e-bike/BEV/PHEV; mrkts matter, page-32

BEVs or bust! Still true.

PHEVs may be the least transitory of the transitional platforms, but they are still a dead end in 20 years, spiraling downward demand as batteries continue to improve and come down as scale INEVITABLY grows as it INEVITABLY does and will.

PHEVs are also uninvestible apart from BEVs and in that context they are nothingburgers. So what's the point of talking about them here on the LYC forum? That's the question I have asking you and you refuse to address.

BEVs are the long play and following them is the most efficient; tell me why I am wrong.

Add PHEVs during the transition for more complete look? No problem as I have said many times, but a waste of time and potentially misleading (not something you need more of, Contrary). For automakers, PHEVs are a value trap. For the Lynas investment community, any of your talk about BEVs vs PHEVs is wasted time, man, nobody needs to know anything about that. Just track BEVs.

BEVs must continue the exponential growth needed to continually consume Chinese production, which is why Chinese demand and consumption is essential and relevant, as is Tesla's Chinese production. When that happens, the honey trap for magnet metals is empty for good. Lanthanum especially even cerium will be in surplus if nothing changes their market demand.

If you want to understand the EV market, you need to understand what CEOs of legacy automakers and New Age wannabes think of dead end investment. PHEVs will spiral down as BEV supply chains fill and manufacturing scales. Exponential death. I don't really care at all to watch PHEVs with the political risk that government presents; tracking BEVs ONLY is precise and concise. That's why you hate it, I'm guessing. You need tortured logic to support your contrary opinion. Except PHEVs vs BEVs debate isn't contrary; it's uninteresting.