7) Adopt portfolio analytics and meta‑registry reconciliation for assurance‑ready records.

8) Plan a migration path toward 20–40% removals share by 2030 while maintaining cost‑effective NBS volume.
‍

Key Metrics

Market Size & Price Outlook (USA & Europe)

Compliance systems (EU ETS, UK ETS, California, RGGI‑type programs) define the baseline cost of carbon; illustrative trajectories suggest firming allowance levels through 2030 as caps tighten and reforms mature. In the voluntary market, a mid‑grade baseline rises modestly, while a separate volatility index declines as MRV technology and integrity screens reduce uncertainty and improve liquidity. Corporates model these curves jointly: compliance prices for budgeting and investment screening; VCM baselines and volatility for procurement strategy. Aviation continues to drive standardized demand via EU ETS for intra‑EU and CORSIA for international flights, while industrials lean on compliance hedging and selective VCM contributions. The practical outcome is a dual‑curve playbook one curve anchoring internal carbon pricing; the other informing tiered willingness‑to‑pay across credit categories and risk bands.
‍

Market Analysis (Volatility Drivers)

Credit pricing volatility originates from six primary drivers. Policy and rule changes shift compliance demand and eligibility rules, especially when free allocation or sector coverage evolves. Methodology updates alter supply eligibility and baselines in the VCM, periodically repricing large project cohorts. Integrity ratings and claims frameworks can move premiums as CCP/VCMI alignment tightens. Liquidity depth affects transaction costs and basis risk; exchange listing and market‑making improve stability. Macro and energy prices filter into compliance markets and developer economics, indirectly shaping VCM supply. Finally, Article 6 supply timing authorizations, corresponding adjustments, registry connectivity affects cross‑border claim confidence.

Mitigation tactics: (1) diversify by category, registry, and geography; (2) use price collars and benchmark‑linked settlements; (3) pre‑define replacement rights for methodology changes; (4) maintain buffers for invalidation and downgrade risk; (5) embed MRV SLAs with data access; and (6) negotiate transparent tariffing for registry, exchange, and verification services. Together, these measures compress variance bands and improve predictability of delivered cost per tone.
‍

Illustrative Drivers of Carbon Credit Price Volatility
‍

Trends & Insights (2025–2030)

MRV digitization: sensor networks, remote sensing, and AI anomaly detection enter mainstream portfolios, cutting verification lag and reducing uncertainty. Integrity consolidation: CCP/VCMI adoption becomes standard; meta‑registries unify data and reduce double‑counting risk. Article 6: bilateral arrangements and registry upgrades scale, enabling more robust cross‑border claims. Structured procurement: multi‑year offtake with collars, indices, and volume‑flex replaces spot buying. Finance integration: insurers and lenders increasingly require MRV‑first documentation for credit facilities; assurance-ready records become a condition for reputational risk management. Premium persistence: high‑integrity credits (especially removals) retain pricing power; mid‑grade reductions remain cost‑effective volume backbone. Overall volatility moderates relative to 2025 levels, but event‑driven spikes remain.

Segment Analysis (Buyer Profiles)

Industrial & Power: Heavy compliance exposure; prioritize ETS hedging and use VCM for contribution claims with clear separation from compliance obligations. Aviation: Dual regimes (EU ETS/CORSIA); standardized pools and index‑linked procurement reduce operational complexity. Consumer & Retail: Emphasize NBS with co‑benefits; gradually add removals as budgets allow. Financial Services: Focus on assurance‑ready records and MRV‑integrated analytics; prefer offtake with high integrity and clear delivery schedules. Technology & Manufacturing: Analytics‑driven rebalancing across categories as ratings and methodologies evolve. Public Sector & Cities: Pilot contribution programs aligned with local goals; require transparent claims and data access.

Geography Analysis (USA & Europe Readiness)

Readiness for MRV‑first procurement and structured contracts is strongest in EU Nordics/Benelux, the UK, and US states covered by California or RGGI‑type programs, where policy alignment, buyer sophistication, and market access are high. DACH and France show solid progress, with growing data infrastructure and assurance ecosystems. Iberia and CEE are improving but still trail on liquidity and integrity infrastructure depth. In the USA beyond California/RGGI, readiness is uneven but rising through corporate programs and exchange penetration. Multi‑region buyers should stagger procurement, align claims governance with local regimes, and maintain enterprise‑wide integrity standards.
‍

Competitive Landscape (Ecosystem & Intermediaries)

Ecosystem participants include compliance registries and exchanges, VCM registries and methodologies, ratings providers, meta‑registries, data platforms, brokers/exchanges, and MRV technology vendors. Competitive edge comes from integrity alignment, transparent data access, delivery reliability, and structured contracting toolkits. MRV vendors differentiate on measurement accuracy, latency, and interoperability (APIs). Exchanges and brokers compete on liquidity, basis risk management, and index products. Developers of engineered removals prioritize offtake bankability, while NBS developers differentiate via jurisdictional programs and co‑benefit measurement. Expect consolidation and platformization, with bundled analytics‑contracting‑assurance SLAs.

‍