214
H. Hao and X. Sun
should feature a balance of efficiency and supply risk control. Battery industrial chain,
for example, covers critical resources exploitation, primary/secondary composite
production, cathode and anode materials/separator/electrolyte production, battery
manufacturing, etc. While expanding global industrial chain, all countries should
identify critical supply risks along the chain in light of their own conditions, and
build domestic production capacity as appropriate to avoid excessive concentration
of the risks. In particular, for products with geographical immobility such as primary
mineral resources, countries and regions with great demand for these critical metals
should consider building proper strategic reserves to buffer the shock from potential
supply disruption on the industrial chain.
This study shows that technology options produce decisive impact on critical
resources demand. Technology options represented by NMC battery will spark
soaring demand for lithium, nickel and cobalt; while technologies represented by
LFP can ward off excessive demand for nickel and cobalt. In this light, a wise
choice of battery technology is crucial for the sustainable development of EVs.
As varied battery technologies vary in cost, energy density, safety, service life and
material demand, the choice should be based on comprehensive consideration of
various factors. Despite the advantage of LFP in resource sustainability, its energy
density is lower than NMC; in particular, its volumetric energy density is the main
barrier holding back its application in light-duty vehicles. This calls for technological innovation to overcome its weakness for wider application. For example, the
blade battery of BYD has dramatically enhanced the volumetric energy density of
LFP battery, which is vital for technology scale-up. Meanwhile, the next generation
battery technologies, in particular metal air, are expected to remove the trouble of
resource shortage. Yet the inherent technological uncertainty requires follow-up on
its development and support in R&D and demonstration.
This study demonstrates that resources recycling is an effective means to ramp
up secondary supply and reduce demand for primary mineral resources. This study
assumes that the recycling rate of critical metal resources shall see a sharp rise in
the next decade and reach a fairly ideal level; but in reality, multiple challenges
still exist in battery recycling. First, the approaching retirement boom of EVs will
create an enormous amount of retired batteries, which requires rapid development of
infrastructure to cope with the surging demand; meanwhile, regulatory framework
for retirement needs continuous revision to ensure the effectiveness of recycling. This
presents challenges to recycling network expansion, design of policy measures and
innovation in recycling technologies. Second, currently available recycling technologies include pyrometallurgical method, hydrometallurgical method, physical
recycling, etc., all of which are under development. The sophistication of such technologies determines the cost and incentives of recycling companies. But the current
recycling rate of lithium is close to zero. In order to turn around the situation, recycling technologies with high efficiency and low cost are indispensable, and massive
innovation is needed. Third, globalization of the EV industrial chain suggests that
manufacturing, use and retirement of battery may take place in different countries
and regions; in this connection, sharing of battery technical data becomes crucial for
effective recycling, which entails effective follow-up management on a global scale.
H. Hao and X. Sun
should feature a balance of efficiency and supply risk control. Battery industrial chain,
for example, covers critical resources exploitation, primary/secondary composite
production, cathode and anode materials/separator/electrolyte production, battery
manufacturing, etc. While expanding global industrial chain, all countries should
identify critical supply risks along the chain in light of their own conditions, and
build domestic production capacity as appropriate to avoid excessive concentration
of the risks. In particular, for products with geographical immobility such as primary
mineral resources, countries and regions with great demand for these critical metals
should consider building proper strategic reserves to buffer the shock from potential
supply disruption on the industrial chain.
This study shows that technology options produce decisive impact on critical
resources demand. Technology options represented by NMC battery will spark
soaring demand for lithium, nickel and cobalt; while technologies represented by
LFP can ward off excessive demand for nickel and cobalt. In this light, a wise
choice of battery technology is crucial for the sustainable development of EVs.
As varied battery technologies vary in cost, energy density, safety, service life and
material demand, the choice should be based on comprehensive consideration of
various factors. Despite the advantage of LFP in resource sustainability, its energy
density is lower than NMC; in particular, its volumetric energy density is the main
barrier holding back its application in light-duty vehicles. This calls for technological innovation to overcome its weakness for wider application. For example, the
blade battery of BYD has dramatically enhanced the volumetric energy density of
LFP battery, which is vital for technology scale-up. Meanwhile, the next generation
battery technologies, in particular metal air, are expected to remove the trouble of
resource shortage. Yet the inherent technological uncertainty requires follow-up on
its development and support in R&D and demonstration.
This study demonstrates that resources recycling is an effective means to ramp
up secondary supply and reduce demand for primary mineral resources. This study
assumes that the recycling rate of critical metal resources shall see a sharp rise in
the next decade and reach a fairly ideal level; but in reality, multiple challenges
still exist in battery recycling. First, the approaching retirement boom of EVs will
create an enormous amount of retired batteries, which requires rapid development of
infrastructure to cope with the surging demand; meanwhile, regulatory framework
for retirement needs continuous revision to ensure the effectiveness of recycling. This
presents challenges to recycling network expansion, design of policy measures and
innovation in recycling technologies. Second, currently available recycling technologies include pyrometallurgical method, hydrometallurgical method, physical
recycling, etc., all of which are under development. The sophistication of such technologies determines the cost and incentives of recycling companies. But the current
recycling rate of lithium is close to zero. In order to turn around the situation, recycling technologies with high efficiency and low cost are indispensable, and massive
innovation is needed. Third, globalization of the EV industrial chain suggests that
manufacturing, use and retirement of battery may take place in different countries
and regions; in this connection, sharing of battery technical data becomes crucial for
effective recycling, which entails effective follow-up management on a global scale.