Highlights

• Monash University study finds China and the US are structurally incentivized to stockpile EV battery minerals, while Japan and South Korea are better positioned for recycling—a divergence reshaping global critical-minerals power dynamics.
• Research shows stockpiling reinforces China's processing dominance, with China projected to account for the largest share of global battery-mineral stockpiling needs through 2040, particularly for graphite and nickel.
• Study challenges the narrative that recycling alone can quickly solve mineral insecurity, revealing it cannot fully substitute for mining or stockpiling until the 2030s when large volumes of spent EV batteries become available.

---

A new academic study (opens in a new tab) led by Dr. Yitian Wang of Monash University’s Department of Economics, co-authored with Dr. Joaquin Vespignani (University of Tasmania / Australian National University) and Professor Russell Smyth (Monash Business School), offers a stark assessment of how major economies are responding to growing insecurity in electric-vehicle (EV) battery mineral supply chains.

Published as Stockpiling or Recycling? Country-Specific Strategies for EV Battery Mineral Security, the paper concludes that China and the United States are structurally incentivized to rely on strategic mineral stockpiling, while Japan and South Korea are better positioned to stabilize supply through recycling—a divergence with profound implications for global critical-minerals power dynamics.

What the Study Asked—and Why It Matters

As EV adoption accelerates, demand for battery minerals—lithium, cobalt, nickel, manganese, graphite, and copper—is rising far faster than new mines can be built. The authors ask a deceptively simple question: when mineral supply is risky and slow to develop, should countries protect themselves by stockpiling raw materials or by investing in recycling?

The answer, according to the study, depends not just on geology, but on non-technical risk—political instability, regulation, permitting delays, community opposition, and geopolitics. These risks inflate financing costs, delay projects, and amplify price volatility long before a single ton of ore is produced.

How the Researchers Did It

The team combined three major tools:

• Investment risk scoring, using the Fraser Institute’s Investment Attractiveness Index to quantify mining risk across jurisdictions.
• Reserve concentration analysis, weighting those risks by where global mineral reserves are actually located.
• Economic modeling, comparing the cost of holding mineral stockpiles against the risk and cost of supply disruptions, then benchmarking those costs against recycling feasibility.

The result is a practical framework showing, country by country and mineral by mineral, which strategy—stockpiling or recycling—is cheaper and more effective over time.

Key Findings—Who Stockpiles, Who Recycles

The conclusions are striking:

• China and the United States fall clearly into the stockpiling-advantaged category. Their large geographic size, dispersed populations, and high logistics costs make recycling comparatively expensive—at least until large volumes of end-of-life batteries emerge in the 2030s.
• Japan and South Korea are consistently recycling-advantaged, thanks to dense populations, concentrated industrial hubs, and efficient collection systems.
• Europe sits in between, with mixed outcomes: stockpiling favors nickel and graphite, while recycling is more viable for cobalt, manganese, and copper.

Crucially, the study indicates that China would account for the largest modeled share of global battery-mineral stockpiling needs through 2040, particularly for graphite and nickel—two materials where China already dominates refining and processing.

Why This Reinforces China’s Processing Advantage

While the paper focuses on EV battery minerals rather than rare earth elements directly, the structural logic is transferable. Stockpiling favors countries that already control processing infrastructure, because raw materials only become strategically useful once refined.

Rare Earth Exchanges™ has consistently reported that China’s true advantage lies not just in mining, but in system-level integration—from upstream supply through processing to manufacturing. This study shows how stockpiling acts as a force multiplier for that dominance, buffering supply shocks while keeping downstream factories running.

Controversial Implications—and Strategic Trade-Offs

The study challenges a popular policy narrative: that recycling alone can quickly solve mineral insecurity. The authors show that for most countries, recycling cannot fully substitute for mining or stockpiling until the 2030s, when large volumes of spent EV batteries become available.

This raises uncomfortable questions about whether stockpiling entrenches incumbent powers, delays diversification, or turns critical minerals into strategic financial assets rather than market commodities.

Key Limitations

The authors are explicit about constraints. The model assumes today’s battery chemistries; recycling costs depend on collection efficiency and logistics; and the analysis focuses on economic optimization, not environmental or social outcomes.

REEx Conclusion

This study is rigorous, sobering, and strategically revealing. It shows that stockpiling is not a temporary patch—it is a deliberate, long-term strategy for mineral power, particularly for countries like China that already dominate processing.

For Western policymakers and investors, the message is clear: without parallel investment in processing and recycling capacity, stockpiling alone risks reinforcing the very monopolies it seeks to hedge against.

Source: Wang, Y., Vespignani, J., & Smyth, R. Stockpiling or Recycling? Country-Specific Strategies for EV Battery Mineral Security. Monash University / ANU / University of Tasmania.

©!-- /wp:paragraph -->