Michigan study backs battery recycling for security

The Responsible Battery Coalition has backed a new University of Michigan framework for managing electric vehicle batteries. The study outlines 17 drivers for assessing battery life cycle decisions.

Published in the Journal of Energy Storage, the research is aimed at automakers, recyclers, regulators and investors weighing trade-offs in battery chemistry, recycled content, disassembly, cost, emissions and supply chain risk. It places geopolitical considerations alongside environmental and economic factors in decisions across the battery value chain.

The work comes as the US battery sector faces pressure to expand domestic sourcing, refining and recycling while competing with China, which the study identifies as having built a dominant position through sustained investment. The authors also warn that inconsistent policy can impose costs on countries trying to develop local battery industries.

Among the findings highlighted by the coalition, the study says rising demand for critical minerals and the concentration of mining and processing in a small number of locations are increasing risks to supply chain resilience. It identifies diversified supply chains, responsible sourcing, more recycling and greater use of secondary materials as central to the technology's continued use and development.

The framework also argues that battery recycling should not be treated solely as an emissions or waste issue. In the coalition's view, it is also a matter of industrial strategy and security, because recovering minerals domestically can reduce dependence on overseas supply and support manufacturing at home.

Security focus

The coalition's Critical Minerals Leadership Roundtable has strongly advanced that security argument. The group, chaired by retired Major General Bill Crane and vice-chaired by retired Rear Admiral Peter Brown, has framed battery recycling and mineral recovery as relevant to military readiness, electricity networks and the computing infrastructure linked to artificial intelligence.

A joint statement from the two retired officers accompanied the coalition's response to the study.

"This framework recognizes that circularity and national security go hand in hand. A strong domestic battery supply chain ensures America can refine, process and recover the critical minerals that support military readiness, AI infrastructure, grid resilience, and the technologies that power our economy," said Bill Crane, chair of the RBC Critical Minerals Leadership Roundtable and former adjutant general of the West Virginia National Guard, and Peter Brown, vice chair of the roundtable and former deputy assistant to President Donald Trump for homeland security and counterterrorism, at the Responsible Battery Coalition.

The study's emphasis on timing is also likely to draw attention. The researchers say collection, reuse and recycling infrastructure must be built before the first large wave of electric vehicle battery retirements arrives, or the US will risk losing material that could otherwise be recovered and returned to domestic supply chains.

Investment pressure

That warning comes as battery manufacturing investment in the US has already reached the hundreds of billions of dollars in cumulative private commitments, according to the coalition. Public support has also included grants, loans, tax incentives, permitting changes, trade measures and government equity participation in selected projects.

Those efforts are intended to support both electric vehicle batteries and grid-scale energy storage, a market that is growing as utilities and developers seek more storage capacity for electricity systems. The broader point of the Michigan research is that decisions in one part of the system can affect cost, resilience and environmental outcomes elsewhere in the chain.

Members of the coalition include Advance Auto Parts, AutoZone, Capital City Ventures, Clarios, ENTEK, FedEx, Honda and O'Reilly Auto Parts. Formed in 2017, the group brings together companies, academics and other organisations focused on battery production, transport, use, reuse, recycling and resource recovery.

For industry and policymakers, the framework may provide a shared way to compare battery choices that are often debated separately. Questions such as which chemistry to adopt, how much recycled material to include and whether packs are easy to disassemble can alter not only cost and carbon outcomes, but also sourcing risk and the availability of strategic materials.

The Michigan work reflects a wider shift in the battery debate. What was once discussed mainly in terms of vehicle range, manufacturing cost and environmental impact is increasingly being assessed through the lens of trade exposure, domestic industrial capacity and access to critical minerals.

By bringing those factors into one framework, the study gives policymakers, manufacturers, recyclers and investors a common structure for judging trade-offs as the battery sector expands and the first generation of electric vehicle packs moves closer to retirement.