Both public and private investment in battery supply chains have increased in recent years. While the passage of legislation like the IRA and a slate of announced private investments are encouraging, our research indicates they won’t be enough to meet EV demand. EVB stakeholders know that the supply chain needs significantly more investment, as well as more policies, to be fully prepared to meet EV demand.

The BCEI Dashboard can give users an idea of how announced investments will affect different stages of the supply chain. It uses EVB demand projections for private passenger vehicles through 2030, then breaks this demand down into product demand along the supply chain. It then compares existing and announced capacity for 2030, as well as current import levels, to estimate the gap between supply and demand of the minerals and components that go into EVBs.

With the dashboard’s default settings for 2030 (which are based on modeled private passenger segment EVB demand in the United States that take into account the impact of the IRA), it’s clear that the supply gap is smallest in the supply chain’s downstream and most pronounced in its midstream and upstream stages.

For example, we can see that anode and electrolyte solvent production will have supply gaps of nearly 80 percent. Cobalt extraction will have a supply gap of nearly 75 percent.

The United States must increase investment in the upstream in other countries to ensure there are enough minerals to adequately supply domestic production.

Given that no one country has all of the minerals needed for EVBs, the domestic EVB supply chain will always rely, to some extent, on foreign imports. That being said, the United States can reduce this reliance on other parts of the supply chain — especially the midstream — by investing in the expansion of domestic manufacturing capacity.

Many recognize that recycling will help meet mineral demand; there’s less clarity as to what extent and when these recycled materials will be able to fill these gaps. Given that strengthening recycling infrastructure will require time, effort, and funding, stakeholders need actionable information to ensure that their policies and investments will be as impactful as possible.

The dashboard gives them the critical data they need to understand how recovering end-of-life EVB minerals can meet mineral supply gaps in a variety of different scenarios. For instance, assuming all material used in EVBs is recovered after 12 years, we can supplement the cobalt supply by 4 percent in 2030 and by more than 50 percent in 2040. While 100 percent recovery will not be possible, this hypothetical scenario allows us to understand the scale of potential impact.

The dashboard also shows the economic and environmental benefits of recycling through the year 2040. If all the lithium, cobalt, and nickel from end-of-life EVBs were recovered, economic savings could be as high as $25 billion a year by 2040, and we could avoid approximately 16 megatons of CO2 emissions annually.

Decisions based on the dashboard’s insights can bolster the business case for recycling and encourage much-needed policies. Users can also evaluate the emissions reductions and cost savings potential.

Battery circularity is difficult to measure, as it encompasses many discrete and interdependent variables.

That’s why the dashboard provides a circularity index (CI), which — in the absence of comprehensive data — simulates the cumulative effects of end-of-life EVB collection, recycling, and individual mineral recovery rates; the results indicate the fraction of available critical mineral content that will be recovered in the assumed system. Subsequently, one can understand the fraction of environmental and economic benefits that can be realized.

Under the default assumptions, the CI for lithium is 75 percent; nickel and cobalt both have a CI of 90 percent. These results mean that 75 percent of the lithium and 90 percent of the nickel and cobalt content of end-of-life EVBs will be recovered. But if one moves away from the optimistic default scenarios and assumes that collection efficiency drops to 5 percent — as is the case for lithium-ion batteries used in consumer electronics in the United States — only about 4–5 percent of the lithium, nickel, and cobalt will be recovered.

Effective supply chain management requires measurement. All circularity planning strategies need an easy-to-understand, overarching goal to work toward. With this goal in mind, stakeholders can then consider approaches that can help reach that goal. If we want to get as close to a 100 percent collection rate as possible, what policy measures could help? If we want to ensure the announced recycling infrastructure is realized, what market and policy interventions could help de-risk investments? With the current state of circularity, what are reasonable recovery rate targets? Considering these questions will help stakeholders make decisions that maximize impact.

Alternatively, stakeholders can see what their circularity goal should be based on what can realistically be done. An organization may determine that a 50 percent end-of-life EVB collection rate is feasible. The dashboard then takes this rate, along with the user’s other inputs, and produces a CI. Decision makers can then share the CI with their stakeholders to ensure that all involved understand the end goal of their efforts.

Policy has been and will continue to be a powerful instrument in advancing a circular battery economy. Recovery rate mandates, domestic content mandates, and extended producer responsibility have all been used as levers to encourage the growth of the nascent recycling industry; however, while we’re on the right track, we’ll need to carefully craft policies that can address the identified gaps to create a circular battery economy without stifling growth. The insights provided by the dashboard can help stakeholders understand the EVB supply chain, recognize its current and future gaps, and set realistic targets.