ArticleNature communications2025
Primary material supply configurations and domestic recycling for cost-effective battery material production in the US.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Forgotten Allotrope: γ-Sulfur Stabilization in Carbon Matrices for Energy Storage Applications.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Pathways to cost competitive and viable lithium production from Salton Sea geothermal brines.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Recycling or Second Use? Supply Potentials and Climate Effects of End-of-Life Electric Vehicle Batteries.Environmental science & technology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.