# Primary material supply configurations and domestic recycling for cost-effective battery material production in the US

## TL;DR

This study evaluates the cost of producing battery materials in the US, finding that relying solely on domestic supply is more expensive but can be improved with strategic imports and recycling.

## Contribution

The paper introduces a detailed facility-level cost model for U.S. battery cathode material production and evaluates the role of recycling and imports.

## Key findings

- All-domestic battery material supply in the US is 9–34% costlier than the global average.
- Selective low-cost material imports can offset the cost disadvantages of domestic supply.
- Battery material recycling could become cost-competitive as end-of-life flows increase and black-mass prices drop.

## Abstract

Battery cathode active material costs hinge on regionally concentrated, price-volatile metal supply. Here. we construct a regional facility-level cost model based on over 80 global lithium, cobalt, and nickel mines, refineries, and battery-grade material plants. Our model yields aggregated lithium, nickel, manganese, and cobalt production material costs from 392 region-based supply configurations for five different cathode active materials. Focusing on the United States, all-domestic supply is 9–34% costlier than global average, increasing by cobalt content, while these shortfalls can be overcome by selective low-cost material imports. Furthermore, we analyze costs of two U.S.-based recycling facilities from primary data and techno-economic modelling and compare resulting cathode active material-level costs to primary supply. Although it is still significantly higher on cathode active material cost-level, rising end-of-life flows and lowered black-mass prices will, however, make secondary supply cost-competitive to domestic and foreign primary supply cost floors. Facility-level benchmarks reveal targeted import, scaling, and production cost optimization as levers for a resilient, cost-effective U.S. battery-material supply chain.

This study builds a facility-level cost model to assess U.S. cathode material costs, showing that all-domestic supply is 9–34% costlier than global average, increasing by cobalt content, while these shortfalls can be overcome by selective low-cost material imports.