Batteries are the engines of our electrified future, but when they die they become a complicated puzzle. Different chemistries — NCM (nickel-cobalt-manganese), NCA (nickel-cobalt-aluminum), LFP (lithium-iron-phosphate), LMO (lithium-manganese-oxide), LCO (lithium-cobalt-oxide), and emerging chemistries — behave very differently at end of life. Some are “economically attractive” to recycle because they contain high-value metals that are easy to extract.
Others are technically tricky or simply low-value, which makes recycling harder to justify or implement at scale. In this long read I’ll walk you through which chemistries cause the biggest headaches, why those headaches exist (technical and economic reasons), how formats and pack design make things better or worse, and what the industry can do about it. Read this like a field guide: chemistry by chemistry, problem by problem, with plain language and real-world analogies.
Why chemistry matters more than you might think
Chemistry determines what’s physically inside the electrode, how it degrades, how it reacts to heat or chemicals, and ultimately what’s left to recover. Think of battery chemistry as the recipe and recyclers as bakers trying to un-bake a cake back into flour and sugar. If the cake has hidden fillings, caramelized layers, and frosting that binds everything, un-baking it cleanly is hard. Similarly, some chemistries create “sticky,” mixed, or low-value residues that are expensive to separate; others yield high-value metal salts that are relatively straightforward to recover. The recipe also changes how safe the un-baking process is — some chemistries are more prone to fire, gas release, or hazardous byproducts when processed.
A quick tour of the main chemistries
Before we dive into the troublemakers, let’s set the stage. NCM and NCA are “layered oxide” cathodes with nickel, cobalt and manganese or aluminum mixed in. They have high energy density and historically high material value because of nickel and especially cobalt. LFP uses iron phosphate and has become popular because it is safe, stable, and inexpensive. LMO and LCO are older cathode families that still exist in some devices. Emerging chemistries (high-nickel blends, silicon-dominant anodes, solid-state) change the recycling equation again. Each chemistry brings a different mix of metal value, chemical stability, and recycling difficulty.
Which chemistries are easiest to recycle — a baseline
In general, chemistries with high concentrations of valuable transition metals (nickel, cobalt, manganese) are economically easier to recycle because recovered metal salts sell well and justify processing costs. Hydrometallurgical processes can target those metals and reach high recovery fractions when feedstock is sorted and pretreated properly. That’s why, historically, NMC and NCA packs have been the focus of many commercial recyclers and pilot plants. But ease-of-recycling does not equal “no challenges” — thermal stability, coatings, and mixes complicate even those chemistries.
The big challenge list — which chemistries cause the most trouble
There are two different ways a chemistry can be “challenging.” One is technical difficulty: the chemistry resists common recovery methods, produces toxic byproducts, or requires expensive, specialized processing. The other is economic difficulty: the chemistry is cheap and contains little high-value metal, so the economics of recycling look poor. By those measures, the chemistry that most often appears as the biggest headache is LFP (economic/technical mix), and several others like high-nickel mixes, graphite-heavy anode designs, and upcoming solid-state architectures present unique technical hurdles. We’ll unpack each in detail.
LFP (Lithium-Iron-Phosphate): the surprising problem child
Lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP) has surged in popularity because it’s safe, long-lived, and uses widely available iron instead of expensive cobalt. On the surface that sounds great — until you realize recyclers used to rely on cobalt and nickel value to pay the bills. LFP contains much less of the “expensive” metals, so the per-kilogram value of LFP scrap is lower and the economic incentive to collect and process it is weaker. That economic reality leads to two knock-on effects: fewer dedicated LFP recycling plants and more informal or low-efficiency handling where valuable lithium is lost or organics are burned.
Technically, LFP is also different in chemistry. The phosphate structure is chemically stable and can be relatively resistant to some leaching steps that work well for layered oxides. Direct recycling approaches — which aim to restore cathode powders with minimal chemical breakdown — face different challenges with LFP than with NMC. LFP’s lower material value and its different crystal chemistry combine to make both economics and chemistry a double challenge. That’s why many recent literature reviews and experimental studies flag LFP as a harder business-case for recyclers and as a technical target for new hydrometallurgical tactics.
NMC and NCA — valuable but not trouble-free
NMC and NCA cathodes are attractive because they contain nickel and cobalt — metals recyclers can economically recover. Hydrometallurgy can selectively dissolve and separate Ni, Co and Mn with good yields, so these chemistries have been the backbone of many recycling flows. That said, evolving formulations (e.g., high-nickel NMC811) and surface coatings complicate the chemistry. High-nickel materials are more reactive and can be less thermally stable, which increases handling risks during mechanical pretreatment and shredding. That reactivity can cause more aggressive off-gassing and thermal events when cells are damaged, so plants processing high-nickel feed must invest in safer inert-atmosphere handling and stronger fire control systems.
Another nuance: as manufacturers reduce cobalt content to cut costs and ethical concerns, the economic “anchor” cobalt provided becomes smaller. That tightening margin raises the bar for recyclers: they must recover lithium and other lower-value elements more efficiently to sustain profitability. So while NMC/NCA are currently more attractive than LFP from a material-value standpoint, innovation in their formulations also raises new technical and safety obstacles.
High-nickel chemistries: an emerging difficulty
High-nickel cathodes (NMC811, NCA with higher nickel fractions) push energy density upward but also make cathodes more oxygen-rich and thermally reactive. That increases the probability that a mechanically damaged cell will enter thermal runaway or that off-gassing during shredding will be hazardous. From a recycling perspective, these chemistries demand stricter safety regimes, more robust preconditioning, and sometimes slower throughput to ensure safe operation. Moreover, high-nickel cathodes often suffer different degradation pathways that make direct regeneration harder, so recyclers may need more intense chemical or thermal processing. The upshot: higher first-life performance creates higher end-of-life processing requirements.
LCO (Lithium-Cobalt-Oxide) and LMO — old players with mixed issues
LCO cells (common historically in consumer electronics) contain a lot of cobalt and were among the earliest economically recycled chemistries. The high cobalt content made straightforward hydrometallurgical recovery attractive. But LCO volumes are shrinking in EVs, so the stream is smaller and often present in consumer devices where collection is fragmented. LMO contains manganese and has its own quirks: manganese can be recovered, but the presence of mixed transition metal oxides complicates direct recycling and selective separation steps. Old-format consumer battery waste also brings the complication of mixed sizes and high contamination, increasing pretreatment costs.
Graphite and silicon anodes — hidden headaches
People often focus on cathodes, but anodes matter too. Most commercial anodes are graphite; next-generation packs increasingly use silicon-rich blends. Recycling graphite back into battery-grade anode material is technically hard because graphite powder is intimately mixed with binder, conductive carbon, and residual lithium at the particle surface. Restoring particle morphology and surface chemistry so the recovered graphite performs like virgin anode material is a significant technical challenge. Thermal and chemical purification methods exist, but they can degrade graphitization and reduce electrochemical performance.
Silicon presents its own headache: silicon particles fracture severely during cycling, producing fine debris and changing particle morphology. Recovering silicon in a form that’s reusable is even harder. So even when cathode metals are recovered efficiently, lack of high-quality anode recycling can limit the circularity of full cell manufacturing.
Solid-state and next-gen chemistries — the future problem set
Solid-state batteries and other emerging chemistries promise safety and energy advantages — but they will change the recycling game. Solid electrolytes may be ceramic or sulfide-based, and those materials require new separation chemistries or thermal strategies. If solid electrolytes are chemically inert or fused to electrodes, delaminating and reclaiming active materials may be far tougher than in liquid-electrolyte cells. The industry’s experience base with these chemistries is small, so recycling processes are largely unproven at scale. That makes solid-state tech a potential future headache for recyclers if design-for-recycling isn’t prioritized early.
Format and pack design amplify or reduce chemistry pain
Chemistry is one axis; format (pouch, cylindrical, prismatic) and pack design are another. A chemistry that is technically sticky can be made easier or harder to recycle depending on whether cells are welded into glued modules, whether busbars and wiring are easily removed, and whether the pack is designed to be disassembled. Pouch cells, for example, can swell and leak, complicating safe mechanical pretreatment. Cylindrical cells are mechanically uniform and often easier for automation. So a technically difficult chemistry packaged in a disassembly-friendly format is less of a headache than the same chemistry locked into glued modules with integrated cooling plates.
Why lithium itself is a special recycling headache
Across chemistries, lithium is tricky. Many thermal processes drive lithium into slag, making it hard to recover in a cost-efficient way from pyrometallurgy alone. Hydrometallurgy can recover lithium salts, but lithium concentrations are low relative to major transition metals, which means extra purification is required to reach battery-grade lithium carbonate or hydroxide. For chemistries that don’t contain cobalt or much nickel (e.g., LFP), recovering lithium becomes crucial to economics — and that’s precisely where processes need to be good but often are not yet industry-mature. Improving lithium-specific recovery is a key R&D priority across the sector.
Direct (closed-loop) recycling — potential and limits by chemistry
Direct recycling aims to recover cathode active material in a form close to its original crystal structure so it can be relithiated and reused with less chemical breakdown. In theory this is energy-efficient and cuts costs. In practice direct recycling is very sensitive to cathode chemistry, coatings, and contaminants. Layered NMC materials have been the focus of many direct-recycle pilots because their crystal structures can, under the right conditions, be repaired. LFP has a different crystal framework and often requires different reducing agents or relithiation techniques; the economics of direct recycling for LFP are uncertain because the material’s intrinsic value is low. The bottom line: direct recycling is promising but chemistry-dependent, and it will not be a one-size-fits-all solution.
Safety and process complexity bump up costs for some chemistries
Chemistries that are more thermally reactive or release problematic gases when shredded force recyclers to invest in inert handling, advanced gas treatment, and more conservative throughput. Those safety investments are real cash — they add to processing costs and raise the minimum feedstock value needed to justify a plant. High-nickel chemistries and cells with aggressive thermal behavior therefore create structural cost pressure that makes recycling harder until volumes and prices justify safety upgrades.
Economic angle: value drives the supply chain
Recycling is an economic activity. If the recovered materials can’t pay for collection, pretreatment, and refining, the stream will go informal or be exported cheaply. Because LFP contains cheap iron instead of expensive cobalt, its scrap value is lower and yields weaker economics for recycling. That does not mean LFP must never be recycled; it means incentives, regulations, or co-processing of mixed streams are needed to make LFP recycling viable. Policy levers — recycled-content mandates, subsidies, or deposit-refund systems — can tip the balance.
Real-world evidence: industry trends and strategic moves
Major recyclers and materials companies have shifted strategies as chemistries shift in the market. Companies that relied on cobalt value are retooling their flows to capture lithium and nickel more effectively, and some are investing in direct recycling R&D. The market’s move toward LFP in some EV segments has also caused strategic recalibrations: recyclers need to handle lower-value streams or specialize in hydrometallurgy and lithium recovery to maintain margins. The dynamic market shows that chemistry choices by OEMs affect whole circular-economy business models downstream.
What the sector can do: design, policy, and technology levers
Industry and policymakers can take practical steps to reduce headaches. Designers can adopt modular packs, minimize hard adhesives, and add digital passports so recyclers know chemistry and history. Policymakers can implement EPR schemes, recycled-content requirements, and collection infrastructure to boost volumes. Technologists should prioritize lithium recovery, anode reclamation, and safe inert handling for high-reactivity chemistries. Coordinated action across these fronts reduces the friction between chemistry choice and recycling ability.
Case study thought experiment: LFP vs NMC feedstock at a recycler
Imagine two feed streams equal by weight: one primarily LFP packs, the other primarily NMC622 packs. The NMC stream yields high nickel and cobalt recovery that pays for processing and helps justify high-capital hydrometallurgical plants. The LFP stream yields less revenue per tonne unless lithium is recovered aggressively and policy supports recycling. In practice a recycler handling mixed feed must choose a flow that balances both economics and safety; specialized plants or policy incentives can help make LFP recycling commercially viable.
R&D frontiers that would ease chemistry pain
Promising R&D targets include selective leaching agents that preferentially dissolve lithium at low cost, low-temperature relithiation processes for LFP, improved methods to delaminate electrodes without destroying particle morphology, and electrochemical recovery methods that reduce reagent use. Advances in non-destructive sorting and digital traceability also cut pretreatment costs by ensuring feedstock is homogeneous enough for efficient processing.
Conclusion
There’s no single “worst” chemistry in all senses. LFP poses a combined economic and technical challenge because it’s low in high-value metals and chemically distinct, which reduces current recycling incentives and complicates direct-recycle routes. High-nickel NMC/NCA pose safety and processing challenges even while offering stronger metal economics. Anodes (graphite, silicon) and future solid-state or ceramic electrolytes present additional technical hurdles that can undermine full-cell circularity even if cathode metals are recovered well. The clear takeaway is that chemistry choice matters upstream and downstream: manufacturers, recyclers, and policymakers must coordinate so that performance gains today don’t become toxic or uneconomic waste tomorrow.
FAQs
Is LFP “bad” because it’s hard to recycle?
No. LFP is not “bad” overall; it is safer in use, cheaper, and long-life. The issue is that its low cobalt and nickel content reduces scrap value and therefore the commercial incentive to recycle. That means public policy or technological innovation is needed to ensure LFP materials (especially lithium) are captured rather than lost.
Can direct recycling solve all chemistry problems?
Direct recycling is promising for some cathode types (notably certain layered oxides) but is chemistry-sensitive. It faces limits with LFP and mixed or contaminated feedstock. It will be part of a toolbox — alongside hydrometallurgy and pyrometallurgy — rather than a universal fix.
Are anodes (graphite/silicon) as important as cathodes for recycling strategies?
Yes. Anode recycling is technically hard and often overlooked economically. Recovered graphite needs purification and restoration to battery-grade performance, and silicon adds fresh complexity. For a truly circular cell supply chain, we must solve anode reclamation too.
Will future solid-state batteries make recycling easier?
Probably not automatically. Solid-state materials may be chemically and mechanically very different from today’s liquid-electrolyte cells, and their separation and recovery could be more complicated. Designing solid-state cells with recycling in mind is critical to avoid creating new waste problems.
What’s the single most practical step manufacturers can take to reduce recycling headaches?
Design for disassembly and traceability. Use modular pack architecture, minimize permanent adhesives, and add clear, machine-readable metadata about chemistry and cell history. That one change dramatically reduces pretreatment costs and improves recovery yields across chemistries.
Peter Charles is a journalist and writer who covers battery-material recycling, urban mining, and the growing use of microreactors in industry. With 10 years of experience in industrial reporting, he explains new technologies and industry changes in clear, simple terms. He holds both a BSc and an MSc in Electrical Engineering, which gives him the technical knowledge to report accurately and insightfully on these topics.
Leave a Reply