Technical Classification
Definition
UNCTAD analysis of the global shift in battery chemistries (NMC to LFP to sodium-ion) and its impact on the demand for critical raw materials. Geopolitical UN perspective on resource security.
Technical Background
Market share shift: LFP from 30% (2020) to >60% (2025) in stationary storage. LFP eliminates cobalt/nickel dependency but increases lithium demand. Sodium-ion market-ready from 2026/27 for stationary applications — also eliminates lithium dependency. Raw material price volatility: lithium carbonate fluctuated between USD 12,000 and USD 80,000/t in 2022-2024.
Risks
Technology risk: LFP investments could be devalued by sodium-ion. Raw material price spikes: +500% lithium price increase in 18 months (2021-2022) documented. Regulatory requirements for raw material transparency are increasing. Recycling profitability is chemistry-dependent (NMC profitable, LFP marginal).
Standards & Regulations
EU Critical Raw Materials Act, EU Battery Regulation (carbon footprint, recycling), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Minerals, Dodd-Frank Act Section 1502, IEC 62660 (Secondary Lithium Cells).
Assessment Procedures
Material flow analysis (MFA) for critical raw materials. Supply risk assessment following EU methodology. Technology roadmap analysis. Cost modelling by chemistry variant. Recycling potential analysis.
Typical Deficiencies
Forecast uncertainty for technology breakthroughs (solid-state, sodium-ion). Raw material price models unreliable. Recycling infrastructure lags behind deployment. Lack of standardization for second-life chemistry assessment.
Relevance for Investors, Insurers & Operators
Investors: chemistry selection as a long-term strategic factor. Insurers: technology obsolescence as a depreciation risk. Operators: spare part availability and augmentation options when switching chemistries.
Assessment by PV-BESS-Assessor
The UNCTAD study analyzes the shift from NMC to LFP to sodium-ion and its impact on critical raw materials. The geopolitical UN perspective valuably complements technical analyses.
Impact on Investors
Strategic chemistry selection: LFP reduces cobalt/nickel dependency. Sodium-ion as a future alternative. Raw material price volatility as a risk factor.
Impact on Assessments
Relevant for technology evaluation in due diligence: PV-BESS-Assessor assesses long-term availability and obsolescence risks of the chosen cell chemistry.
Technical Risks
Technology risk: LFP investments could be devalued by sodium-ion. Raw material price spikes can undermine CAPEX calculations.
Regulatory Significance
EU Battery Regulation requires carbon footprint and recycling quotas. Critical Raw Materials Act affects procurement. CBAM implications.
Conclusion by PV-BESS-Assessor
PV-BESS-Assessor currently recommends LFP for stationary BESS due to its superior safety profile and lower raw material criticality — with monitoring of sodium-ion developments.
Last updated: 16 June 2026