Advanced LFP batteries could ease the material pressures of Europe’s e-mobility transition
image:
Cobalt is the most supply-constrained metal under state of art NMC battery technology, while an advanced LFP-based battery technology pathways substantially reduce primary demand for cobalt, manganese, and nickel.
view moreCredit: Wu Chen et al.
Europe e-mobility transition could increase cumulative demand for cobalt from 2021 to 2050 to nearly twice the world’s known reserves, but a new 32-country analysis shows it can be changed. Advanced lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, combined with longer battery lifetimes and a shift to smaller cars, could make a 100% Europe electrification materially feasible. This study also exposes an often-overlooked trade-off: Reusing retired EV batteries in energy storage systems cuts carbon emissions but delays those critical metals recycling.
As Europe moves to phase out new combustion-engine cars, a question looms behind the climate ambition: Will there be enough lithium, cobalt, manganese, and nickel to power the shift to electric mobility? Writing in Engineering, researchers from Peking University, University of Southern Denmark, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), and the University of Tokyo, among others, offer one of the most detailed answers yet: Advanced LFP technology is one of the most promising ways to ease the material pressure.
The research team, led by Professor Gang Liu of Peking University, built a national-level dynamic “product–component” material flow model covering 32 countries, the 28 EU members plus Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, and Turkey. Unlike many earlier models, it tracks vehicles, battery packs, and battery metals simultaneously and accounts for the lifetime differences between the vehicles (10-16 years) and embedded battery packs (4-14 years). Retired packs may also spend extra years in stationary storage before recycling. That is why this latest model can identify where the real bottlenecks lie in Europe’s pathways to e-mobility.
“Vehicles and their batteries simply don’t age in step, and battery chemistry keeps changing, yet most material forecasts gloss over both,” says Dr. Wu Chen of the University of Southern Denmark. “Capturing those dynamics is what lets us see which strategies actually move the needle.”
The findings show that, under a business-as-usual pathway, annual demand for the four metals in 2050 would be 27-28 times the 2020 level, equivalent to roughly 641%, 649%, 5%, and 100% of 2020 global mine production for lithium, cobalt, manganese, and nickel, respectively. Cumulative cobalt demand from 2021 to 2050 would reach about 194% of current global reserves, and roughly 101% even assuming high recycling, making a cobalt-heavy fully electric fleet effectively impossible to supply. Manganese far less constrained at about 1% of current global reserves.
Among the strategies tested, advanced LFP battery technology development substantially ease primary material demand pressure. Cumulative primary demand falls to 65%, 16%, 12%, and 36% of the baseline of the four metals, and from around 2038, demand for cobalt, manganese and nickel drops below the potential supply from retired batteries. Combined with longer battery lifetimes and a shift to smaller cars, cumulative primary demand equals just 13%, 6%, 0.03%, and 3% of current global reserves.
Even so, there is no single silver bullet. Reusing healthy retired batteries in stationary storage lowers their life-cycle carbon footprint, but delays recycling and thus raises primary demand. Such trade-offs are why material, energy, and climate strategies have to be planned together. “The product–component model we developed can also be applied well beyond cars, to buildings and energy infrastructure too,” says corresponding author Gang Liu of Peking University.
The paper “Battery Material Demand and End-of-Life Management for Europe’s E-Mobility Transition,” is authored by Wu Chen, Juan Tan, Rui Zhang, Jakob K. Rasmussen, Jakob L. Karlsson, Xin Ouyang, Qiance Liu, Burak Sen, Jakob K. Keiding, Gang Liu. Full text of the open access paper: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2026.05.017. For more information about Engineering, visit the website at https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/engineering.
Journal
Engineering
Article Title
Battery Material Demand and End-of-Life Management for Europe’s E-Mobility Transition
Flexibility of vehicle charging infrastructure is key to a cost-optimal EU energy system
image:
‘Charging infrastructure targets and V2G mandates shouldn't be set in isolation: coordinated planning with the energy system is what determines whether that infrastructure unlocks real benefits or simply raises charging costs for consumers. That's an important message for policymakers and the EU's AFIR,’ says Francecso Sanvito (TU Delft, The Netherlands).
view moreCredit: TU Delft
Researchers from Delft University of Technology (The Netherlands) have made a European energy system model, making two technologies to compete with each other: future unidirectional smart charging (V1G) and Vehicle-to-Grid charging (V2G) to determine which mode is most economically advantageous in EU countries in a 2050 energy system. For the first time, the model treats the diffusion of V1G and V2G infrastructure as a decision to be optimized, explicitly accounting for its costs. ‘The model shows that a uniform benchmark for the EU is not preferable. The cost-optimal level of charging infrastructure varies by country, since it depends on each national energy system’, says lead researcher Francesco Sanvito. The results are published today in Nature Energy.
These outcomes could not be timelier now that the European Commission has launched a public consultation on the renewal of the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR), which is currently based on a uniform charging target across EU member states.
Unlocking benefits by customisation
As Europe shifts to electric vehicles, uncontrolled charging risks straining the power system. Smart charging V1G and V2G offer a way to turn this into an opportunity, but V2G's added cost raises the question of when it's worth it over V1G. Both technologies increase system flexibility while raising infrastructure costs. This trade-off varies by country, something the EU's uniform AFIR charging target overlooks. Targets should be customized to unlock these benefits across all geographies, according to Sanvito.
Climate and energy systems are key
In the Dutch context, for example, V2G technology may be particularly profitable today, since grid bottlenecks and the limited flexibility of current electricity loads drive high price swings, sometimes reaching negative values. Cars that can feed electricity back into the system could help balance the grid temporarily until grid reinforcements are in place. V2G, however, requires greater investments than V1G charging. V1G is a no-regret option that drives down overall system costs. Higher deployment of both technologies unlocks greater system flexibility but increases infrastructure expenditure, reflected in higher charging costs for consumers.
At the same time, that same deployment unlocks energy system savings that ultimately benefit electricity prices. The trade-off is shaped by interactions with the national energy system. In Norway, where the energy system mostly relies on hydro-energy, a type of energy source that is more constant and that can be more easily scheduled compared to wind and solar, V1G technology will suffice.
‘Charging infrastructure targets and V2G mandates shouldn't be set in isolation: coordinated planning with the energy system is what determines whether that infrastructure unlocks real benefits or simply raises charging costs for consumers. That's an important message for policymakers and the EU's AFIR,’ Sanvito concludes.
Journal
Nature Energy
Method of Research
Computational simulation/modeling
Subject of Research
Not applicable
Article Title
Coordinated planning of European charging infrastructure and energy system for optimal V1G and V2G deployment
Article Publication Date
14-Jul-2026
No comments:
Post a Comment