EV Battery Supply Chain

How multi-mineral dependency, manufacturing scale economics, and chemistry-performance tradeoffs create a coordination system where material access, capital intensity, and physics determine who builds the batteries that electrification requires.

Introduction

Lithium-ion battery cells and battery packs are the core energy storage components powering electric vehicles, grid-scale storage systems, and the rechargeable electronics carried by billions of people daily. The supply chain that produces these batteries spans mining operations across four continents, chemical refining concentrated in a single country, cell manufacturing at unprecedented industrial scale, and pack assembly integrated into vehicle production lines.

What makes this supply chain structurally unusual is not its scale alone but the interaction of three root constraints that most manufacturing systems do not face simultaneously. Each battery cell depends on multiple minerals — lithium, cobalt, nickel, manganese, graphite — each with its own extraction geography, refining chokepoint, and supply timeline. Cell manufacturing requires gigafactory-scale investment measured in billions of dollars and years of qualification before production reaches acceptable quality. And the chemistry that determines a battery's performance characteristics forces tradeoffs so fundamental that no single formulation can serve all applications, splitting the system into parallel paths that compete for different segments of the same market.

A single electric vehicle battery pack contains roughly forty to eighty kilograms of processed minerals sourced from a dozen countries, refined predominantly through Chinese chemical processing, assembled into cells at facilities that took years and billions of dollars to build, using a chemistry chosen not because it is best but because it is the least-bad compromise for that vehicle's specific requirements. Every stage of this chain is constrained, and the constraints interact.

The Three Root Constraints

The EV battery supply chain's structure emerges from three constraints. Most of the system's observable properties — geographic concentration, vertical integration, chemistry fragmentation, recycling limitations — are downstream consequences of these three forces interacting.

Multi-Mineral Dependency

A lithium-ion battery cathode requires a precise combination of processed minerals, and each mineral follows a structurally different supply path. Lithium is extracted from brine evaporation ponds in South America or hard-rock mines in Australia, then refined into battery-grade lithium hydroxide or carbonate — predominantly in China. Cobalt is predominantly mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which produces roughly seventy percent of global supply, then refined largely in China. Nickel for batteries requires a specific high-purity class that comes from laterite processing in Indonesia and the Philippines or sulfide deposits in Canada and Russia. Natural graphite — used in the anode — is mined and processed overwhelmingly in China, which controls roughly sixty-five percent of mine production and over ninety percent of processing. Manganese, while more geographically distributed, still requires refining to battery-grade purity through concentrated processing capacity.

This creates a structural property unlike most manufacturing supply chains: the battery system has not one critical input but five, each with independent failure modes. An automotive assembly line depends on thousands of parts, but most can be sourced from multiple suppliers on short notice. Battery minerals cannot. Each mineral has its own extraction timeline, its own geographic concentration, its own refining chokepoint, and its own geopolitical exposure. The cell manufacturer's supply security is set by the weakest link across all five chains simultaneously.

The consequence is compounding supply risk. The probability that at least one of five independent mineral supply chains experiences disruption is far higher than the probability that any single one does. And because cell chemistry requires precise ratios of these minerals, a shortage of one cannot be compensated by abundance of the others. The chain operates at the pace of its most constrained input.

Cell Manufacturing Scale Economics

A gigafactory — the industry term for a battery cell manufacturing facility at scale — requires between two and five billion dollars in capital investment and typically takes two to three years from groundbreaking to production-quality output. This timeline is not primarily construction time. It is qualification time. Battery cell manufacturing involves precise control of electrode coating thickness, electrolyte filling volumes, formation cycling protocols, and dozens of other process parameters where small deviations produce cells that degrade prematurely, lose capacity, or in extreme cases present safety risks.

The gap between producing cells and producing good cells is where most of the time and cost lives. A new gigafactory may begin producing cells within twelve to eighteen months of equipment installation, but achieving consistent yields — the percentage of cells that meet specification — takes an additional one to two years of process refinement. During this ramp period, the facility operates at a loss, producing partially below-spec output while engineers iterate on process control. This is why gigafactory announcements consistently precede actual volume production by years, not months.

The capital intensity and qualification timeline create a structural barrier to entry that concentrates cell manufacturing among a small number of firms. As of current production capacity, three companies — CATL, BYD, and LG Energy Solution — produce over half of all EV battery cells globally. This concentration is not a market outcome that competition will naturally erode. It reflects the physical reality that building and qualifying gigafactory-scale production requires capital, process expertise, and time that most potential entrants cannot commit simultaneously. The barrier is not building the factory. It is making it work.

Chemistry-Performance Tradeoffs

No single battery chemistry optimizes simultaneously for energy density, safety, cost, longevity, and charging speed. This is not an engineering limitation waiting to be solved. It reflects the electrochemistry: the materials that store the most energy per kilogram tend to be less thermally stable, the materials that are cheapest tend to offer lower energy density, and the structures that enable fast charging tend to degrade faster over repeated cycles.

The practical consequence is that the battery industry operates multiple chemistry paths in parallel. Nickel-rich chemistries (NMC 811, NCA) offer high energy density — critical for long-range premium EVs — but use expensive cobalt and nickel and require more sophisticated thermal management. Lithium iron phosphate (LFP) chemistries offer lower cost, longer cycle life, and better thermal stability, but lower energy density — making them suitable for standard-range vehicles, commercial vehicles, and stationary storage. Sodium-ion chemistries, emerging at smaller scale, eliminate lithium entirely but accept significantly lower energy density.

Each chemistry path requires different raw materials, different cathode processing equipment, different cell formation protocols, and different pack design engineering. A gigafactory built for NMC cells cannot switch to LFP production without substantial retooling and requalification. An automaker that designs a vehicle platform around one chemistry's voltage characteristics, energy density, and thermal profile cannot swap in a different chemistry without redesigning the battery pack and potentially the vehicle itself.

This tradeoff fragments the supply chain into parallel systems. The NMC path depends heavily on cobalt and nickel supply chains. The LFP path depends on iron and phosphate — more abundant but with their own processing concentration in China. Each path has different cost curves, different supply exposures, and different geographic dependencies. The battery supply chain is not one system but several, sharing only lithium and graphite as common inputs.

How the Constraints Shape the System

The Refining Chokepoint

The multi-mineral dependency and chemistry-performance tradeoffs converge at a single structural chokepoint: chemical refining. Regardless of where minerals are mined and regardless of which cathode chemistry is being produced, the refining step that converts raw mineral concentrates into battery-grade precursor materials is overwhelmingly concentrated in China. Chinese firms process an estimated sixty to seventy percent of the world's lithium chemicals, roughly eighty percent of cobalt refining, over sixty percent of nickel refining for battery applications, and over ninety percent of natural graphite processing.

This concentration emerged through the same self-reinforcing dynamics visible in other supply chains: early investment in processing capacity created cost advantages, which attracted volume, which funded expansion, which deepened the cost advantage. But the multi-mineral dependency amplifies the effect. Diversifying refining for one mineral does not resolve the chokepoint because the other four still pass through the same geographic concentration. The system's vulnerability is not to any single mineral's refining concentration but to the fact that all five minerals share the same processing geography.

Vertical Integration as Constraint Response

The interaction of multi-mineral dependency, manufacturing scale economics, and refining concentration has driven an unprecedented wave of vertical integration. Battery cell manufacturers are investing upstream in mining and refining. Automakers — organizations whose core competence is vehicle assembly, not chemical processing or mining — are signing multi-billion-dollar offtake agreements with lithium miners, investing in nickel processing facilities, and building their own gigafactories.

This vertical integration is not a growth strategy. It is a direct response to the constraint geometry. When a single vehicle model requires materials from five mineral supply chains, each passing through a concentrated refining chokepoint, and cell manufacturing capacity takes years to build and qualify, the cost of being unable to secure supply exceeds the cost of securing it directly. An automaker that commits to producing five hundred thousand EVs per year has committed to a mineral demand that must be met regardless of spot-market conditions — and the multi-mineral dependency means the risk of at least one supply chain failing to deliver is structurally high.

The Recycling Horizon

Battery recycling is structurally important but time-constrained. An EV battery has a useful vehicle life of eight to fifteen years. The volume of batteries available for recycling today reflects EV production from roughly 2010 to 2015 — a period when global EV sales were a fraction of one percent of current levels. The recycling feedstock simply does not yet exist at scale because the batteries that will eventually be recycled have not yet reached end of life.

Even when recycling volumes grow, the multi-mineral dependency creates a structural complication. Recycling NMC batteries recovers cobalt and nickel along with lithium. Recycling LFP batteries recovers lithium and iron but not the high-value cathode metals. As the industry shifts toward LFP for cost reasons, the recycling stream becomes less economically attractive at exactly the moment it becomes more volumetrically available. The chemistry-performance tradeoff that fragments the supply chain also fragments the recycling economics.

Geographic Concentration and Diversification Friction

Multiple governments — the United States, European Union members, Japan, South Korea — have announced strategies to build domestic battery supply chains and reduce dependence on Chinese refining and cell manufacturing. These efforts face structural headwinds from all three root constraints simultaneously. Developing domestic mineral refining requires years of facility construction and process qualification. Building gigafactories requires billions in capital and years of yield optimization. And the chemistry-performance tradeoff means that investments must be allocated to specific chemistry paths, each with different mineral requirements and different competitive dynamics.

The result is that diversification timelines consistently extend beyond initial projections. A policy announcement to build domestic battery capacity and the actual delivery of qualified cells at competitive cost are separated by five to eight years of physical construction, chemical process development, and manufacturing qualification — the same timeline constraints that created the existing concentration.

Flows and Visibility

Material flows in the battery supply chain are long, slow, and geographically extended. Cobalt moves from artisanal and industrial mines in the Congo to refineries in China. Lithium concentrate moves by bulk carrier from Australian mines to Chinese processing facilities. Processed cathode materials move from chemical plants to cell manufacturers. Finished cells move from gigafactories to pack assembly lines co-located with vehicle manufacturing. Each handoff crosses organizational, geographic, and often regulatory boundaries.

Information flows are fragmented. Miners know their extraction costs and production volumes. Refiners know their processing capacity. Cell manufacturers know their yield rates and order books. But automakers planning vehicle production three to five years ahead have limited visibility into whether the mineral supply chains can deliver the volumes their plans require. The multi-mineral dependency multiplies this information gap: an automaker must track supply conditions across five separate mineral markets, each with its own dynamics, to assess whether their battery supply is secure.

Capital flows are procyclical and lumpy. Gigafactory investment tends to concentrate in periods when EV demand projections are rising and governments are offering manufacturing incentives. Mining investment responds to mineral price spikes, but new mine development takes five to seven years — by which time prices may have already corrected. The timing mismatch between capital commitment and productive output creates structural volatility at both ends of the chain.

What Disruptions Have Revealed

The cobalt price spike of 2018 revealed the consequences of single-country mineral dependency. When cobalt prices roughly tripled in eighteen months, battery manufacturers could not substitute alternative materials on production timescales because cell chemistries are qualified with specific compositions. The price spike accelerated research into lower-cobalt and cobalt-free chemistries — but those chemistries required their own years-long qualification cycles before they could be deployed in production vehicles. The system's response to a constraint in one mineral was to shift toward alternative chemistries, but the chemistry-performance tradeoff meant each alternative carried its own structural limitations.

The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent supply chain disruptions revealed how multi-mineral dependency amplifies system fragility. Disruptions to shipping, mining operations, and chemical processing did not need to affect all five minerals simultaneously to disrupt cell production — a constraint on any single input was sufficient. The pandemic also revealed how little inventory buffer exists in the system. Just-in-time practices, adopted to minimize the capital tied up in expensive battery materials, removed the slack that would have absorbed short-term supply interruptions.

The rapid growth of LFP battery adoption outside China, beginning in earnest around 2021-2022, revealed how chemistry choice reshapes the entire upstream supply chain. As automakers shifted vehicle lines from NMC to LFP chemistries for cost and supply-security reasons, demand patterns for cobalt and nickel shifted while demand for lithium iron phosphate precursors surged. The chemistry-performance tradeoff is not merely a technical specification — it is a structural force that redirects mineral demand, refining investment, and manufacturing capacity across the entire supply chain.

What This Reveals About Industrial Structure

• Multi-mineral dependency creates compounding supply risk — A system that requires five independently constrained inputs operates at the throughput of its most constrained input. Supply security requires solving all five mineral chains simultaneously, not any single one.
• Manufacturing qualification is the binding barrier, not capital — Gigafactories can be funded and built, but the one-to-two-year qualification period that separates producing cells from producing good cells cannot be compressed by additional investment. Capital buys the facility; time and process expertise make it productive.
• Chemistry tradeoffs fragment the supply chain into parallel systems — NMC and LFP paths share lithium and graphite inputs but diverge on everything else: raw materials, processing, manufacturing, pack design, and vehicle integration. Analyzing the battery supply chain as a single system obscures the structural differences between these parallel paths.
• Refining concentration persists because it spans all minerals — Diversifying refining for one mineral does not resolve the chokepoint because the other four still pass through the same geography. The multi-mineral dependency and the refining concentration reinforce each other.
• Vertical integration is a structural necessity, not a strategic choice — When an automaker's production plans depend on five mineral supply chains, a concentrated refining chokepoint, and scarce manufacturing capacity, securing supply directly becomes a prerequisite for operating at the scale already committed to.

Connection to StockSignal's Philosophy

The EV battery supply chain illustrates how multiple interacting constraints — mineral dependency, manufacturing qualification, and chemistry tradeoffs — propagate through a system to determine concentration, competitive dynamics, and structural exposure. A company's position relative to these constraints — whether it controls mineral access, whether it has qualified manufacturing capacity, whether its chemistry path aligns with shifting demand, whether it depends on the refining chokepoint or has diversified around it — shapes its structural reality in ways that production volume and revenue growth do not capture. Recognizing where these constraints bind, and how they interact, is the kind of structural observation the screener is designed to surface.