When Supply Chains Start Designing Batteries

This week, two battery announcements caught my attention. GM is betting on lithium-manganese-rich (LMR) batteries, while CATL expects 10,000–20,000 electric vehicles to use sodium-ion batteries this year. At first, they seem like unrelated developments. One still uses lithium while the other moves away from it. But I think they’re responding to the same challenge.

For years, battery chemistry was largely a race for better performance. More range, faster charging and lower cost. That hasn’t changed, but another factor is becoming increasingly important: supply chains. Companies are no longer choosing battery chemistries only for performance. They are also looking at the availability, cost and concentration of the minerals behind them.

Take LMR batteries. Conventional NMC batteries rely heavily on nickel and cobalt, two materials whose supply is concentrated in Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. LMR reduces nickel content by replacing much of it with manganese, an abundant and inexpensive mineral. If GM achieves its targets, it could deliver the cost of LFP batteries with higher energy density while reducing dependence on some of the battery industry’s most exposed materials.

CATL’s sodium-ion strategy reaches a similar destination through a different route. The company has spent nearly a decade developing the chemistry and now expects commercial production later this year, with global deliveries beginning next year. CATL has described sodium-ion as part of its “lithium-sodium” strategy to reduce dependence on lithium price volatility. Rather than relying on one battery chemistry, it is building optionality around different raw materials.

I don’t think this means lithium, nickel or cobalt are disappearing. Demand for all three is likely to remain strong. What seems to be changing is how battery companies think about chemistry itself. The next generation of batteries may be shaped not only by electrochemistry, but also by the cost, availability and geopolitical exposure of the minerals that go into them.

The US has launched a $69 million Critical Minerals Accelerator to fund processing technologies that are still too early for private investment. Two areas stand out: recovering critical minerals from scrap, electronic waste and mine tailings, and scaling new processing technologies from the lab to commercial deployment.

The signal is clear. Policymakers are no longer looking only at new mines. They are also trying to fund the processing technologies that can unlock new sources of supply and attract commercial capital. (Link)

Energy Fuels has agreed to acquire 100-year-old German magnet manufacturer Vacuumschmelze (VAC) in a $1.9 billion deal. With over 1,000 customers across the automotive, defence and industrial sectors, the acquisition brings manufacturing expertise, proven technology and established customer relationships, making Energy Fuels one of the world’s largest non-Chinese magnet manufacturers. The deal also highlights how some companies are using acquisitions to move downstream much faster than building these capabilities from scratch. (Link)

Brazil’s state-owned development bank BNDES has partnered with Petrobras to develop research and innovation in critical minerals. The partnership combines Petrobras’ technical expertise with BNDES’ financing and policy capabilities. More broadly, Brazil appears to be applying lessons from its oil and gas industry—using state-backed financing, industrial coordination and technical capability—to accelerate its critical minerals strategy. (Link)

China has added 10 US companies, including rare earth firms MP Materials and USA Rare Earth, to its export control list, preventing Chinese companies from supplying them with dual-use goods. The move follows the Pentagon’s decision earlier this month to designate around 80 Chinese companies, including Alibaba, Baidu and BYD, as military-linked entities. The latest action shows that critical mineral companies are no longer just industrial businesses—they are becoming strategic assets in the broader US-China competition. (Link)

The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has begun evaluating offshore critical mineral development off the coast of Virginia by inviting industry interest and public input. The move follows an earlier proposal from Odyssey Marine Exploration to develop heavy mineral sands and phosphorite deposits in the region. While still at an early stage, it reflects a broader effort to evaluate offshore resources as part of long-term domestic critical mineral planning. (Link)

Minerals in Motion is read by investors, operators, policymakers and builders tracking the structural shifts reshaping critical minerals.

If you found this edition useful, consider sharing it with someone else following the space closely.