What if one of the world’s most strategically important resources is hiding in something we have been throwing away?

Not oil. Not gold. Not even a newly discovered mineral buried deep underground.

Something far less remarkable to look at: a dark powder recovered from discarded lithium-ion batteries.

It’s called black mass.

At first glance, it looks like industrial waste. Yet it can contain some of the same minerals that power electric vehicles, smartphones and energy storage systems. Minerals that governments are now investing billions to secure, and that have become increasingly important to international trade and industrial policy.

But there is an interesting contradiction. Having these minerals does not necessarily mean you can use them. And possessing them does not automatically mean you control their supply.

To understand why critical minerals have become a geopolitical priority, we need to follow a story that begins with discarded batteries, takes us through China’s decades-long industrial strategy, and reveals why countries are now rethinking how global supply chains should work.

Figure 1. Black mass, a powder-like intermediate produced during lithium-ion battery recycling.

The Black Powder Hiding Valuable Minerals

When lithium-ion batteries reach the end of their useful lives, they do not simply lose everything that made them valuable. Inside them are materials that can potentially be recovered and reused.

During battery recycling, mechanical processing separates components such as metals and plastics, leaving behind a dark mixture of materials from the battery’s electrodes. This is black mass, which may contain lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese and graphite, depending on the battery chemistry.

But not all black mass is created equal. For example, lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries contain no nickel or cobalt, making their recycling economics different from those of nickel-rich batteries. As the US Environmental Protection Agency explains, black mass composition can vary considerably depending on the batteries and recycling processes involved.

So why has something that looks like waste attracted so much attention? Because the minerals inside it may be valuable, but the real challenge lies in turning them into materials that manufacturers can actually use.

The Real Power Isn’t in Owning Minerals. It’s in Refining Them.

Imagine owning a wheat farm but having no flour mill. You have the raw material, but you still depend on someone else to transform it into something a bakery can use.

Critical minerals present a similar challenge. Recovering lithium, nickel or cobalt from discarded batteries is only part of the process. These materials must also be separated, purified and converted into products that meet demanding industrial specifications. Recovered nickel and cobalt, for example, can be processed into high-purity sulphates, while lithium may be converted into lithium carbonate. These materials can then undergo further processing for battery manufacturing.

This can be achieved through technologies such as hydrometallurgy, which uses carefully controlled chemical processes to recover and purify metals. Other recycling approaches also exist, but the underlying objective remains the same: transforming recovered materials into commercially usable products.

This distinction has far-reaching implications. A country may possess substantial mineral reserves yet depend on another country for refining. It may even manufacture batteries while importing the processed materials required to produce them.

In other words, owning the resource and controlling its value chain are two very different things.

Few countries demonstrate the importance of that distinction better than China.

Figure 2. Novasensa mineral recovery samples showing the different colours and physical forms of recovered materials.

China’s Advantage Wasn’t an Accident. It Was Built.

We frequently hear that China dominates global critical mineral supply chains. What receives far less attention is how it achieved that position.

China was not the first country to develop lithium-ion batteries. The technology emerged from decades of scientific research across the United States, Europe and Japan, with Japan commercializing lithium-ion batteries in 1991. Japanese and South Korean companies subsequently became early industry leaders.

China’s rise came later, through a combination of sustained industrial investment, government policy, technological development and manufacturing scale.

One important milestone came in 2001, when China incorporated electric vehicle research into its national 863 high-technology programme. The initiative included research into batteries, motors and vehicle technologies. It was not a master plan for controlling the world’s critical minerals, but it demonstrated an early commitment to an industry that was still far from mainstream adoption.

The more consequential decisions came as that early research began connecting with commercial demand. In 2009, China introduced the “Ten Cities, Thousand Vehicles” programme, encouraging the adoption of electric vehicles in public transport fleets. Rather than waiting for a consumer market to develop naturally, the programme helped create early demand for electric vehicles, giving domestic battery manufacturers an incentive to expand production and improve their technologies.

Support continued through successive industrial policies. Electric vehicles became a strategic priority during China’s 2011–2015 Five-Year Plan, while the Made in China 2025 initiative reinforced the country’s focus on advanced manufacturing. China also expanded access to overseas mineral resources while developing domestic refining, battery component production and manufacturing capabilities.

Over time, these investments began reinforcing one another. A growing electric vehicle market supported battery manufacturers, larger battery production created demand for processed minerals, and increasing industrial scale helped companies develop technical capabilities and reduce costs.

The results are remarkable. According to the International Energy Agency’s September 2026 analysis, China accounted for approximately 85% of global lithium-ion battery production in 2025. The IEA’s Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2026 also reports that China accounts for around 90% of global battery material recovery capacity.

Figure 3. China remains the largest contributor to announced global battery material recovery capacity through 2030. The chart shows projected capacity, not actual recycling volumes.

Source: IEA (2024), “Expected battery recycling capacity by region based on current announcements, 2023–2030.” IEA analysis based on Circular Energy Storage data. Licence: CC BY 4.0. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/expected-battery-recycling-capacity-by-region-based-on-current-announcements-2023-2030

That second figure is particularly revealing. It refers to the industrial capacity to recover materials, not the proportion of batteries actually recycled. Nevertheless, it demonstrates how deeply China’s capabilities extend into the recycling segment of the battery supply chain.

China’s position was not built simply by possessing mineral deposits. It developed an interconnected industrial ecosystem capable of converting resources into high-value products.

There is an important lesson here: industrial leadership is rarely achieved overnight. It takes years of investment, technological learning, market development and coordinated execution.

But if China spent decades building these capabilities, what made the rest of the world suddenly recognize their strategic importance?

What Triggered the Global Critical Minerals Race?

For much of the twentieth century, oil dominated conversations about energy security and geopolitical influence. Today, critical minerals have entered that same strategic conversation, although their role is different. Unlike oil, which is consumed as fuel, many critical minerals remain embedded in equipment that can operate for years and eventually be recycled.

Their importance has grown alongside the technologies that depend on them. Electric vehicles, renewable energy systems, power networks and advanced electronics all require materials that must be mined, processed and manufactured into usable products.

The scale of this transformation is substantial. According to the IEA Global EV Outlook 2026, more than 20 million electric cars were sold globally in 2025, representing approximately one-quarter of all new car sales.

However, rising demand alone does not explain the urgency surrounding critical minerals. Recent geopolitical developments have exposed the vulnerabilities created when supply chains become heavily concentrated.

In April 2025, China introduced export controls on several medium and heavy rare earth elements, affecting materials used in specialized magnets and advanced manufacturing. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, a major cobalt-producing country, also suspended cobalt exports in 2025 before introducing an export quota system.

These developments concern different mineral markets, but they illustrate a shared vulnerability. Even when resources exist in sufficient quantities, access to them can be influenced by trade regulations, processing concentration and national industrial priorities.

Suddenly, the question was no longer simply whether enough minerals existed underground. It was whether countries could reliably obtain the processed materials their industries required.

And that realization has changed government priorities around the world.

How Governments Are Responding

The European Union has introduced its Critical Raw Materials Act, establishing benchmarks for 2030 that include processing capacity equivalent to at least 40% of its annual consumption of strategic raw materials and recycling capacity equivalent to at least 25%. It also aims to limit dependence on any single non-EU country to 65% at relevant stages of processing.

The United States is pursuing investments in domestic mineral processing, battery manufacturing and recycling. In August 2026, the US Department of Energy announced $500 million for seven selected projects intended to strengthen these capabilities.

India has recognized the importance of developing its own position in the critical minerals value chain. In January 2025, the Government of India approved the National Critical Mineral Mission, with proposed expenditure of ₹16,300 crore and an additional ₹18,000 crore in expected investment from public sector undertakings and other stakeholders. The mission covers exploration, mining, processing and recovery from end-of-life products.

Although their approaches differ, these initiatives reflect a common objective: reducing vulnerabilities while strengthening domestic industrial capabilities.

Yet they also raise an important strategic question. Does every country really need to build the entire critical minerals supply chain independently?

The Next Opportunity May Lie in Collaboration, Not Isolation

Consider the journey of a lithium-ion battery. Its minerals may be mined on one continent, refined on another, converted into battery components elsewhere and finally assembled into a finished product in a different country. Each stage requires specialized technology, infrastructure, investment and expertise.

Replicating that entire chain domestically would demand significant capital and time. In some cases, it may not even make economic sense.

Different countries possess different competitive advantages. Some have access to mineral resources, while others have advanced processing technologies, manufacturing expertise, skilled workforces or large consumer markets. The opportunity lies in recognizing how these strengths can complement one another.

A resource-rich country could partner with a technology provider to establish refining operations. A manufacturing hub could collaborate with specialized recyclers to secure additional sources of processed materials. Research institutions and industrial companies could work together to commercialize recovery technologies.

Such partnerships could accelerate industrial development while distributing investment requirements and reducing dependence on concentrated supply chains. They would still need to address environmental standards, financing, trade regulations and commercial risks, but collaboration offers an alternative to attempting to recreate every capability independently.

China’s experience demonstrates the advantages of long-term planning and interconnected industries. Other countries can learn from that experience without necessarily following an identical development model.

The objective need not be complete self-sufficiency. It can be greater resilience through diversified supply chains, complementary capabilities and strategically chosen partnerships.

And this is where the opportunity presented by black mass becomes particularly relevant.

Could Yesterday’s Waste Become Tomorrow’s Strategic Resource?

Black mass represents an interesting opportunity because it contains materials that have already been mined and processed once. Recovering them can create an additional source of critical minerals, complement primary mining and reduce the amount of valuable material lost when batteries reach the end of their useful lives.

However, battery recycling is not an immediate solution to mineral dependence. Many electric vehicle batteries will remain in use for years before becoming available for recycling, and changing battery chemistries are reshaping the industry’s economics.

In 2025, LFP batteries, which contain no nickel or cobalt, accounted for more than 55% of electric vehicle batteries deployed globally, according to the IEA. This creates new challenges for recyclers whose business models have historically depended on recovering higher-value metals such as cobalt and nickel.

Figure 4. LFP batteries increased their share of EV battery sales in China and emerging markets between 2023 and 2025, while nickel-based chemistries remained more prevalent in Europe and the United States.

Source: IEA (2026), “Electric vehicle battery sales share by chemistry and region, 2023–2025,” Global EV Outlook 2026. IEA analysis based on EV Volumes and China Automotive Battery Industry Innovation Alliance data. Licence: CC BY 4.0. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/electric-vehicle-battery-sales-share-by-chemistry-and-region-2023-2025

The long-term opportunity therefore extends beyond collecting discarded batteries or producing black mass. It lies in developing efficient technologies that can recover valuable materials, refine them to the required specifications and return them to industrial supply chains.

This creates opportunities for countries and companies that may not possess extensive mineral reserves but can contribute technological expertise, processing capabilities and access to markets. As the volume of end-of-life batteries grows, these capabilities could become increasingly important.

Recycling will not replace mining, but it can become a valuable complementary source of critical minerals. More importantly, it demonstrates how industrial capability can create value from resources that might otherwise be discarded.

The Future Won’t Be Defined by Who Owns the Most Minerals

There is a larger lesson in this story.

China’s rise demonstrates what sustained industrial planning and technological development can achieve. The global response highlights the importance of resilient supply chains, while advances in battery recycling reveal new opportunities to recover valuable materials from existing products.

The next chapter of the critical minerals industry may not necessarily be written by countries with the largest mineral deposits. It may be shaped by those that develop the right technologies, invest in competitive processing capabilities and build partnerships that connect resources with expertise.

Black mass is one example of that opportunity. What was once treated as waste can become a source of valuable industrial materials, not because waste has suddenly turned into gold, but because science, technology and collaboration can unlock value that would otherwise be lost.

Perhaps the real question isn’t who controls the world’s critical minerals.

It’s who knows how to make the most of them.