The "unlocking value" argument sounds fishy. Is Evans suggesting, that without the separation, the revenue/profit would be somewhat less? If no, then unlocking value for whom? It is clear, they are just testing the reaction to this idea at the moment. But I guess, without an insider info, it is hard to determine, what they are up to. Unless of course someone here has already made such "unlocking value" and knows what is going on. I bet, WB sees into into that bit more, than he is sharing with us :-)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you are missing the point.  Unlocking the value is refering to the NA/US Supply chain from Lithium mining to battery cell production to battery module assembly.  Not only that I think the new soild state cell they have an eye on has the highest (so far) energy density of existing cells.  Cycle life is being tested now and manufacturing costs are far reduced from existing cells (maybe half).  I don't know about the fire problem.  Will see what UL has to say.  I don't think there is one.   Just think of the value to LAC if they could participate and the Government funding at each step.  I think this is What Jon Evans is refering to.

A new US law says the Chineese cannot be involved.  The idea is to seperate the supply chain!!!!! from China.

Just think how many automotive manufacturers would line up to use this cell.