Recycling Critical Minerals: Where Do We Stand Today?
Recycling critical minerals is playing an increasingly important role in discussions about the energy transition. Lithium, cobalt, nickel, rare earths, and silicon are used in batteries, permanent magnets, solar panels, and several other low-carbon technologies. Their supply, however, raises questions related to resource availability, the geographic concentration of deposits, and the security of supply chains.
The current situation differs considerably depending on the material and the industry involved. Some metals are already recovered at relatively high rates, while others remain barely recycled at end of life. This article offers an overview of the available data, the technologies in use, and the main limitations worth considering.
Key Indicators for Tracking Mineral Recycling
Data on mineral recycling can vary widely depending on the indicator used. A rate might measure the share of a metal recovered from end-of-life products, the contribution of recycled materials to total production, or the full set of secondary materials reintroduced into value chains. These distinctions matter, since they directly shape how the figures should be interpreted.
Before comparing different industries, it's worth clarifying the main indicators used in international reports. A single metal can show a strong end-of-life recovery rate while still contributing only modestly to overall supply.
Recovery, Contribution, and Secondary Input
Reports from the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the European Commission distinguish three complementary indicators for mineral recycling :
EOL-RR (End-of-Life Recycling Rate) measures the proportion of a metal contained in end-of-life products that is actually recycled. It mainly reflects how efficient the recycling chain is, from collection through processing and metallurgical recovery [1].
EOL-RIR (End-of-Life Recycling Input Rate) shows the share of a metal's total production that comes from end-of-life recycled materials. It helps assess the actual contribution of post-consumer recycling to overall supply [1] [2].
RIR (Recycled Input Rate) corresponds to the share of total production coming from all secondary sources combined, including manufacturing scrap and end-of-life recycled materials [1].
The European Commission's JRC specifically uses the EOL-RR and EOL-RIR to compare recycling efficiency at end of life against its contribution to supply, and points out that several materials show an EOL-RR above 40 or 50%, while their EOL-RIR generally stays low [2]. This gap is largely explained by rising demand: when total production grows quickly, recycled volumes can increase without representing a large share of supply.
In other words, a metal can be recycled fairly well from products available at end of life while still remaining heavily dependent on primary production. This distinction helps in interpreting sector-specific data more accurately, particularly for batteries, rare earths, and solar panels.
Table 1 — The Three Main Indicators of Mineral Recycling
| Indicator | What it measures | Question it answers |
|---|---|---|
| EOL-RR | Share of end-of-life metal actually recycled | How efficient is the recycling chain? |
| EOL-RIR | Share of total production coming from end-of-life recycling | How much do recycled products contribute to production? |
| RIR | Share of total production coming from all secondary sources | How dependent is supply overall on secondary materials? |
Sector Snapshot: Batteries, Rare Earths, and Solar Panels
Not every critical mineral sector has reached the same level of recycling maturity. Lithium-ion batteries are receiving growing industrial and regulatory attention, while rare earths and solar panels face distinct challenges, both technically and economically. This range of situations illustrates why it's difficult to discuss critical mineral recycling in general terms.
Lithium-Ion Batteries: A Fast-Advancing Sector
Lithium-ion batteries rank among the most active sectors when it comes to recycling. They contain several sought-after metals, including lithium, cobalt, and nickel, which encourages both industrial investment and regulatory oversight.
In 2023, recycling rates measured against the volumes available at end of life reached significant levels for certain metals used in lithium-ion batteries. They exceeded 40% for nickel and cobalt, and reached around 20% for lithium [1].
That said, these rates should not be confused with the actual share of recycled materials in total supply. That same year, the RIR, which measures the share of production coming from secondary sources, remained lower for these same metals [3].
Table 2 — Comparison of Battery Flow Recycling Rates and Global RIR in 2023
| Metal | Recycling rate of metals in available battery flows | RIR, share from secondary sources |
|---|---|---|
| Cobalt | > 40 % | 10.4 % |
| Nickel | > 40 % | 25.6 % |
| Lithium | ~20 % | 2.9 % |
Sources: IEA, 2024 [1]; Statista, 2024 [3]
Note: These two indicators don't cover the same scope. The first concerns materials present in battery flows available for recycling, while the RIR measures the contribution of all secondary sources combined to the metal's total supply.
These figures show that recycling is advancing, but its contribution to total supply is still limited. This is largely due to the rapid growth in battery demand, which is increasing faster than the volumes of secondary materials currently available.
How the sector evolves will depend mainly on the availability of volumes to recycle and the effectiveness of collection systems:
In the short term, recycling capacity already exceeds the volumes of batteries available at end of life. If every announced project moves forward, global capacity in 2030 could be more than six times higher than the materials actually available [1].
After 2030, this situation could gradually shift as more first-generation electric vehicles reach the end of their life.
In the long run, the IEA's APS scenario estimates that recycled battery materials could cover 20 to 30% of lithium, nickel, and cobalt demand by 2050. That share could reach 25 to 35% under a high-collection scenario [1].
These projections remain contingent on several factors, including the rollout of effective collection systems, the actual availability of end-of-life volumes, and sustained investment in processing capacity. The battery sector thus illustrates an industry developing quickly, though its contribution to supply will still hinge on how mature its recycling chains become.
Battery Recycling Technologies: Three Approaches, Different Trade-offs
Progress in battery recycling rests on three main processing methods. Each comes with its own strengths and limitations regarding material recovery, energy use, residue management, and industrial maturity. These methods aren't necessarily mutually exclusive and can be combined depending on the composition and condition of the batteries being treated.
Pyrometallurgy applies to a wide range of battery chemistries, making it a flexible method. However, it relies on temperatures above 1,000°C, which results in high energy consumption. It mainly recovers certain metals in alloy form, but may require additional processing steps to separate and purify the recovered materials [5].
Hydrometallurgy uses chemical solutions to extract metals from pretreated materials. It can operate at temperatures below 200°C and achieve recovery rates of up to 93% for lithium, nickel, and cobalt [5]. It currently stands as one of the main methods used across the industry. It does, however, require specialized reagents and can generate large volumes of wastewater that must be properly treated [4] [5].
Direct recycling aims to preserve or restore the active materials in batteries rather than fully breaking them down into metals or chemical compounds. This approach could cut the number of steps needed to return materials to manufacturing and lower recycling costs by up to 40% under certain conditions [5]. Its deployment remains limited, however, largely because it requires input materials that are relatively uniform, well characterized, and minimally contaminated [4] [5].
Table 3 — Comparison of Lithium-Ion Battery Recycling Technologies
| Method | Processing temperature | Industrial status |
|---|---|---|
| Pyrometallurgy | > 1,000 °C | Deployed |
| Hydrometallurgy | < 200 °C | Dominant |
| Direct recycling | Generally lower temperatures | Pilot / emerging |
Public Frameworks and Recycling Capacity: Regional Snapshots
The growth of critical mineral recycling doesn't depend on available technology alone. It's also shaped by public policy, collection targets, traceability requirements, industrial investment, and the structure of supply chains.
Approaches differ from region to region. Some jurisdictions set precise regulatory targets, while others rely more heavily on funding industrial capacity, provincial programs, or environmental management of end-of-life waste.
European Union: Regulatory Targets for Batteries
The European Union has put in place a particularly structured framework through Regulation (EU) 2023/1542, which applies to batteries placed on the European market. This regulation covers several stages of the battery life cycle, including collection, material recovery, recycled content, and traceability [6].
Among the targets set out:
material recovery by 2027: 90% for cobalt, copper, lead, and nickel, and 50% for lithium;
minimum recycled content starting in 2031: 16% for cobalt, 6% for lithium, and 6% for nickel in certain battery categories;
minimum recycled content starting in 2036: 26% for cobalt, 12% for lithium, and 15% for nickel;
collection of portable batteries: 63% by 2027 and 73% by 2030.
Meeting these targets will depend on the availability of end-of-life volumes, processing capacity, and how effective collection systems turn out to be.
China: Already Highly Developed Industrial Capacity
China holds a central position in battery recycling. According to the IEA, it accounted for roughly 80% of global pretreatment and material recovery capacity for batteries in 2023 [1]. This standing reflects how important its industrial ecosystem is within battery value chains, from manufacturing through end-of-life processing.
The country has also introduced traceability measures for new-energy vehicle batteries. These systems are designed to better track batteries across their entire life cycle, from production to collection and recycling [8]. In 2026, China also announced new measures to strengthen the management of used batteries, including assigning a digital identity to new-energy vehicle batteries [9].
This situation reflects an approach where regulation, traceability, and industrial capacity are closely intertwined. It also shows that where recycling capacity is located can become a significant factor for supply chain security.
Canada: An Approach Tied to Value Chains and Provincial Programs
In Canada, recycling fits into a broader reflection on critical mineral value chains. The Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy aims, among other things, to support capacity building across extraction, processing, manufacturing, and recycling [10].
For batteries, the framework remains more decentralized than in the European Union. Collection and recycling obligations fall mainly under provincial or territorial extended producer responsibility programs. This approach shifts part of the end-of-life responsibility onto producers, importers, retailers, or distributors, depending on the jurisdiction involved.
United States: Industrial Funding and Waste Management Rules
In the United States, the federal approach relies in part on supporting the battery value chain. The Department of Energy funds projects related to battery recycling, reprocessing, and collection, notably through programs that support the domestic supply chain [11].
The environmental framework also addresses end-of-life waste management. The EPA is working to adapt universal waste rules to better regulate solar panels and lithium batteries at the end of their life. The goal is to make managing these waste streams clearer, while accounting for associated risks, particularly fires linked to improperly handled lithium batteries [12].
The American approach thus appears less focused on national recycled-content thresholds comparable to those of the European Union. It places greater emphasis on industrial capacity, collection, safety, and integrating recycling into the domestic supply chain.
E-Waste Management: Significant Regional Gaps
Beyond batteries, e-waste management remains highly uneven across regions. In 2022, roughly 62 million tonnes of e-waste were generated worldwide, yet less than a quarter was documented as properly collected and recycled [1]. These waste streams can contain base metals, precious metals, and certain critical minerals, but recovering them depends heavily on local infrastructure.
This disparity is a reminder that recycling doesn't hinge on material value alone. It also relies on collection, traceability, regulation, industrial capacity, and economic outlets. These factors help explain why different sectors progress at different speeds, not just from country to country but from one material to another.
The Structural Limits of Recycling as a Supply Lever
The sectors examined show genuine progress, but also structural ceilings. Even when recycling technologies work well and regulatory frameworks are in place, several factors inherent to the material life cycle limit how much recycling can contribute to critical mineral supply, particularly in the short and medium term.
Demand Growing Faster Than Recyclable Volumes
The main structural constraint has to do with how fast demand is growing. According to an analysis from Leiden University, demand for critical materials could increase sixteenfold by 2050 relative to 2020, under the IEA's net-zero emissions scenario [7]. At that scale, improving recycling rates can ease pressure on primary supply, but it won't eliminate the need for it, especially in the short and medium term.
This gap is partly explained by the material life cycle itself. Batteries, wind turbines, and solar panels deployed today will remain in service for years before feeding into end-of-life flows [7]. The JRC also points out that recycling's modest contribution to supply stems from the growing stock of equipment in use, material losses, and the existence of products that are difficult to recycle [2].
As more equipment reaches end of life, the volumes available for recycling should increase. Recycling will therefore be able to play a growing role, though it will remain complementary to primary supply and to more efficient resource use overall.
Follow Squatex on LinkedIn to stay informed about developments in the natural resources and energy sector.
References
[1]: International Energy Agency. Recycling of Critical Minerals: Strategies to Scale Up Recycling and Urban Mining. IEA, 2024. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/3af7fda6-8fd9-46b7-bede-395f7f8f9943/RecyclingofCriticalMinerals.pdf
[2]: European Commission. "Recycling's Contribution to Meeting Materials Demand." Raw Materials Scoreboard 2018, Publications Office of the European Union, 2018, pp. 70–74. https://rmis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/scoreboard2018/indicators/16._Recyclings_contribution_to_meeting_materials_demand.pdf
[3]: Statista. "Recycling Lags for Some Green Energy Minerals." Statista, 18 Nov. 2024. https://www.statista.com/chart/33502/recycled-input-rate-for-selected-metals/
[4]: Chen, Quanwei, et al. "Comparative Environmental Impacts of Different Hydrometallurgical Recycling and Remanufacturing Technologies of Lithium-Ion Batteries Considering Multi-Recycling-Approach and Temporal-Geographical Scenarios in China." Separation and Purification Technology, vol. 324, 2023, article 124642. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383586623015502
[5]: Ma, Xiaotu, et al. "The Evolution of Lithium-Ion Battery Recycling." Nature Reviews Clean Technology, vol. 1, 2025, pp. 75–94. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44359-024-00010-4
[6]: European Parliament and Council of the European Union. "Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2023 Concerning Batteries and Waste Batteries, Amending Directive 2008/98/EC and Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Repealing Directive 2006/66/EC." Official Journal of the European Union, L 191, 28 July 2023, pp. 1–117. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1542/oj/eng
[7]: Liang, Yanan, René Kleijn, and Ester van der Voet. "Increase in Demand for Critical Materials under IEA Net-Zero Emission by 2050 Scenario." Applied Energy, vol. 346, 2023, article 121400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121400
[8]: International Energy Agency. "Interim Provisions on the Traceability Management of Power Battery Recycling in New Energy Vehicles." IEA Policies Database, 2025. https://www.iea.org/policies/24953-interim-provisions-on-the-traceability-management-of-power-battery-recycling-in-new-energy-vehicles
[9]: State Council of the People's Republic of China. "China to Strengthen Recycling Management of Used Power Batteries from NEVs." The State Council of the People's Republic of China, 16 Jan. 2026. https://english.www.gov.cn/news/202601/16/content_WS6969df0cc6d00ca5f9a089c0.html
[10]: Natural Resources Canada. The Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy. Government of Canada, 2022. https://www.canada.ca/en/campaign/critical-minerals-in-canada/canadian-critical-minerals-strategy.html
[11]: U.S. Department of Energy. "Funding Selections: Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Battery Recycling, Reprocessing, and Battery Collection Funding Opportunity." Department of Energy. https://www.energy.gov/cmei/vehicles/funding-selections-infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-battery-recycling
[12]: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Improving Recycling and Management of Renewable Energy Wastes: Universal Waste Regulations for Solar Panels and Lithium Batteries." EPA. https://www.epa.gov/hw/improving-recycling-and-management-renewable-energy-wastes-universal-waste-regulations-solar
