IN SUMMARY
Is recycled metal always lower-carbon than mined metal?
Is recycled metal always lower-carbon than mined metal?
As demand for battery metals climbs, with lithium and nickel demand projected to grow 40 times between 2020 and 2040, recycling is increasingly seen as the lower-carbon, more secure route to supply. The EU Battery Regulation will require the carbon footprint of both recycling and recycled content to be reported. To test the common assumption that recycled beats virgin, Minviro built a granular, engineering-based recycling model and compared recycled nickel sulfate and lithium carbonate from spent NMC batteries against the main primary production routes.
As demand for battery metals climbs, with lithium and nickel demand projected to grow 40 times between 2020 and 2040, recycling is increasingly seen as the lower-carbon, more secure route to supply. The EU Battery Regulation will require the carbon footprint of both recycling and recycled content to be reported. To test the common assumption that recycled beats virgin, Minviro built a granular, engineering-based recycling model and compared recycled nickel sulfate and lithium carbonate from spent NMC batteries against the main primary production routes.
As demand for battery metals climbs, with lithium and nickel demand projected to grow 40 times between 2020 and 2040, recycling is increasingly seen as the lower-carbon, more secure route to supply. The EU Battery Regulation will require the carbon footprint of both recycling and recycled content to be reported. To test the common assumption that recycled beats virgin, Minviro built a granular, engineering-based recycling model and compared recycled nickel sulfate and lithium carbonate from spent NMC batteries against the main primary production routes.
Recycled is not automatically lower-carbon. Recycled nickel sulfate and lithium carbonate beat high-impact virgin routes (laterite nickel, hard-rock lithium) but can carry a higher footprint than low-impact virgin routes (sulfide nickel, brine lithium).
Recycled is not automatically lower-carbon. Recycled nickel sulfate and lithium carbonate beat high-impact virgin routes (laterite nickel, hard-rock lithium) but can carry a higher footprint than low-impact virgin routes (sulfide nickel, brine lithium).
Recycled is not automatically lower-carbon. Recycled nickel sulfate and lithium carbonate beat high-impact virgin routes (laterite nickel, hard-rock lithium) but can carry a higher footprint than low-impact virgin routes (sulfide nickel, brine lithium).
Chemicals and energy dominate the impact. Around 50% of the footprint of recycled metals comes from chemical consumption (such as sulfuric acid and kerosene) and around 30% from energy, with the rest from waste treatment.
Chemicals and energy dominate the impact. Around 50% of the footprint of recycled metals comes from chemical consumption (such as sulfuric acid and kerosene) and around 30% from energy, with the rest from waste treatment.
Chemicals and energy dominate the impact. Around 50% of the footprint of recycled metals comes from chemical consumption (such as sulfuric acid and kerosene) and around 30% from energy, with the rest from waste treatment.
The range is wide. Depending on energy source, chemical choice and recovery rate, the footprint of recycled metals can be up to 60% higher than baseline in the worst case or up to 45% lower in the best case.
The range is wide. Depending on energy source, chemical choice and recovery rate, the footprint of recycled metals can be up to 60% higher than baseline in the worst case or up to 45% lower in the best case.
The range is wide. Depending on energy source, chemical choice and recovery rate, the footprint of recycled metals can be up to 60% higher than baseline in the worst case or up to 45% lower in the best case.
Why recycled metals matter, and why the answer isn't obvious
Lithium-ion batteries account for 40 to 60% of EV manufacturing’s climate change impact, and more than half of a battery’s footprint comes from its active materials, where upstream raw material processing is most carbon-intensive. Recycling promises two things: a lower-carbon source of metals and greater supply security, which matters when production of materials like cobalt is geographically concentrated, with more than 60% coming from the Democratic Republic of Congo. The EU Battery Regulation now requires the carbon footprint of recycling and recycled content to be reported under the Product Environmental Footprint method. But whether recycled metal actually carries a lower footprint than mined metal is not a given, which is exactly what this study set out to quantify.
Lithium-ion batteries account for 40 to 60% of EV manufacturing’s climate change impact, and more than half of a battery’s footprint comes from its active materials, where upstream raw material processing is most carbon-intensive. Recycling promises two things: a lower-carbon source of metals and greater supply security, which matters when production of materials like cobalt is geographically concentrated, with more than 60% coming from the Democratic Republic of Congo. The EU Battery Regulation now requires the carbon footprint of recycling and recycled content to be reported under the Product Environmental Footprint method. But whether recycled metal actually carries a lower footprint than mined metal is not a given, which is exactly what this study set out to quantify.
How the study was built
Minviro developed a granular, modular recycling model built on first engineering principles, including stoichiometry, heat and water balances and chemical properties, rather than generic averages. The study focuses on recycled battery-grade nickel sulfate hexahydrate and lithium carbonate recovered from spent NMC 622 packs as the baseline, using mechanical pretreatment followed by hydrometallurgical leaching, purification, metal separation and recovery. It follows ISO 14040/44 and 14067 and aligns with the EU Battery Regulation, with spent batteries treated as burden-free under the cut-off approach and economic allocation used to split impacts between the recovered metals. Sensitivity analyses varied feedstock chemistry, electricity source, heat source, chemical impacts and recovery rates, and the results were then compared against the main virgin production routes.
Minviro developed a granular, modular recycling model built on first engineering principles, including stoichiometry, heat and water balances and chemical properties, rather than generic averages. The study focuses on recycled battery-grade nickel sulfate hexahydrate and lithium carbonate recovered from spent NMC 622 packs as the baseline, using mechanical pretreatment followed by hydrometallurgical leaching, purification, metal separation and recovery. It follows ISO 14040/44 and 14067 and aligns with the EU Battery Regulation, with spent batteries treated as burden-free under the cut-off approach and economic allocation used to split impacts between the recovered metals. Sensitivity analyses varied feedstock chemistry, electricity source, heat source, chemical impacts and recovery rates, and the results were then compared against the main virgin production routes.
What the results show
For both recycled products, chemical consumption drives roughly half the footprint and energy around 30%, with waste treatment making up the rest. Chemicals such as sulfuric acid, sodium bicarbonate and kerosene carry high embodied emissions from their own production. The comparison against virgin metal is where it gets interesting. Recycled nickel sulfate comes in below nickel from laterite ore, which is energy-intensive and often fossil-powered, but above nickel from sulfide ore, which can use lower-carbon, less chemical-intensive routes. Recycled lithium carbonate sits below hard-rock (spodumene) lithium but above brine lithium, where solar evaporation keeps energy use low. Changing the feedstock chemistry shifts the recycled footprint by around 10%, while the full best-to-worst range spans from 45% below baseline to 60% above.
For both recycled products, chemical consumption drives roughly half the footprint and energy around 30%, with waste treatment making up the rest. Chemicals such as sulfuric acid, sodium bicarbonate and kerosene carry high embodied emissions from their own production. The comparison against virgin metal is where it gets interesting. Recycled nickel sulfate comes in below nickel from laterite ore, which is energy-intensive and often fossil-powered, but above nickel from sulfide ore, which can use lower-carbon, less chemical-intensive routes. Recycled lithium carbonate sits below hard-rock (spodumene) lithium but above brine lithium, where solar evaporation keeps energy use low. Changing the feedstock chemistry shifts the recycled footprint by around 10%, while the full best-to-worst range spans from 45% below baseline to 60% above.
What it means for manufacturers and recyclers
For battery manufacturers and OEMs, the message is that recycled content can reduce a battery’s footprint, but only if the comparison and the recycling route are understood properly; assuming recycled always wins risks overstating the benefit, especially against already-low-carbon virgin supply. With the EU Battery Regulation set to cap battery carbon footprints from 2028, accurate data on recycled metals becomes a compliance necessity as well as a sourcing advantage. For recyclers, particularly those scaling in the US and Europe, the footprint of their specific process is becoming a competitive differentiator when securing feedstock and funding. Benchmarking against alternative technologies, whether hydrometallurgy, pyrometallurgy or direct recycling, is how recyclers can prove and improve their position.
For battery manufacturers and OEMs, the message is that recycled content can reduce a battery’s footprint, but only if the comparison and the recycling route are understood properly; assuming recycled always wins risks overstating the benefit, especially against already-low-carbon virgin supply. With the EU Battery Regulation set to cap battery carbon footprints from 2028, accurate data on recycled metals becomes a compliance necessity as well as a sourcing advantage. For recyclers, particularly those scaling in the US and Europe, the footprint of their specific process is becoming a competitive differentiator when securing feedstock and funding. Benchmarking against alternative technologies, whether hydrometallurgy, pyrometallurgy or direct recycling, is how recyclers can prove and improve their position.