Sustainable Materials and Technologies 17 (2018) e00087

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Materials and Technologies

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/susmat

The case for recycling: Overview and challenges in the material supply
chain for automotive li-ion batteries
Ahmad Mayyas ⁎, Darlene Steward, Margaret Mann
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 15013 Denver West Parkway, Golden, CO 80401, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Lithium ion batteries (LIB) continue to gain market share in response to the increasing demand for electric vehi-
Received 11 December 2018 cles, consumer electronics, and energy storage. The increased demand for LIB has highlighted potential problems
Accepted 12 December 2018 in the supply chain of raw materials needed for their manufacture. Some critical metals used in LIB, namely lith-
ium, cobalt, and graphite are scarce, are not currently mined in large quantities, or are mined in only a few coun-
tries whose trade policies could limit availability and impact prices. The environmental and social impacts of
Keywords:
Cathode
mining these materials have also drawn attention as production ramps up to meet the increased demand.
Electric vehicles Closed-loop systems with recycling at the end-of-life provide a pathway to lower environmental impacts and a
End-of-life source of high value materials that can be used in producing new batteries. Because environmental regulations
Li-ion batteries concerning end-of-life batteries are not fully developed or implemented, most of these batteries currently end
Recycling up in the landfills, with a very small number of spent batteries sent to the existing recycling facilities. However,
with proactive regulations, an increasing supply of spent batteries, and innovations in recycling technologies,
end-of-life batteries could supply a significant fraction of the materials needed for manufacturing of new LIB.
This paper reviews the current state of the LIB manufacturing supply chain, addresses some issues associated
with battery end-of-life, and sheds light on the importance of LIB recycling from the environmental and value
chain perspectives. We also discuss the expected benefits of recycling on the global LIB supply chain.
© 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V.

1. Introduction
Lithium-ion batteries (LIB) have emerged as the battery of choice for
electric vehicles because of their high energy and power density, low
weight, and long life [1,2]. However, production of many of the raw
materials needed for their manufacture is limited to a few geographical
regions whose trade policies could limit availability and impact prices.
The increased demand represented by increasing use for utility energy
storage, and the widespread adoption of electric vehicles combined
with limited supply could put upward pressure on prices for these ma-
terials and therefore stifle markets. Recycling is one potential strategy
for increasing supplies and mitigating price fluctuations in critical mate-
rials for LIB. However, recycling will be undertaken in a given region
only when the price of raw materials is equal to or greater than the eco-
nomically viable price for recycled materials. If significant new invest-
ment in recycling technology is needed, potential recyclers must also
weigh the long-term outlook for raw material prices and consider the
future size and stability of the reverse supply chain of spent batteries.
Therefore, accurate predictions of virgin and recycled material supply
and price trends (i.e., a supply curve) are critical for potential recyclers.
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ahmad.mayyas@nrel.gov (A. Mayyas).
Accurate supply curves will also provide critical data to inform cost tar-
gets for battery recycling technology development.
This study focuses on the current supply and demand for LIB mate-
rials, and briefly addresses the technologies and prospects for recycling
of LIB. The current global landscape for production and trade for the pri-
mary LIB materials—cobalt, lithium, nickel, and graphite—is presented
in Section 2, and global LIB manufacturing capabilities are presented
in Section 3. Section 4 briefly presents the most common technologies
available for LIB recycling and addresses current recycling efforts.
Value chain analysis for LIB made from virgin and recycled materials is
discussed in Section 5.
This paper addresses some challenges facing the LIB supply chain
and discusses the impact of recycling as an economic and environmen-
tally favorable solution to overcome these challenges. More specifically,
the objectives of this paper are:
• To study the current supply chain of the automotive li-ion batteries
from raw materials to LIB pack production to highlight areas where
recycling can help narrow the gap between supply and demand.
• To examine current recycling capacities in different countries to high-
light the regional economic potential of establishing and/or
expanding recycling capabilities.
• To glean lessons-learned from policies that have been implemented

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2018.e00087
2214-9937/© 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V.
2 A. Mayyas et al. / Sustainable Materials and Technologies 17 (2018) e00087

Table 1
NMC 333a li-ion battery materials, function, and recent research aimed at improving performance or reducing cost.

Element Role In LIB Weight Function in batteries and current researchc

(kg/kWh)b

Cobalt Cathode 0.33 Enhances structural stability. Research has focused on reducing Co content
Nickel Cathode 0.33 Increases power (current) and energy capacity, lifespan, and performance
Manganese Cathode 0.31 Provides greater safety (higher thermal runaway temperature), but decreased cycle life.
Aluminium Cathode and current 0.27 Low cost. Improves specific energy when incorporated in cathode active material. Also used as a current collector
collector
Lithium Cathode and 0.13 Lithium has the lowest reduction potential of any element and is the third lightest making it nearly ideal for battery
electrolyte applications. Lithium is unlikely to be replaced in future battery chemistries
Copper Current collector 0.62 Copper foil is used as the current collector for anodes [3]
Graphite Anode 1.65 Abundant and low cost, high electrical conductivity, low delithiation potential vs high Li diffusivity.
a
NMC 333 = lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2).
b
Weight estimates based on NMC 333 cathode chemistry and 24 kWh “battery system 1” from the DOE BatPaC model v3.1 18OCT2017 (http://www.cse.anl.gov/batpac).
c
Attributes and current research information in this table are derived from [1].

around the world that promote recycling of the end-of-life batteries
from consumer electronics and electric vehicles.
• To study the value chain of the automotive LIB packs to assess the po-
tential economic and environmental impact of using recycled cathode
materials.
Table 1 lists the primary materials used in LIB, their attributes, and
current efforts to improve performance and/or cost.
Cobalt is used in the cathode active materials of the most common
cathode chemistries currently being used in traction batteries for bat-
tery electric vehicles (BEVs) [2,3]. NMC 333 is the most common cath-
ode material used in vehicles, although other chemistries such as
lithium nickel cobalt aluminium oxide (NCA), lithium manganese
oxide (LMO), and lithium iron phosphate (LFP) are also used [4–8].
The largest demand for cobalt in batteries is currently from consumer
electronics, which predominantly use lithium cobalt oxide (LCO) cath-
ode chemistry [9]. However, the demand for cathode materials for vehi-
cle batteries is expected to continue to grow rapidly in the next 12 years
[9,10]. Cobalt prices on the London Metals Exchange1 gradually fell from
about 40,000 to 23,000 USD per tonne between 2010 and late 2016 be-
fore steeply climbing to over 80,000 USD/t in early 2018. Automakers
and consumer electronics manufacturers have responded to the rapid
increase in cobalt prices with efforts to secure longer-term contracts
with suppliers2 and increased interest in recycling.3 It is likely that the
cobalt will continue to be used in vehicle LIB, but the Co content will de-
crease as new battery chemistries are developed and commercialized.
Nickel is used in the cathode active material of NMC LIB and nickel-
metal hydride (NiMH) batteries used in hybrid electric vehicles [11].
Nickel provides high energy/power density in cathode materials and is
cheaper than cobalt, but may substitute Li+ sites blocking Li diffusion
pathways [1]. The nickel content of EV batteries is likely to increase in
the future. Nickel prices on the London Metals Exchange4 fell from a
high of about 29,000 USD/t in early 2011 to 8800 USD/t in early 2016.
Prices have slowly risen since then to a current value of around 13,500
USD/t.
Manganese is incorporated into LIB cathode's active material to im-
prove thermal stability and is lower cost than nickel and cobalt [1].
However, high Mn content batteries, e.g., LiMnO2 (LMO), have rela-
tively low specific capacity (mAh/g) and poor cycling performance in
part because of Mn leaching during cycling [1]. While manganese
plays an important role in many LIB chemistries and is low cost, it is
not likely to replace other more expensive LIB materials.
1
https://www.lme.com/en-GB/Metals/Minor-metals/Cobalt#tabIndex=2
2 trated in Australia (41%) and Chile (34%), with global production
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-miners-cobalt/apple-in-talks-with-
miners-to-secure-cobalt-supplies-sources-idUSKCN1G50M3
3 5
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/msn/samsung-sdi-turns-to-used-phones-for-
cobalt-as-prices-surge/ar-BBJ1eeP
4
https://www.lme.com/en-GB/Metals/Minor-metals/Cobalt#tabIndex=2
Lithium is a primary constituent in rechargeable LIB for mobile de-
vices and electric vehicles, and is used in the cathode and some electro-
lyte materials. Lithium has the lowest reduction potential of any
element, giving it the highest possible cell potential. It also is the third
lightest element and has one of the smallest ionic radii of any single
charged ion [1]. These properties ensure that lithium will continue to
play a critical role in batteries. Lithium carbonate, which is usually
99.5% Li2CO3 makes up the bulk of the lithium sold for electric vehicles.
Lithium hydroxide (LiOH.H2O), which is used in the nickel-cobalt-
aluminium (NCA) batteries produced by Panasonic for Tesla, is currently
a smaller fraction of the market, but its market share may increase if bat-
tery manufacturers are successful in developing 8:1:1 nickel-cobalt-
manganese batteries.5,6 Lithium carbonate prices remained relatively
stable between $4000 and $5000 per ton between 2009 and 2016, but
have risen sharply since then to a price of around $14,000 per ton in
May of 2017.5
Aluminium is a good electrical conductor, which constitutes its
primary function in LIB. Extracting aluminium from its ores (usually al-
uminium silicates) is extremely energy intensive, but once made, it does
not corrode and is readily recycled [12].
Graphite, which is a pure carbon compound, is found naturally in
many locations and can be made synthetically in the form of charcoal
(from wood) and coke (from coal) [12]. Carbon is used in metal
smelting and carbon fiber, which is lightweight and strong, is used to re-
inforce tennis rackets, skis, fishing rods, and aircraft materials. Recently,
carbon nanotubes have become important in the electronics industry.
Graphite is used in the anodes of LIB [3]. While various combinations
of lithium and other materials (including graphite and silicon) are
being investigated as anode materials [1], it is likely that graphite will
continue to play a key role in LIB.
2. Challenges in the material supply chain for LIB
The British Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) and the United States
Geological Survey (USGS), among other organizations, track world re-
serves and mining production, which helps manufacturers, analysts,
and decision makers understand the supply and risks associated with
production of raw materials. Mining of the raw materials for LIB is con-
centrated in a few countries (Fig. 1); in 2016, 32 countries accounted for
all global production of Li, graphite, Ni, Mn, and Co, with 50% of produc-
tion originating in one or two countries for all but one element.
According to data from the USGS, in 2016, 123,000 t of cobalt were
produced globally, with over 50% coming from the Democratic Republic
of the Congo (DRC). China accounted for 65% of the 1.2 million tonnes of
natural graphite produced globally. Lithium extraction was concen-
www.lme.com. LME EV Battery Materials, December 2017.
6
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lme-lithium/london-metal-exchange-moves-
further-towards-launch-of-lithium-contract-idUSKBN1K824I
 A. Mayyas et al. / Sustainable Materials and Technologies 17 (2018) e00087 3

Fig. 1. World mining industry production for materials used in LIB in 2016 (data source: USGS 2016 [13]).

totaling 35,000 t. A total of 16,000 t of manganese were extracted
globally, primarily in South Africa (34%), China (17%), and Australia
(16%). Global nickel production totaled 2.2 million tonnes, with the
Philippines accounting for 22%, while Canada, Russia, and Australia
each accounted for 9 to 11% of the total.
Our estimates for material consumption in electric vehicles revealed
that approximately 6% of cobalt produced in 2016 was used in BEV bat-
teries (Table 2). b1% of the nickel and b 1% of manganese and approxi-
mately 8% of the lithium produced in 2016 was used in electric vehicle
batteries. Approximately 2% of the graphite produced in 2016 was
used in the manufacturing of automotive LIB, with most of the produc-
tion attributed to Chinese manufacturers. Global reserves and produc-
tions of LIB raw materials are summarized in Table 2.
The values presented in Table 2 provide an overview of global metal
mining. However, as discussed in more depth below, gross production
of metals does not necessarily fully describe the market for LIB precur-
sors because of the high purity and specific chemistries often needed
in battery applications. While limited data is available on the global sup-
ply and demand of LIB precursors, some market reports (e.g., Darton
Commodities, Cobalt Institute and USGS annual reports) reveal that
most of these precursors are produced in very few countries including
China, Belgium, United Kingdom, Canada and United States [13–15].
The supply dynamics for cobalt and to a lesser extent, lithium, are
complicated by the fact that these metals are not typically the primary
product of mining operations, but are produced as a co-product or
byproduct. Almost all cobalt is produced as a co-product of nickel
(50%) or copper (35%) mining [16]. Nassar et al. [16] estimated
the extent to which the production of a variety of metals was econom-
ically dependent on mining of a host metal, which they termed
“companionality.” In 2015, they estimated a companionality score of
85% for cobalt and 52% for lithium using a scale of 0% (mining of the
metal is wholly self-sufficient) to 100% (production is wholly depen-
dent on the mining of other metals). Cobalt production from artisanal
mines in the DRC is an exception to the usual dependence relation-
ship of cobalt to other metal mining. Artisanal mining of cobalt
metal had been estimated to make up between 60 and 90% of the
DRC cobalt production in 2009 [17]. However, by 2016, that number
had dropped to 17 to 20% with the opening or ramp-up of three
large, mechanized Cu-Co mines there [17]. The practical result of
high companionability is that production of the companion metal is
not directly responsive to demand for the metal, which can result
in shortages and extreme price fluctuations [16]. High companionality
may have exacerbated supply shortfalls and recent price increases for
cobalt and lithium.

Table 2
World reserve and production capacity in 2016 for elements used in LIB (data source: USGS 2016 [13]).

Element Reserve (tonnes) World mine production (tonnes) Percentage used in electric vehicles (xEV) Percentage used in other applications

Cobalt 6,994,000 123,190 (b2%)a 6.2% 93.6%

Nickel 78,360,000 2,246,900 (b3%) 0.3% 99.7%
Manganese 686,000,000 18,310,000 (2%) b1% N99%
Aluminium 2,400,000 57,600 (2.4%) TBD TBD
Lithium 12,669,000 35,300 (b0.3%) 8.4% 91.6%
Graphite 233,201,600 1,183,000 (0.5%) b1% 98.1%
a
Numbers in parentheses represent percentages of the declared reserve in 2016.
4 A. Mayyas et al. / Sustainable Materials and Technologies 17 (2018) e00087
The partial dependence of cobalt production on the mining of nickel,
which is also a primary constituent of many LIBs, further complicates
the supply chain for both metals. There are two primary types of nickel
ores; laterite and sulfide. Laterite ores are typically smelted to produce
ferronickel and nickel pig iron (NPI). Smelting produces a lower grade
nickel product (Class 2 nickel of purity b99.8%) that is primarily used
for stainless steel and is not suitable for batteries. Cobalt cannot easily
be recovered from the smelting process [18,19]. Nickel sulfate, with a
nickel purity of 99.8% or greater (Class 1), which is suitable for batteries,
is most easily produced from nickel sulfide ores. Cobalt can also be easily
recovered from nickel or copper sulfide ores using flotation followed by
further purification [19]. Low nickel prices over the past several decades
have resulted in most mining companies focusing on production of
Class 2 nickel and current market projections show Class 1 nickel pro-
duction ramping up only slightly in the near future [20]. According to
the USGS, nickel sulfide deposits make up only 40% of the available re-
serves, and these are primarily found in established mining regions
that have been depleted [20] The few possible sulfide ore projects
under consideration would take 6 to 7 years before the start of produc-
tion [18].
A number of alternatives to purification of high-grade nickel and co-
balt from sulfide ores have been explored. Cobalt can be recovered from
the limonite layer of laterite ores using high-pressure leaching with sul-
furic acid (HPAL) followed by further purification [19]. The HPAL pro-
cess is expensive and requires large quantities of sulfuric acid, which
could become a bottleneck for production [18]. Class 1 nickel can also
be produced from laterite ores using acid leaching. For example, an
African nickel beneficiation project is producing Class 1 nickel from a
complex laterite ore [20]. In some cases, the waste tailings from the flo-
tation method used to produce sulfide ore concentrates can contain
large quantities of cobalt that could be recovered [19]. Newly discovered
sulfide deposits on the Mohn's ridge in the western Norwegian sea
could also contain cobalt and nickel.7 While recycling of stainless steel
is projected to increase in the coming years, the nickel recovered from
stainless steel recycling is not suitable for batteries [20]. However, stain-
less steel recycling and the projected ramp-up of Class 2 nickel produc-
tion could free up some Class 1 nickel sulfate that would otherwise have
been used in stainless steel. Some mining and refining companies are
also evaluating the cost of beneficiation of lower quality ores to a Class
1 product [18,20]. Recycling of nickel-containing batteries could also in-
crease the supply of battery-grade nickel as well as cobalt.
Currently, the largest source of lithium is pegmatite and continental
brines. In continental brines, Li is a co-product or byproduct of K (pot-
ash) production [16]. In arriving at their estimate of 52% companionality
for lithium, Nassar et al. [16] assumed that all brine production of lith-
ium was as a co-product of potash operations except in the Salar del
Hombre Muerto in Argentina, where K is not recovered. In addition to
its dependency on potash mining, lithium production is also less re-
sponsive to changes in demand because of the up to 10-year lead time
required to start up a new lithium mine and the 2-year processing
time required for brine evaporation.8 The months-long evaporation pro-
cess for purification of lithium from brines is also extremely water in-
tensive, requiring as much as 500,000 gal per ton [21]. The water
intensity of lithium production has raised concerns among the indige-
nous people in the arid regions of Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile where
lithium is found [21]. Several mining companies are working to develop
processes to filter lithium from wastewater [21] and recover lithium
more quickly11,9 Hard rock mining of lithium is more energy intensive
and costlier than brine evaporation, but has gained market share as
the demand for lithium has increased. In 2016, Australia produced
7
http://www.npd.no/en/news/News/2018/New-deep-sea-mineral-deposits/
8
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lme-lithium/london-metal-exchange-moves-
further-towards-launch-of-lithium-contract-idUSKBN1K824I
9
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/lilac-solutions-aims-to-get-battery-
costs-below-80-per-kilowatt-hour
14,300 t of lithium from hard rock mining, which made up almost all
of the 16% increase in lithium production that year [21]. In 2017, the
United States produced 2% of the global lithium supply from a brine
evaporation mine in Nevada11. The largest deposit of lithium in the
United States is in clay sediments in the McDermitt Caldera in northern
Nevada. Lithium Nevada is developing a lithium carbonate mine in the
caldera that could eventually produce 25% of the world's lithium ac-
cording to company officials.10
Although only a small fraction of global production of graphite is
used for BEV batteries (Table 2), the supply of high-purity flake graphite
needed for LIBs may be more constrained. For example, in 2017, only
30% of the natural graphite produced in China was flake graphite [22].
Only 3% of the 2017 global graphite supply was produced in North
America and there are no mines currently operating in the United
States. However, two graphite mining projects are under development;
one in Alabama and one in Alaska [22]. Graphite can be recycled from
refractory brick, alumina-graphite refractories for continuous metal
castings and insulation brick, which can be incorporated in products
such as brake linings and thermal insulation. This material is not suit-
able for batteries. However, high-quality flake graphite can be recovered
from steelmaking kish, but recycling flake graphite is not currently prac-
ticed [22]. Synthetic graphite is made from amorphous carbon using a
high-temperature process. Due to the energy intensive manufacturing
process, synthetic graphite is up to 10 times the cost of natural
graphite.11
While consumer electronics currently make up the bulk of demand
for LIB, sales of electric vehicles are expected to increase rapidly in the
next three years (Fig. 2) with the compound annual growth rate
(CAGR) for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) forecasted to
be 56% in the period 2017 to 2020 and the CAGR for BEVs expected to
be 42% for the same period while the growth rate for mild hybrids
(HEVs) expected to be lower ([10,23] and NREL analysis 2018). The
total global capacity for vehicle LIB manufacturing was N31 GWh in
2016 [10,13,24], and demand is expected to exceed 90 GWh by 2020.
This rapid growth is projected to require N550,000 t of the battery ma-
terials—lithium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and graphite—by 2020. If ve-
hicle market projections hold true and there are no significant changes
in battery chemistry, demand for LIB raw materials could grow to a siz-
able fraction, and in the case of cobalt even outstrip, the current mine
production levels. Increased current demand and high demand projec-
tions appear to have already had an impact on cobalt prices.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the Joint Research Centre in
the European Commission (JRC), and the RSC in The United Kingdom
have separately conducted studies on the criticality of different mate-
rials used in renewable and sustainable energy systems. The criticality
ratings assigned by DOE, the RSC, and the JRC are summarized in
Table 3. The RSC has compiled information about crustal abundance, re-
serve distribution, production concentration, substitutability, recycling
rate, and political stability into an integrated supply risk index from 1
(very low risk) to 10 (very high risk) [12]. The RSC study focuses on
the supply risk, which can be partially linked to the governmental regu-
lations and locations of production. The DOE Critical Materials Strategy
[25] assesses the importance of the material in terms of demand for
use in clean energy technologies and degree to which another material
or technology can be substituted. The study then examines the supply
risk including basic availability, competing demands, political, regula-
tory and social factors, co-dependence on other markets (e.g., co-
production with other materials), and producer diversity. Finally,
short-term (0 to 5 years) and medium-term (5 to 15 years) importance
and supply risk are summarized as being critical, near-critical, or not-
critical. The JRC report [3] builds upon the European Commission Critical
Raw Materials (CRM) list, which is updated every three years. Materials
10
http://www.ktvn.com/story/38989830/nevada-mine-could-produce-25-percent-of-
worlds-lithium
11
http://www.focusgraphite.com/technology/
 A. Mayyas et al. / Sustainable Materials and Technologies 17 (2018) e00087
Fig. 2. Electric vehicle sales and projected growth from 2011 to 2020 (source of data:
References [10, 13, 24] and NREL analysis 2018) 2017P–2020P = projections.
deemed to have high economic importance in combination with high
supply risk are included in the list. The substitutability index, which is
weighed across all applications of the material ranges from 0 to 1,
with 1 being the least substitutable.
The RSC and JRC studies show that in terms of mining and produc-
tion, cobalt is one of the critical materials in LIB. RSC rated supply risk
for Cobalt at 7.6 (high risk), while JRC estimated the risk of Cobalt supply
at medium level. Lithium also has a near-critical supply risk in the
medium-term, according to a DOE critical material study [25]. The RSC
estimates the supply risk for lithium at 6.7, which is lower than their es-
timates for cobalt and graphite because most lithium comes from
Australia, Chile, and Argentina. The RSC estimates the relative supply
risks for cobalt at 7.6 and graphite at 8.1. The higher value was assigned
to graphite primarily because of the very high concentration of both
production and reserves in China. The supply risk of cobalt is more com-
plicated for two reasons. First, 54% of the supply in 2016 was supplied by
companies in the DRC, and this will likely continue in the coming years.
The DRC has experienced an unstable political environment in the last
few years (see for example Reuters article from February 201812). Sec-
ond, cobalt and copper mining activities in the DRC are controlled by
Chinese companies such as Sicomines, which would give an advantage
to the Chinese LIB manufacturers over other international manufac-
turers in the future if the cobalt supply were interrupted. Given these
trends, Samsung has announced its plan to produce cobalt-free LIB.13
Apple has also acted upon the supply risk of cobalt with growing de-
mands in the last few years, deciding to work with suppliers and miners
to increase the security of its cobalt supply chain.14
While all three reports assess supply risk at the global level, the sup-
ply risks may differ among regions because of differences in supply
chains. For example, while over 50% of global cobalt production origi-
nates in the DRC, 96% of the 2012 supply of cobalt to the EU originated
in Russia and 3% was imported from the United States [3].
2.1. Evolution of li-ion battery materials
Lithium battery packs are generally composed of a cathode, an anode,
an organic electrolyte and a separator that are laminated and compressed
together to create an electrical contact between them [26]. The cathode is
made of active metal powders that possess certain electrical qualities.
Natural and artificial graphite are common anode materials. Separators
are usually made from thin polymeric sheets such as polyethylene and
polypropylene [26,27]. An electrolyte acts as an inert component in the
12
https://www.reuters.com/article/column-russell-cobalt-congo/column-congos-
cobalt-hopes-risk-the-same-ruinous-road-as-thai-rice-russell-idUSL4N1Q90XO
13
https://www.electrive.com/2018/02/12/samsung-sdi-reduce-cobalt-batteries-zero/
14
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-miners-cobalt/apple-in-talks-with-
miners-to-secure-cobalt-supplies-sources-idUSKCN1G50M3
5
Table 3
Criticality ratings for materials used in LIB.
Element RSC JRC DOE
Lithium Supply risk (6.7) Medium-low Near-critical (supply risk
2)
Cobalt Supply risk (7.6) Medium Not-critical (supply risk
~2)
Nickel Supply risk (6.2) Low Not critical (supply risk
1.5)
Manganese Supply risk (5.7) n/a Not critical (supply risk ~2)
Aluminium Supply risk (4.8) n/a n/a
Graphite Critical supply risk High-medium n/a
(8.1)
JRC ratings: high, high-medium, medium, medium-low, and low U.S. DOE study for me-
dium-term (2015–2025) used a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 assigned for low supply risk mate-
rials and 4 for high supply risk materials.
(Source of data: References [3, 12, 25])
battery and must demonstrate stability against both the cathode and
anode surfaces. Several chemistries and several states of electrolyte ma-
terials are used in LIB, including a non-aqueous electrolyte that is made
from lithium salts solubilized in organic solvent, an aqueous electrolyte
of lithium salts solubilized in water ionic and polymeric electrolytes,
and hybrid electrolytes [14]. Solid state electrolytes such as gel polymer
electrolytes and ceramic electrolytes, have been introduced as a safer al-
ternative to the liquid electrolyte which can catch fire under certain con-
dition (e.g., at high temperatures). Solid state batteries work in the same
way as current batteries do, but the change in electrolyte materials and
states change some of the battery's characteristics, including increasing
the storage capacity, reducing the electrolyte layer thickness, and provid-
ing a higher level of safety [28].
Improving Li-ion battery performance and reducing cost have be-
come increasingly active areas in LIB R&D as LIB technology positions it-
self to be the leading technology for vehicle batteries. Research has
focused on six primary areas: reducing the dimensions of active mate-
rials to improve ion transport and increase mechanical stability; im-
proving the mechanical properties of conductive media; adjusting
battery chemistries to improve electron transport; increasing chemical
and thermal stability; tuning particle morphology; developing coatings
to reduce decomposition of active materials, and modifications to elec-
trolyte solutions [1].
Battery types currently under investigation include lithium metal
(lithium metal anodes), solid state batteries that employ solid inorganic
or polymer electrolyte, and lithium sulfur with high capacity sulfur-
containing cathodes, among others [3]. Whatever path battery technol-
ogy takes, battery chemistry will likely change significantly over the
next decade. Potential changes in battery chemistry, such as developing
low-cobalt and cobalt-free cathodes, are important to the supply chain
analysis because they may have a significant impact on the demand
for critical battery materials and thus on cost. The evolution of NMC
and NCA cathode chemistries—NMC and NCA are the main cathodes in
automotive LIB—are centered on developing nickel-rich, cobalt-free
cathodes [9].
Fig. 3 presents a graphical summary of the analysis of the evolution
of LIB cathode materials made by Avicenne Energy [9]. Lithium-ion
NMC cathode chemistry is shifting from high cobalt content (e.g., NMC
333) to lower cobalt and higher nickel content (e.g., NMC 622 and
NMC 811). NCA, the main cathode chemistry used in Tesla cars, is also
shifting toward higher nickel contents (and lesser cobalt content). Un-
like NMC and NCA, both LMO and LFP have zero cobalt; therefore,
most R&D efforts are directed toward improving their performance
(e.g., specific capacity, volumetric energy density, and lifetime).
3. The supply chain for li-ion batteries
We collected supply chain data from different sources [9,10,13,24],
and conducted analysis to estimate total manufacturing capacities, and
6 A. Mayyas et al. / Sustainable Materials and Technologies 17 (2018) e00087

Fig. 3. Evolution of (a) NMC and (b) NCA cathode Chemistries (data source: Avicenne [9]).

supply and demand by country. Manufacturing capacities and trade
flows for major contributing countries are shown in the maps in
Figs. 4 and 5 respectively. Fig. 4 shows the estimated LIB manufacturing
capacities for automotive applications only. Total capacity by country is
a sum of the total fully commissioned and under construction plants;
announced capacities are included to show the current and expected ca-
pacities as of 2016.
LIB manufacturing capacities (including all end market applications)
are primarily concentrated in China, Japan, the United States, and South
Korea. Asian countries (China, Japan and South Korea) constituted 84%
of global fully commissioned LIB production capacity for all applications
in 2016. Japan's LIB cluster grew from sustained investments in LIB
technology by consumer electronics companies in the 1990s [26,27].
The Japanese government supported research and development
(R&D) through strong partnerships with the private sector and helped
the private sector access low-cost capital to establish manufacturing
plants. Japan made these investments despite the long commercializa-
tion cycle of LIB technologies and the low returns on the LIB business be-
cause the technology enabled competitive advantages in portable
consumer electronics end applications [5].
China realized Japan's success story could be copied, so the Chinese
government started to subsidize LIB industry to promote LIB
manufacturing in China. China has fortified its LIB cluster development
through various government R&D, tax and investment incentives [29],

Fig. 4. World LIB manufacturing capacity (sources of data: [9,24] and NREL analysis 2018).
 A. Mayyas et al. / Sustainable Materials and Technologies 17 (2018) e00087
Fig. 5. International trade flows and LIB cell manufacturing capacities in 2016 (sources of data: [9,24,31] and NREL analysis 2018); MWh = megawatt-hours.
domestic content requirements, and export restraints. Similarly, the
Korean LIB cluster was developed through partnerships between the
Korean government and industry [30]. The United States currently
hosts 13% of global LIB capacity (including fully commissioned and
under construction capacities), ranking second in global manufacturing
capacity behind China. The United States jumped from the fourth to the
second position because of Tesla's recent investments in its Gigafactory
in Sparks, Nevada. As of October 2018, the Gigafactory is scheduled to be
completed by the end of 2018.15 Once fully commissioned, the Tesla fac-
tory will boost U.S. capacity by 35 GWh (www.tesla.com). Nearly all U.S.
LIB capacity is targeted to the emerging electric vehicles market.
While many European auto manufacturers have started to market
their electric vehicles in the global markets, auto LIB manufacturing ca-
pacity in Europe is only 2.1% of the total global production. This low
manufacturing capacity could stimulate European automakers to de-
velop a regional supply chain in Europe. Daimler has invested €500 mil-
lion to build a LIB factory in eastern Germany.16 Other LIB factories will
be built in Sweden, Hungary, and Poland.
15
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/10/01/tesla-is-2-years-ahead-of-schedule-on-
gigafactory-1/
16
See https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-22/move-over-tesla-
europe-s-building-its-own-battery-gigafactories
7
Data for the trade flows between different countries were pulled
from the trade map website www.trademap.org [31]. In the trade
flows map (Fig. 5), exports from certain countries designated by blue
lines change to green as you approach the importing country in order
to distinguish exporting from importing countries.
Asian countries have solidified their LIB material supply chain in par-
allel with their efforts to expand their LIB production capacities. Japan,
South Korea, and China are still the primary producers of LIB-specific
components such as electrodes, separators, and electrolytes. Tesla and
Panasonic are working on developing a domestic supply chain in
United States in and around their Nevada's Gigafactory. Geographic
clustering of component manufacturing may contribute to regional sup-
ply chain advantages [32] and cost benefits, which might unavailable to
cell or vehicle manufactures located outside the clusters. Finally, vertical
integration exists across Asian electrode materials and cell production,
which may also contribute to lower input costs for certain manufac-
turers [27]. The United States, in contrast, hosts an immature supply
chain, and most U.S. cell and battery plant operators are relatively
new to the industry [27]. As indicated by the trade flows, Asian LIB pro-
duction capacity was built to serve domestic consumption and export
markets. Most current LIB production knowledge and experience was
developed by firms serving consumer electronics markets. These LIB
manufacturers have created robust supply chains and accumulated
8 A. Mayyas et al. / Sustainable Materials and Technologies 17 (2018) e00087

significant production experience even before the evolution of the elec- Table 4
tric vehicles. Much of this experience was transferred to the production Comparison of main recycling methods used to recover battery materials.

of large format LIB cells for automotive end markets [29]. Recycling Pros Cons
methoda
4. Recycling end-of-life batteries Hydrometallurgy ▪ Applicable to any battery ▪ Battery cells must be
chemistry and crushed
Two technologies—used alone or in combination—are employed configuration, ▪ High volume of process
▪ Flexibility in separation effluents to be treated
commercially for recycling of LIB: pyrometallurgy; or smelting and hy- and recovery processes to and recycled or disposed.
drometallurgy, which is a general term for several chemical separation target specific metals
processes including precipitation, solvent extraction, ion exchange and ▪ High recovery
electrowinning that are often used together in various combinations ▪ High purity of products
▪ Energy efficient in com-
[33]. Direct recycling using solvent extraction with supercritical carbon
parison to pyrometallurgy
dioxide (CO2) has also been demonstrated [33,34]. Table 4 provides an ▪ No air emissions
overview of the advantages and disadvantages of the primary LIB Pyrometallurgy ▪ Applicable to any battery ▪ Gas clean-up is required
recycling processes. (smelting) chemistry and configura- to avoid toxic air emis-
Mechanical processes are used to safely remove the electrolyte and tion sions
▪ No mechanical pre-- ▪ Energy intensive
break the battery cells apart to concentrate the metals and make them treatment needed (for ▪ Further refining is
more accessible for non-thermal separation processes [34]. An example consumer electronics needed to produce ele-
of this is cryo-milling, in which the batteries are cooled to a very low batteries, whole packs can mental metals from the
temperature (325 °F [−175 °C]) prior to breaking. Cryo-milling is be treated) metal alloys produced in
▪ Battery types do not have the smelting process
used by Retriev Technologies (formerly Toxco) for the recycling of
to be separated
Li-ion cells [33,35]. Retrieve uses liquid N2 to provide the cooling. ▪ High recovery of metals
The N2 also serves as an inert environment. The lithium is stabilized Direct recycling ▪ Almost all battery mate- ▪ Mechanical pre--
and converted to an easily handled form by first reacting it with sodium (supercritical rials can be recovered treatment and separa-
hydroxide (NaOH) to form lithium hydroxide (LiOH) and then adding CO2) tions required
▪ Recovered material may
carbonate (CO3−2) to form Li2CO3, which is only slightly soluble in not perform as well as
water.17 virgin material
The Umicore process is a pyrometallurgical (smelting) process used ▪ Mixing cathode materials
to recover the valuable metals (cobalt, copper, nickel, and iron) from could reduce value of
recycled product
spent lithium ion and NiMH batteries [35]. The alloys obtained from
a
the smelter are treated hydrometallurgically (using acid leaching Recycling pros and cons from [33,39].
followed by chemical precipitation to metal salts) to recover the metals.
The lithium, aluminium, and manganese from the LIB are contained in
the slag and are not recovered. For one tonne of batteries, 5000 supercritical CO2 to extract the electrolyte from battery cells. Once the
megajoules (MJ) of heat are needed for the smelter and gas cleanup electrolyte (ethyl methyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, and LiPF6) has
[35]. The burning of the plastics from the recycled batteries helps main- been removed, the cells are crushed and the cell components can be
tain the high operating temperature and reduces the overall energy re- separated based on differences in their properties such as electronic
quired in the smelting process [36,37]. conductivity or density. After removal from the battery cells, the elec-
In the Sony-Sumitomo process, LIB are incinerated at 1000 °C, and trolyte separates from the gaseous CO2, and, after further processing, it
the organics, lithium, and fluoride in the batteries are vaporized and re- can be recycled for use in batteries. Almost all the battery materials
moved from the flue gas using a scrubber. The remaining metal residue can be recovered, including aluminium. Cathode compounds are recov-
is processed hydrometallurgically to recover cobalt. No lithium is recov- ered without using energy-intensive pyro- or hydrometallurgical pro-
ered [35]. cesses, although they may need to undergo re-lithiation before being
The Recupyl process combines mechanical and chemical process for reused in batteries. Recovery of the cathode compounds is the primary
recycling LIB [35]. The batteries are shredded under an inert atmosphere advantage of direct recycling. However, the performance and lifetime
by a rotary shearing machine at 11 rpm (rpm) and then crushed by a of recovered cathode material would have to be demonstrated to ad-
rotor system at 90 rpm. The fractions obtained after shredding are, “a dress manufacturers' concerns. Alternatively, recovered materials
fines fraction rich in metal oxides and carbon, a magnetic fraction com- might be suitable for applications with less stringent quality
posed of casings, a dense non-magnetic fraction made of aluminum and requirements.
copper current collectors, and a low-density non-magnetic fraction of Recycling efforts of the end-of-life LIB are not currently comparable
paper and plastic” [35]. The fractions are separated while still under to the recycling of lead acid batteries [39]. However, the history of lead
an inert atmosphere. The metal oxide rich fines fraction is added to acid battery recycling provides valuable insights into potential pitfalls as
water. The water is continuously stirred as the fines are added in a well as opportunities for LIB recycling strategies. A lead acid car battery
very controlled manner to prevent the accumulation of explosive hy- is constructed of lead and lead oxide plates separated by porous sheets,
drogen gas from the reaction of lithium with the water. The atmosphere with a sulfuric acid electrolyte. The battery is contained in a sealed plas-
above the bath is maintained to be oxygen-poor to further reduce the tic casing18 There are 21.4 pounds of lead in a typical 39 lb. car battery,
risk of explosion. Lithium is recovered from the water bath by adding and 60 to 80% of the lead and plastic in the battery is recycled material19
sodium carbonate or phosphoric acid. Hydrometallurgical means are Recycling of lead acid batteries is a relatively simple process that in-
used to recover the rest of the materials. The lithium yield could reach volves draining and neutralizing the acid, which can then be disposed
60% [35,38]. or used for other purposes, removing the lead plates, which are then
Direct recycling, in which battery materials are recovered and can be re-smelted into new lead plates, and recycling of the plastic compo-
reintroduced into the supply chain with little additional processing, has nents of the battery12. Even prior to the implementation of regulations,
been demonstrated at the bench scale [39]. The process uses lead acid batteries were recycled at a fairly high rate due to the value of

17 18
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/lithium_carbonate#section=Melting- http://aboutbatteries.batterycouncil.org/What-is-a-lead-battery
19
Point http://www.waste360.com/mag/waste_leadacid_batteries_3
 A. Mayyas et al. / Sustainable Materials and Technologies 17 (2018) e00087
the materials and ease of recycling. However, when lead prices were
low, U.S. based secondary smelters faced competition from foreign com-
panies, which usually had lower processing costs due to lax or non-
existent environmental regulations. Battery recycling rates fluctuated
dramatically depending on the price of lead [39]. Low lead prices and
stringent environmental regulations in the U.S. also led to some spent
lead acid batteries being exported or dumped [40].
Because of its well-known toxicity; the handling, transport and
disposal of lead has been regulated in the United States for many
years and recycling has been promoted at both the state and federal
level [40] Beginning in the late 1980s, states began prohibiting the
disposal of lead-acid batteries in landfills and requiring recycling.
After implementation of recycling requirements, the rate of recycling
increased, and today nearly 100% of lead acid batteries in the U.S. are
recycled.20
Unlike recycling of lead acid batteries, recycling of LIB has not yet
been proven to be economical at scale and may not be profitable (al-
though some recyclers claim otherwise). In 2016, almost all end-of-
life LIB were batteries from consumer electronics and 95% of spent LIB
were landfilled [41]. The rate of recycling varies considerably between
the three primary types of consumer electronics. Cell phones, which
are sold in the largest number, make up about 21% of the mass of con-
sumer electronics sold in North America and only about 9% are recycled
[41]. Laptops, which made up about 72% of the mass in 2016, were
recycled at a much higher rate of about 40% [41]. Overall, the recycling
rate for consumer electronics in North America was about 30% (by
mass) [41], but the rate of recovery of the batteries in these devices ap-
pears to be much lower. Prior to implementing new regulations in 2008,
the return rate for consumer electronics in the EU was b3% of current
sales or 7% assuming a 4-year life (i.e., percentage based on sales from
4 years prior) [42]. With new environmental regulations in many coun-
tries, the recycling rate is expected to increase in the next few years. For
example, the EU Batteries Directive 2006/66 set targets of 45% end-of-
life battery recovery and 50% recovery rates by recycling [34]. In 2016,
the world battery recycling capacity exceeded 98,000 t [3,9,10,40,41].
These estimated capacities included all electrochemical storage batte-
ries except for lead acid batteries. A compilation of recycling facilities
from the JRC shows that recycling capacities in Europe and Asia are far
ahead of that in in North America [3]. European countries host about
47% of the total capacity, and China alone hosts about 32% (see Fig. 6).
List of the key battery recycling facilities is summarized in the table in
Appendix A.
End-of-life vehicle (ELV) LIB are expected to start to appear in
markets in 2018 and total battery waste is projected to reach
120,000 to 170,000 t per year by 2020 [43]. BYD, a leading Chinese
electric car maker, started building new facilities for battery recycling
in Shanghai in 2017 to help reduce raw material costs and reduce en-
vironmental impacts [44]. China has had policies and regulations re-
garding ELVs in place since 2001 [45], but China's Ministry of
Industry and Information Technology only recently issued “interim”
rules requiring carmakers to recover ELV batteries [45]. Japan, Korea,
and the European Union have also had ELV policies in place for a
number of years [46–48]. However, vehicle traction batteries are not
generally specifically addressed in either in ELV policies or Waste Elec-
trical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) directives [49]. The recycling
efforts in China are supported by the economic value of recovered ma-
terials making China the top country in terms of amount of recycled
batteries (see Fig. 6). Nickel-metal hydride battery recycling is also
ahead of LIB recycling because most of the spent NiMH batteries are
coming from smaller devices such as power tools which have much
shorter lives [39].
20
Study finds nearly 100% recycling rate for lead batteries (http://www.recyclingtoday.
com/article/battery-council-international-lead-battery-recycling/)
9
Closed-loop recycling scenario of the LIB could save up to 51.3% of
the natural resource required to produce virgin materials [41]. Natural
resources include cathode materials mining and refining, precursor pro-
duction, cathode production and transport to the location of use. It could
also contribute up to 70% in savings in energy consumption and 70% re-
ductions in CO2 emissions [48]. In North America, approximately 95% of
the end-of-life LIB were landfilled in 2015 [39]. But with new environ-
mental regulations in many countries, this number is expected to de-
crease in the next few years; for example, the EU Batteries Directive
2006/66 set targets of 45% end-of-life battery recovery and 50% recovery
rates by recycling [48].
Most recyclers today focus on recovering expensive materials,
mainly from cathode powders. However, the market price of the graph-
ite used today in the anode is around $8/kg–13/kg, and the target is less
than $5/kg [51,52]. Recently, the U.S.-based synthetic graphite producer
Pyrotek developed a battery grade synthetic graphite with costs as low
as $5/kg [52]. The low cost of graphite and its abundance on the Earth
are the main reasons most recyclers do not pay attention to recovering
it from the spent LIB. Electrolyte elements that are usually made from
lithium salts can be cultivated with the recovered cathode materials in
the hydrometallurgy.
The primary challenges for LIB recycling in the short-term include
the lack of environmental regulation for collecting and sorting LIB, the
low volumes of the collected batteries, low support by governments in
some countries, and uncertainty regarding the full cost of LIB recycling.
The limited available information on economics of recycling is among
other factors that limited the investment by entrepreneurs in this indus-
try. Current recycling technologies appraise high value materials from
cathodes such as cobalt, lithium, and nickel and disregard anodes and
other pack components. Lessons learned from recycling lead acid batte-
ries can be used to tailor new environmental policies to ensure all recy-
clable materials in the spent batteries are recycled and not sent to the
landfills.
The recycling capacity in the United States is lower than the
recycling capacities in Europe and China which suggests a need to ad-
dress some of the challenges facing the recycling industry in United
States. Some of these challenges can be solved by spending more in
the R&D to study and promote the benefits of the recycling, including
economic benefits and the expected return on investment and payback
periods for new entrants. Some emerging recycling methods (e.g., direct
recycling) still need more investigation to reveal their benefits and eco-
nomics in order for them to compete with the well-established
recycling facilities that use pyrometallurgy and hydrometallurgy
processes.
5. Value chain of the li-ion batteries
The value chain of LIB packs can be split into five distinct blocks
that span raw materials extraction and purification, and material pro-
cessing to the production of cell electrodes and electrolyte powders,
cells, and pack assemblies (Fig. 7). Differences in labor and energy
costs between countries are important factors that determine the
value of the final LIB pack [26,27]. Other important parameters that
play a role in determining the final value of the LIB are materials
cost, vertical integration of the supply chain, manufacturing cost,
and shipping cost.
Pack production is now concentrated in regions where xEVs are as-
sembled. This is because complete packs are specific to the xEVs in
which they are employed, and typically designed and assembled by
the automakers themselves [27]. Lithium-ion packs are also specific to
the xEVs in which they are employed and are typically designed and
built by the automakers themselves or by local pack integrators. Raw
materials (for cathode, anode and electrolyte) represent 12% of the
total LIB pack cost, and 35% of the value added comes from electrodes
and other processed materials. Cell manufacturing contributes to 35%
of the total cost. Parts cost and assembly of the battery packs together
10 A. Mayyas et al. / Sustainable Materials and Technologies 17 (2018) e00087

Fig. 6. Recycling capacities of the spent batteries (source of data [3,9,10,13,50], NREL Analysis 2018).

Fig. 7. Value chain analysis for PHEV battery with virgin and recycled materials [cost in dollars of LIB pack with recycled materials is shown in the square brackets] (Sources of data: [9,24],
NREL analysis 2018) Note: numbers may not sum up to 100% because of rounding. Co = cobalt, Li = lithium, and Gr = graphite.
 A. Mayyas et al. / Sustainable Materials and Technologies 17 (2018) e00087
compromise 18% of the total LIB pack value. However, recycled mate-
rials from the spent LIB materials have the potential to reduce the cost
of materials used in LIB packs and thus will result in lower LIB pack
cost. Contribution of the virgin raw materials in Fig. 7 becomes $0 in
case we use recycled materials (cathode, anode, and electrolyte). Qual-
ity and industry acceptance are the main challenges that need to be ad-
dressed before recycled materials can compete with virgin raw
materials. Recycled materials not only reduce the cost of the total LIB
pack (up to 20% based on our estimates for a 10 kWh LIB pack as
shown in Fig. 7), but they also provide a more secure source of critical
materials, such as cobalt and nickel.
The United States could become competitive in parts of the value
chain with high potential value, such as cell manufacturing and pack as-
sembly. The United States already assembles cells into battery packs for
xEVs manufactured domestically, so efforts could be concentrated on
the other high value areas such as cell manufacturing and chemical pro-
cessing of the battery materials.
As discussed in Section 3, Asian countries (Japan, South Korea and
China) have developed vertically integrated supply chains from raw
material purification all the way to the battery packaging. Regional sup-
ply chains in North America and Europe are still immature where most
processed materials and LIB cells are imported from other regions. Many
automakers in North and Europe started to develop their regional sup-
ply chains. Recycling end-of-life batteries could also play role in secur-
ing the demand of some critical materials such as cobalt and lithium
in those countries who already developed or those who will build new
recycling facilities.
6. Summary
The analysis presented here provides an overview of the current
state of manufacturing and anticipated challenges associated with
obtaining critical raw materials for LIB. The analysis reveals that raw
material supply and LIB manufacturing challenges are different in differ-
ent regions. Currently, only LIB cells and separator materials are
manufactured in the United States. Cathode, anode, and electrolyte are
imported primarily from China, Japan and South Korea. U.S. LIB manu-
facturers have very little control over either the sourcing or cost of the
raw materials that are incorporated in the battery components they
purchase. The U.S. is also far behind Asian countries in battery
manufacturing infrastructure and has very little raw material process-
ing or primary component manufacturing capability. The United States
does, however, have a robust automotive manufacturing sector and
large automobile market, which could become a significant alternative
source of the materials that are currently imported for the domestic
manufacturing of xEV LIB cells and battery packs. Recycling could be es-
pecially beneficial to LIB manufacturers supporting the U.S. automotive
industry because it would bridge a key barrier to domestic LIB primary
component manufacturing; lack of an economic raw material supply
chain.
While recycling could provide a significant motivation for develop-
ment of a U.S. primary components manufacturing industry in the fu-
ture, the United States needs to address some of the challenges facing
current LIB supply chains and to come up with a set of short-term solu-
tions, such as securing resources through multiyear purchase agree-
ments or working directly with critical material suppliers to ensure
continuous flows of raw materials. Such short-term solutions would
serve as triage for U.S. manufacturers, but long-term strategic planning
is still needed to position the United States as a major player in the
global LIB market. To become a major player, the United States may
need to build new supply chain capabilities around recycled materials.
Appendix A. Total world battery recycling capacities in 2016
11
Current projections of LIB production volumes point to a potential
for supply of some critical raw materials to fall short of demand in just
a few years. High supply risk for these materials increases the probabil-
ity of supply shortages and price increases. Recycling represents an en-
vironmentally preferable alternative to disposal for end-of-life LIB packs
and could provide a source of high value materials at potentially lower
cost. Shifting to a closed-loop system with full-recycling could supply
significant portions of the future demands of cathode materials such
as cobalt and nickel. While current use of raw materials for LIB
manufacturing represents only a small fraction of global production,
there is potential for bottlenecks in the supply of some virgin raw mate-
rials in the mid-term (5 to 15 years). A number of studies have been un-
dertaken to provide a clearer picture of current supply concerns as well
as longer term outlook. While supply chain challenges offer a compel-
ling argument for recycling, further analysis of the reverse supply
chain and economics of recycling are needed to fully understand the po-
tential impact of recycling on future LIB manufacturing.
The primary challenges for LIB recycling in the short-term include
the lack of a viable collection mechanism for spent batteries, low
volumes, and uncertainty regarding the full cost of LIB recycling. The
current lack of environmental regulations, low support from manufac-
turers, and limited available information on economics of recycling
have resulted in few end-of-life LIB being recycled relative to the num-
ber of recycled lead acid and NiMH batteries. Current recycling opera-
tions appraise high value materials from cathodes and disregard
anodes and other pack components. Regulations could be adjusted to
ensure all recyclable materials in spent batteries are recycled or sent
to controlled landfills or other locations where they can be treated to
make them less harmful to the environment. Recovered cathode mate-
rials could save N20% of the total LIB pack cost, with more potential sav-
ings achieved by recovering other materials and parts from spent
batteries. However, the example of lead acid batteries illustrates that fa-
vorable economics may not be sufficient alone, and a regulatory driver
may be necessary to develop and maintain a viable LIB recycling
industry.
Long-term challenges for LIB recycling primarily revolve around un-
certainty regarding the future composition of LIB. If current efforts to
decrease the cobalt content of LIB are successful, the economic viability
of LIB recycling could be threatened. Highly specialized recycling pro-
cesses could also be rendered obsolete or ineffective if battery chemis-
tries change significantly. Flexible, low cost recycling processes that
recover as many products as possible could be more effective in main-
taining a long-term recycling industry.
Acknowledgement
This work was authored by Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, the
manager and operator of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Contract No. DE-AC36-
08GO28308. Funding provided by U.S. Department of Energy, Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Vehicle Technologies
Office. The views expressed in the article do not necessarily represent
the views of the DOE or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government
retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication,
acknowledges that the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, paid-
up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the pub-
lished form of this work, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government
purposes.
Authors wish to thank Shriram Santhanagopalan, Anthony Burrell,
Emma Elgqvist and Donald Chung, from the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory who provided information and helpful comments during the
preparation of this work.
12 A. Mayyas et al. / Sustainable Materials and Technologies 17 (2018) e00087

Region Country Company name Recycling Recycling method Battery type Notes
capacity (tonnes)

Europe Belgium Umicore Battery Recycling 7000 Pyrometallurgical LIB, NiMH

Europe Denmark Accurec Recycling GmbH 6000 Pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical treatment of LIB, NiMH,
the slag and flue dust (nickel-cadmium)
NiCd
Europe Norway Glencore (formerly XStrata) 7000 Pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical treatment of LIB
the slag and electrowinning
Europe France Recupyl S.A. 110 Hydrometallurgical LIB
Europe U.K. AEA Technology n/a Hydrometallurgical LIB
Europe France SNAM 300 Pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical to extract LIB, NiMH, NiCd
cobalt and nickel
Europe Finland AkkuSer Oy 1000 Mechanical LIB
Europe Finland AkkuSer Oy 4000 Mechanical NiCd, NiMH, Zn
alkaline
Europe Switzerland Batrec Industrie AG 200 Pyrometallurgical LIB
Europe France Euro Dieuze/SARP 200 Hydrometallurgical LIB
Europe France Valdi (ERAMET) 20,000 Pyrometallurgical LIB, Various Started
2017
Europe U.K. G&P Batteries n/a n/a LIB, Various
North Canada Retriev Technologies Inc. 4500 Hydrometallurgicala LIB
America
North United Retriev Technologies Inc. Lancaster, 4000 Hydrometallurgical LIB As of
America States Ohio 2015
North United AERC Recycling Solutions n/a Pyrometallurgical LIB, Various
America States
North United Inmetco 6000 Pyrometallurgical LIB, Various
America States
Asia Japan Sony Electronics Inc., Sumitomo 120–150 Pyrometallurgical LIB
Metals and Mining Co.
Asia Japan Nippon Recycle Center Corp. n/a Pyrometallurgical LIB, NiCd, NiMH,
alkaline
Asia Japan Dowa Eco-System Co. Ltd. 1000 Pyrometallurgical LIB, Various
Asia Japan JX Nippon Mining and Metals Co. 5000 Pyrometallurgical LIB, Various
Asia China Shenzhen Green Eco-manufacturer 20,000–30,000 Hydrometallurgical LIB, NiMH
Hi-Tech Co.
Asia China Hunan BRUNP 3600–10,000 Hydrometallurgical LIB, NiMH, Various N6000 t

Source of data: [8,13,27,42].

a
Retriev recovers black mass, which is then sent to Glencore for smelting

References
[1] N. Nitta, F. Wu, J.T. Lee, G. Yushin, Li-ion battery materials: present and future,
Mater. Today (2015) 252–264.
[2] G.E. Blomgren, The development and future of lithium ion batteries, J. Electrochem.
Soc. 164 (1) (2017) A5019 A5019-A5025.
[3] N. Lebedeva, F. Di Persio, L. Boon-Brett, Lithium Ion Battery Value Chain and Related
Opportunities for Europe, European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publi-
cation/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/lithium-ion-battery-value-
chain-and-related-opportunities-europe 2016.
[4] C.M. Julien, A. Mauger, K. Zaghib, H. Groult, Comparative issues of cathode materials
for li-ion batteries, Inorganics 2 (2014) 132–154.
[5] R.J. Brodd, C. Helou, Cost comparison of producing high—performance lithium-ion
batteries in the U.S. and in China, J. Power Sources 231 (2013) 293–300.
[6] T.V.S.L. Satyavani, A. Srinivas Kumar, P.S.V. Subba Rao, Methods of synthesis
and performance improvement of lithium iron phosphate for high rate li-ion
batteries: a review. engineering science and technology, Int. J. 19 (2016)
178–188.
[7] A.T. Mayyas, Toward Better Understanding of Upstream and Downstream
Manufacturing Processes of Automotive Li-ion Batteries, Advanced Automotive Bat-
tery Conference, San Francisco, CA, 2017 19–22 June.
[8] S. Ahmed, P.A. Nelson, K.G. Gallagher, N. Susarla, D.W. Dees, Cost and energy de-
mand of producing nickel manganese cobalt cathode material for lithium ion batte-
ries, J. Power Sources 342 (2017) 733–740.
[9] Avicenne Energy. Christopher Pillot, The Rechargeable Battery Market and Main
Trends 2016-2025. International Battery Seminar and Exhibit. Fort Lauderdale, FL,
March 2017 20.
[10] Yano Research, Sachiya Inagaki, How xEV Market Should Grow? Vol. 2017, Advance
Auto Battery Conference, San Francisco, CA, June 2017.
[11] S.C. Davis, S.E. Williams, R.G. Boundy, S. Moore, Vehicle Technologies Market Report,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 2016.
[12] RSC (Royal Society of Chemistry) Periodic Table, http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/
2017, Accessed date: 19 February 2018.
[13] U.S. Geological Survey, https://www.usgs.gov.
[14] Darton commodities, Cobalt Market Review 2017–2018, www.dartoncommodities.
co.uk.
[15] Cobalt, Development Institute, https://www.cobaltinstitute.org.
[16] N.T. Nassar, T.E. Graedel, E.M. Harper, By-product metals are technologically essen-
tial but have problematic supply, Sci. Adv. 1 (3) (2015), e1400180. https://doi.org/
10.1126/sciadv.1400180.
[17] K.B. Shedd, E.A. McCullough, D.I. Bleiwas, Global Trends Affecting the Supply Secu-
rity of Cobalt. Mining Engineering, December 2017 37–42https://minerals.usgs.
gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cobalt/cobalt-supply-security.pdf, Accessed date:
11 October 2018.
[18] D. Sharypin, Impact of the booming battery industry on the global nickel multiverse,
Global Battery Raw Materials Symposium Balancing Supply, Demand & Costs for
Battery Component Materials, San Diego, CA, June 4, 2018.
[19] P.M. Pazik, T. Chmielewski, H.J. Glass, P.B. Kowalczuk, World Production and Possi-
ble Recovery of Cobalt from the Kupferschiefer Stratiform Copper Ore. E3S Web of
Conferences, 8, 2016 01063.
[20] N. Campagnol, K. Hoffman, A. Lala, O. Ramsbottom, The Future of Nickel: A Class Act
(McKinsey&Company), November, 2017.
[21] E.F. Merchant, Lithium-Ion Battery Production is Surging, but at What Cost? https://
www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/lithium-ion-battery-production-is-surg-
ing-but-at-what-cost 2017, Accessed date: 16 October 2018.
[22] D.W. Olson, USGS Minerals Information: Mineral Commodity Summaries 2018:
Graphite (Natural) (Reston, VA: USGS), https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/
mcs, Accessed date: 16 October 2018.
[23] Navigant Research, Market Data: Electric Vehicle Market Forecasts, 2016-2025
(Published 4Q 2016).
[24] C. Curry, Lithium-Ion Battery Costs and Market. Bloomberg New Energy Finance,
July 5, 2017.
[25] U.S. Doe, Critical Materials Strategy, https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/DOE_
CMS2011_FINAL_Full.pdf December 2011.
[26] D. Chung, E. Elgqvist, S. Santhanagopalan, Automotive Lithium Ion Battery (LIB) Sup-
ply Chain and U.S. Competitiveness Consideration, NREL/PR-6A50–63354 https://
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/63354.pdf June 2015.
[27] D. Chung, E. Elgqvist, S. Santhanagopalan, Automotive Lithium-Ion Cell Manufactur-
ing: Regional Cost Structures and Supply Chain Considerations. NREL/TP-6A20–
66086, https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/66086.pdf April 2016.
[28] Q. Li, J. Chen, L. Fan, X. Kong, Y. Lu, Progress in electrolytes for rechargeable Li-based
batteries and beyond, Green Energy Env. 1 (2016) 18–42.
[29] P.G. Patil, Developments in Lithium-Ion Battery Technology in the Peoples Republic
of China, http://www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/2008/02/60978.pdf 2008, January.
[30] Pike Research. Lithium-ion Battery Materials: Japan Dominates in the EV Era. Blog
Post (2011). Retrieved June 26, 2014, from Navigant Research website: hlp://
 A. Mayyas et al. / Sustainable Materials and Technologies 17 (2018) e00087
www.navigantresearch.com/blog/ar,cles/lithium–ion–balery–materials–japan–
dominates–in–the–ev–era.
[31] Trade Map website, https://www.trademap.org/Index.aspx?
AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1.
[32] G.P. Pisano, W.C. Shih, Restoring American competitiveness, Harv. Bus. Rev. 87
(2009) 114–125.
[33] T.W. Ellis, A.H. Mirza, Battery Recycling: Defining the Market and Identifying the
Technology Required to Keep High Value Materials in the Economy and out of the
Waste Dump, Available at https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
2017/04/28/245_battery_recycling_defining_the_market.pdf.
[34] J. Ordoñez, E.J. Gago, A. Girard, Processes and technologies for the recycling and re-
covery of spent lithium-ion batteries, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 60 (2016) 195–205.
[35] A. Sonoc, J. Jeswiet, V.K. Soo, Opportunities to Improve Recycling of Automotive Lith-
ium Ion Batteries, The 22nd CIRP conference on Life Cycle Engineering Elsevier B. V,
2015 752–757.
[36] Duncan Kushnir, Lithium Ion Battery Recycling Technology 2015 Current State and
Future Prospects, 18, Chalmers University of Technology, December 2015 , Report
ESA REPORT # 2015 http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/230991/
local_230991.pdf.
[37] Umicore, Jan Tytgat, Li-Ion and NiMH Battery Recycling at Umicore Strategic
Choices, http://recyclingsolutions.umicore.com/.
[38] B. Geller, Timothy Ohno, Cynthia Howell, A Comparative Study of Recycling Lithium-
Ion and Lead-Acid Batteries, https://dspace.library.colostate.edu/bitstream/handle/
11124/171222/Geller_Research_Presentation_Poster_REU.pdf?sequence=1.
[39] L. Gaines, The future of automotive lithium-ion battery recycling: charting a sustain-
able course, Sustain. Mater. Technol. (2014) 2–7.
[40] EPA, States' Efforts to Promote Lead-Acid Battery Recycling [Internet]. EPA, Jan [cited
2018 Jun 1]. Report No.: EPA/530-SW-91-029. Available from https://nepis.epa.gov
1992.
[41] J. Heelan, E. Gratz, Z. Zheng, Q. Wang, M. Chen, D. Apelian, Y. Wang, Current and pro-
spective li-ion battery recycling and recovery processes, JOM 68 (2016).
13
[42] C. Siret, EV&HEV Battery Developments and Prospective: Closed-Loop Battery
Recycling, http://avnir.org/documentation/congres_avnir/telechargements2012/
presentations/SiretLCAconf2012.pdf avnir 2012, Accessed date: February 2018.
[43] A. Hoke, K. Smith, D. Maksimovic, Accounting for lithium-ion battery degradation in
electric vehicle charging optimization, IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron. 2
(2014) 691–700.
[44] Chinese Carmaker BYD Close to Completing Battery Recycling Plant. Reuters [Inter-
net], [cited 2018 May 25]; Available from: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-
china-byd-batteries-recycling/chinese-carmaker-byd-close-to-completing-battery-
recycling-plant-idUSKBN1GX1EZ 2018 Mar 21.
[45] Lu Wang, Ming Chen, Policies and perspective on end-of-life vehicles in China, J.
Clean. Prod. (2013) 168–176.
[46] Directive, 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 Septem-
ber 2000 on end-of life vehicles (EPC), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html
2000.
[47] Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, End-of-Life Vehicle Recycling
Law, 22 May. Accessed April 13, 2018 http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/recycle/main/
english/law/end.html 2006.
[48] ChemSafetyPRO, Korea RoHS/ELV/WEEE: The Act for Resource Recycling of Electri-
cal and Electronic Equipment and Vehicles, National Assembly of Korea, www.
chemsafetypro.com/Topics/Korea/Korea_RoHS_WEEE.html 2 April 2007, Accessed
date: 25 May 2018.
[49] R. Wright, K. Elcock, The RoHS and WEEE directives: environmental challenges for
the electrical and electronic products sector, Environ. Qual. Manag. 15 (4) (2006)
9–24.
[50] W. Lv, Z. Wang, H. Cao, Y. Sun, Y. Zhang, Z. Sun, A critical review and analysis on the
recycling of spent lithium-ion batteries, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 6 (2018)
1504–−1521.
[51] E.R. Buiel, Lower Cost Higher Performance Graphite for LIB, 20, Advanced Automo-
tive Battery Conference, San Francisco, CA, 2017 2017 June.
[52] J. Schrooten, North American Supply of Premier Graphite Anode Materials, 20, Ad-
vanced Automotive Battery Conference, San Francisco, CA, 2017 2017 June.