Author name: Redaktion

About half of the spent lithium-ion batteries collected from power tools are not deeply discharged. Yet only a small share can currently be refurbished economically. The EASLi research project examined which recovery route makes sense for different batteries—and found that earlier, more effective sorting is key. Led by Stiftung GRS, a consortium of companies across the battery value chain and end-of-life management sector examined the technically and practically viable options for spent nickel manganese cobalt (NMC) lithium-ion batteries from power tools. Project partners included Robert Bosch Power Tools, Gemeinsame Rücknahmesystem Servicegesellschaft mbH, Battery Damage Service (BDS), Erlos Produktion und Montagen GmbH, and ECOLOGICON GmbH. The German Federal Environmental Foundation (DBU) funded the project from January 2025 through February 2026. The work focused on three pathways: refurbishing batteries for a second service life (Loop 1); high-value hydrometallurgical recycling that can return recovered materials to cathode production (Loop 2); and pyrometallurgical processing to recover lower-grade secondary raw materials (Loop 3). What comes back through collection systems Three sorting campaigns examined more than four metric tons of material collected at take-back sites, including recycling centers and home improvement stores. Lithium-ion batteries accounted for approximately 55% of the power tool batteries examined. Nickel-cadmium (NiCd) batteries still made up 37% of that fraction, reflecting the continued return of older products—even though NiCd batteries have been prohibited in power tools placed on the market since 2017. The high NiCd share illustrates how long power tool batteries can remain in circulation. For the roughly one-quarter of batteries with an identifiable manufacturing year, the average time between manufacture and collection was about ten years. The oldest dated back to 1989. Batteries used by private consumers were returned after approximately eight years, compared with about four years for those used commercially. Technical potential remains Overall, around 70% of the sorted power tool batteries were deeply discharged, a figure driven largely by older NiCd batteries. By contrast, about half of the lithium-ion batteries were not deeply discharged, and newer batteries tended to retain a higher state of charge. In other words, today’s recycling stream includes batteries that may not have reached the end of their useful technical life and could warrant further evaluation for reuse or second-life applications. To assess how many batteries might actually qualify for reuse, BDS tested 265 used 18-volt battery packs. The evaluation process ranged from visual inspection and pack- and cell-voltage measurements to state-of-health (SoH) testing through charge-discharge cycling. The findings were sobering: 62% of the packs were deeply discharged, and more than one-third registered below 4 volts—an indication of potentially irreversible cell damage. The subsequent SoH assessment examined two distinct return streams: one closely linked to a manufacturer and another collected through a take-back system. In the respective subsamples, 30% and 11% of the battery packs were deemed suitable for reuse. Because those subsamples comprised only 64 and 19 packs, respectively, the findings cannot be considered representative of either return stream as a whole. Why reuse has yet to become a viable business model Low reuse rates pose a major challenge to economic viability. Under the study’s scenario, which assumed German labor costs, the expense of testing and measurement equipment would likely exceed the revenue generated by reselling reusable battery packs. According to the final report, making the process commercially scalable would require more targeted presorting, automation of individual testing steps, or different terms for acquiring used batteries. Regulatory obstacles add to the challenge. When end users discard batteries for disposal, those batteries are classified as waste and may be transferred only to certified waste-management companies. Power tool manufacturers generally do not hold the relevant certifications. Questions also remain about liability, warranties, and the branding under which refurbished batteries could be sold. In addition, uniform standards for testing and reuse are lacking. Battery design presents another obstacle. Power tool battery packs are engineered for durability and safe operation, not easy disassembly. Adhesives and a wide range of materials make refurbishment more difficult. The project’s final assessment is therefore cautious: second-life applications are technically feasible, but significant regulatory, practical, and economic barriers continue to prevent widespread adoption. High-value recycling is likely to handle the largest share The project team expects most end-of-life NMC power tool batteries to enter Loop 2, provided that sufficient identification and sorting capabilities are available. Refurbishment is expected to account for the second-largest share, with pyrometallurgical processing handling the smallest. Trials conducted by ERLOS yielded practical findings for Loop 2. Because battery management systems generally prevent complete discharge, the company tested a wet-discharge process that reduced battery-pack voltage to below 1 volt within 24 hours. Adding a zinc salt reduced corrosion. The trials also indicated that mixed batches of NMC and nickel cobalt aluminum (NCA) batteries can be directed into the same hydrometallurgical recycling stream under Loop 2. For process quality, contamination from materials such as plastics and electrolyte residues matters more than the precise cathode chemistry. This makes early separation of lithium-ion batteries from other battery types particularly important. Three decision points instead of one matrix EASLi originally set out to develop a multicriteria assessment system to identify the optimal recovery route for each battery. Over the course of the project, however, it became clear that such a matrix would be of limited practical use: collection sites, sorting facilities, and refurbishment companies have access to different information and face different operational decisions. The team instead developed decision trees for three points along the process where those decisions are actually made. At a collection site, basic questions can guide an initial assessment: Can the battery chemistry be identified? Is the housing damaged or contaminated? Are the contacts intact, and is the manufacturer identifiable? Sorting facilities distinguish between battery chemistries, while refurbishers additionally assess state of charge and SoH. The approach is intended to help smaller companies direct batteries toward appropriate recovery pathways without extensive data collection. EASLi thus addresses an often-overlooked aspect of battery recycling: the quality of recovered materials depends not only on the recycling technology itself, but also

Battery technology is complex—and simple answers often fall short. Battery News is expanding its coverage with a new video format: On YouTube, battery researcher Merlin Frank explains what is behind the latest developments, drawing on data and scientific evidence while keeping the content accessible. Whether the topic is service life, recycling, raw materials, or new cell technologies, batteries generate plenty of headlines—but not always enough context. That is where the new format comes in. Merlin Frank, a doctoral researcher at RWTH Aachen University, aims to explain what the numbers, studies, and technological developments actually mean. Less hype, more data. Batteries are no longer just a component of electric vehicles. They play a central role in mobility, energy supply, and industry—and are the subject of intense debate. Range, aging, raw materials, recycling, safety, and the global technology race involving Europe, China, and other regions regularly make headlines. With the new video offering, Battery News will also cover these topics in a format that provides more room for data, background, and technical context. Merlin Frank will be the face of the series. The doctoral researcher at RWTH Aachen University wants to show what lies behind the numbers, studies, and technological developments. Between Oversimplification and Technical Jargon One challenge, in Merlin Frank’s view, is how battery topics are often communicated. At one end of the spectrum are highly simplified explanations; at the other are highly specialized technical articles that can be difficult to follow without substantial prior knowledge. The new format is designed to bridge that gap. “My aim is to combine the two: technically rigorous and data-driven, but explained in a way that viewers without extensive prior knowledge can follow,” says Merlin Frank. Wherever possible, claims will not rest on isolated examples or personal assessments. Studies, market data, and Frank’s own analyses will provide the basis for putting figures and developments into a broader context. That is particularly important when it comes to batteries, because many questions cannot be answered simply as “good” or “bad.” How sustainable a battery is depends, for example, on its cell chemistry, manufacturing, use, electricity mix, service life, and end-of-life recycling. Claims about technological competitiveness or raw-material dependencies also require context. Rather than offering simple answers, Merlin Frank wants to make clear what conclusions the available data support—and where the evidence does not allow for a definitive judgment. From Cell Chemistry to the Battery Market The video format will cover a broad range of topics. Planned content includes foundational videos on subjects such as cell chemistries, battery design, aging mechanisms, and charging behavior. Data-driven market analyses and manufacturer comparisons will also play an important role. Merlin Frank also plans to address current developments, including new battery technologies, recycling processes, manufacturing sites, and developments among European and Asian battery manufacturers. The format therefore spans both foundational knowledge and current industry analysis. On-location reporting is also planned for the future. Merlin Frank aims to visit research institutions, companies, and industry events to show technological developments where they are being created and put into practice. Not Just for Battery Experts The target audience is intentionally broad. The videos are aimed at technically curious viewers and EV drivers as well as students, engineers, and professionals working with batteries, electric mobility, or energy technology. The key requirement is not a particular level of technical expertise, but an interest in understanding technological developments in greater depth. Merlin Frank wants to preserve technical depth without assuming that viewers are already experts in electrochemistry or battery production. Complex concepts should become easier to understand without being simplified to the point that important distinctions or uncertainties are lost. One Topic per Week As a rule, one new video is planned per week. Most episodes will run about 10 to 20 minutes, while more extensive analyses may be longer. The videos are intended to stay concise enough to address individual questions in a focused way while still leaving enough room for context and data. The new offering expands Battery News coverage with a format for anyone who wants to go beyond the headline when it comes to batteries: less hype, more data—and more room to understand what is really happening technologically. To the YouTube channel

Starting in 2027, Tesla plans to produce its own 4680 battery cells in Grünheide and ramp annual capacity to as much as 18 GWh. While several battery cell projects across Europe have been delayed, scaled back, or halted, Tesla continues to invest in local manufacturing. Robert Meyer, Cell Factory Lead at Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg, explains why the strategy is not just about cost, but also about resilience, expertise, speed, and greater control over the company’s own value chain. Why Europe, and Why Now? For Tesla, cell manufacturing in Grünheide is part of a broader principle: supply chains should be localized wherever possible, while manufacturing processes should be closely integrated both horizontally and vertically. According to the company, this is the model Tesla follows at its sites worldwide. At Gigafactory Berlin-Brandenburg, the focus from the outset was therefore not only on a high degree of vertical integration, but also on localizing as much of the supply chain as possible within Europe. “Localizing cell manufacturing puts us in a position to produce everything from the battery cell to the finished vehicle at a single site. That is unique in Europe,” Meyer says. From a purely economic perspective, however, the decision is far from an obvious one. Tesla acknowledges that battery cell manufacturing in Europe is currently difficult to justify in a direct cost comparison. Even so, the company remains committed to the plan. “From a purely cost perspective, the move offers limited advantages. For us, however, this is a strategic decision,” Meyer says. Tesla wants to strengthen supply-chain resilience, reduce dependencies, and at the same time expand vertical integration and manufacturing expertise at the site. From Learning in Texas to Ramp-Up in Grünheide Building a battery cell factory is not simply a matter of capital investment or installed capacity. The real challenge is whether complex processes can be translated reliably into high-volume production — with sufficient quality, high yield, and the shortest possible ramp-up time. Tesla sees an advantage here in not having to start from scratch. Lessons learned from 4680 production at its sister factory in Texas are expected to support the ramp-up in Grünheide. “The combination of high product and process complexity with high production volumes is a challenge,” Meyer explains. “But for the ramp-up of our cell factory in Grünheide, we benefit enormously from the fact that we have already solved this challenge at our sister factory in Texas.” Dry Electrode as a Key Technology The dry-electrode process plays a particularly important role. With dry coating, electrodes are manufactured without the conventional solvent-based wet process. For Tesla, the technology is a central element of its planned 4680 production in Grünheide. Because energy-intensive drying ovens are no longer required, Tesla says the process reduces both factory footprint and capital expenditure. It also eliminates costs associated with recovering toxic solvents. “The process not only has a noticeable positive impact on production costs, but also on the environmental footprint of manufacturing,” Meyer says. Another benefit is the significantly lower energy demand. Especially for battery cell production in Europe, more efficient processes could therefore become a decisive competitive factor. Vertical Integration Meets Europe’s Location Challenge Local cell manufacturing is also intended to make Tesla less dependent on a European supplier environment that, in the company’s view, is not yet comparable with the established battery ecosystems in Asia. Meyer points to Tesla’s factory in Shanghai, where the company sources cells from Chinese manufacturers and integrates them into its own vehicle production. “There simply isn’t a comparable ecosystem of manufacturers here that could serve as suppliers,” he says of Europe. At the same time, Tesla believes Europe is at a disadvantage in the global competition with China and the United States, citing in particular the absence of output-based incentives for battery cells in the EU. “In international competition, it is currently extremely difficult to manufacture cells economically in Europe,” Meyer says. From the company’s perspective, Europe needs clear and targeted framework conditions if battery cell technology is to become firmly established in the region over the long term. How Tesla Is Building Cell Manufacturing Expertise in Grünheide Alongside technology and capital, the ramp-up in Grünheide will above all be a workforce challenge. Tesla plans to hire more than 1,500 additional employees for cell manufacturing. At the same time, experienced battery cell manufacturing expertise remains scarce in Europe. Tesla is responding with a broad recruiting strategy. Prior experience in cell manufacturing is explicitly not a hiring requirement. “We are well aware that we are doing pioneering work here in Europe,” Meyer says. Tesla’s approach is to bring together people from different industries and with diverse professional backgrounds. Career changers can even be an advantage, he argues, because they may approach complex problems with a fresh and unbiased perspective. The strategy is supported by internal training and education programs. The Ramp-Up Playbook: Speed, Collaboration, and People What ultimately determines whether a gigafactory ramps successfully? For Meyer, speed comes first. “Speed is critical. We have to learn from our mistakes quickly and constantly ask ourselves whether a problem can be solved even faster.” That requires more than technical solutions. The organization itself also matters: teams need to collaborate closely across sites while retaining enough autonomy to make fast decisions. Striking the right balance between sharing best practices and maintaining local decision-making authority can accelerate the ramp-up process. Ultimately, however, Meyer traces the technical and operational challenge back to a classic factor: people. “To make such an ambitious project successful, you need highly motivated and committed employees who are all working toward the same goal.” Tesla at the Future Battery Forum 2026 Robert Meyer will continue the discussion on how battery cell production can be scaled successfully in Europe on November 24 and 25 at the Future Battery Forum at ECC Berlin. On the panel “The gigafactory scale-up playbook: Execution, yield, and speed,” he will join other international representatives from the battery cell industry. Tesla will also have its own booth at the Future Battery Forum and will

Battery-News presents an updated map of European testing facilities for batteries and battery systems in cooperation with the Chair of Production Engineering of E-Mobility Components (PEM) at RWTH Aachen University. The overview reflects the status as of February 2026 and was compiled by Niklas Kisseler and Tom Schäfer (PEM, RWTH Aachen University). Testing facilities across 13 European countries The map covers facilities in Germany, the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Switzerland, Italy, Austria, Poland, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Germany has by far the largest concentration of entries, with additional locations across countries including the United Kingdom, France, and Italy. The overview includes specialized testing providers, research institutes, and in-house testing facilities. It illustrates the geographic distribution of Europe’s battery testing infrastructure. The underlying data comes from official announcements by the organizations listed and reliable battery industry sources. The map is available for free download in high resolution. This overview does not claim to be exhaustive. The editorial team welcomes corrections and additions through the contact form.

The E-Mobility Production Awards will be presented for the fourth time on October 20, 2026, at the Battery Production Days (BPD) in Aachen. Prizes will be awarded in three categories: the Jury Awards “Battery Production” and “E-Motor Production,” and the Community Award “Process Innovation in Battery Production – supported by VDMA Battery Production” The awards are presented by the PEM Institute at RWTH Aachen University, PEM Share and Berylls by AlixPartners. Applying for the community award Unlike the two jury awards, the community award is decided on the basis of submitted entries. Eligible are technologies and methods that improve the efficiency, quality, or sustainability of battery production. Applications can be submitted until October 1, 2026, using the Award-Website. An award committee will draw up a shortlist based on two criteria: degree of novelty, and benefit and potential. Applicants will find out on October 2, 2026, whether their innovation has reached the final round. Two-stage voting The finalists are decided in a two-stage vote. Online voting runs until October 18, 2026. The entries will then be presented as posters at the Battery Production Days on October 20 and put to a live vote on site. The awards will be handed over the same day from 6 p.m. at the BPD evening event in Aachen. Attending the Battery Production Days is a prerequisite for taking part in the live vote and the award ceremony. Tickets and further information are available at battery-production-days.de.

Battery-News is becoming part of the newly independent PEM Share GmbH. The new company combines trade media with training, events, and a network spanning industry, research, and startups. For readers, that should mean one thing above all: more context, more real-world relevance, and new formats — while journalistic standards remain unchanged. Readers of Battery-News will continue to get reliable news from the battery industry. What’s new, above all, is what’s growing behind the editorial team: PEM Share is building an environment where technical expertise, industrial experience, training, and industry contacts come together more closely. Battery-News remains the media foundation of that environment — but will be able to move beyond spot news more often, providing deeper context on industry developments. For the editorial team, that’s the next step: Battery-News is professionalizing further, without changing its editorial core. PEM Share GmbH is being established as an independent company as part of the broader restructuring of the former PEM Motion ecosystem. Its focus is on knowledge transfer, professional development, media, and networking. Alongside Battery-News, its portfolio includes the Battery Production Days and the E-Mobility Production Awards. In short: what stays — and what’s new What stays: Battery-News continues to report as a journalistic industry platform covering companies, technologies, markets, and regulatory developments. What’s new: Broader access to technical expertise, industrial practice, and additional sources. What will expand: Analysis, interviews, project reports, and multimedia and interactive formats. What remains non-negotiable: A clear separation between corporate interests, expert assessments, and editorially verified facts. More than another news item The battery industry isn’t just producing more innovations — it’s also generating more information. New production technologies, regulatory requirements, battery safety questions, European supply chains, and new cell and storage concepts are all evolving in parallel. For industry professionals and decision-makers, simply knowing that something happened is increasingly not enough. What matters is understanding what a given development means technically, economically, and from a regulatory standpoint. That’s exactly where Battery-News plans to focus more going forward. Through the PEM Share network, the editorial team can draw on experts, companies, research institutions, and emerging technology providers. That access is especially useful for topics that can’t be assessed based on corporate announcements or market data alone, but require additional technical and industrial context. The plan is to supplement current news more often with background knowledge and application-focused perspectives. That includes in-depth analyses of technologies and production processes, context on regulatory and economic developments, conversations with experts, and reports from development and industrialization projects. Content related to training sessions, trade events, and industry gatherings will also be more closely connected. Knowledge transfer in both directions The connection between media, training, and network is not a one-way street. Questions that surface in Battery-News’ coverage can spark ideas for training sessions and expert discussions. Conversely, discussions from events or industrial projects can point to topics that have so far received too little attention in public industry communication. “The battery industry doesn’t need more information — it needs better context. At PEM Share, we combine technical know-how, industrial practice, and industry communication, turning news into knowledge that actually helps companies move forward,” says Christoph Lienemann, managing director and shareholder of PEM Share GmbH. Clear roles, shared expertise As part of the new PEM Group structure, PEM Share will concentrate on knowledge, media, professional development, and networking. PEM Volterra handles battery testing, analysis, compliance, and market access, while the new PEM Motion oversees industrial development and innovation projects. WLF Energy, which now houses the former Battery Management Systems business unit, is also part of the expanded partner network. PEM Share is backed by Christoph Lienemann, Sebastian Küster, Prof. Achim Kampker, and Dr.-Ing. Christoph Deutskens as shareholders, with Prof. Heiner Heimes serving as an advisory board member. These experts and industry veterans bring together experience from research, industrial implementation, training, and industry communication. Their combined perspectives help not only track developments, but also make sense of them for the industry in clear, practical terms. The Battery-News editorial team itself remains unchanged. This seasoned team continues to bring its journalistic experience and industry expertise to the table — with plans to keep growing in the years ahead.

Battery-News presents an updated map of battery production equipment providers in Europe in cooperation with the chair “Production Engineering of E-Mobility Components” (PEM) of RWTH Aachen University (as of February 2026). The overview was compiled by Sebastian Wolf and Professor Heiner Heimes (PEM, RWTH Aachen University). Equipment suppliers across five production areas The map covers equipment providers in 14 European countries. Germany has by far the largest concentration of listed companies, while additional suppliers are located in Italy, Austria, Switzerland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Poland, Sweden, Finland, Hungary and Spain. The overview distinguishes five areas of battery production: electrode manufacturing, cell assembly, cell finishing, module and pack production, and atmosphere conditioning. Several companies supply equipment for more than one of these production stages. The map therefore illustrates both the geographical distribution of suppliers and their respective fields of activity. The map is available for free download in high resolution. This overview does not claim to be exhaustive – the editorial team welcomes corrections and additions via the contact form.

Manufacturing modern battery cells places stringent demands on the environment in which they are produced. Controlling moisture, particulate matter, and potential emissions is especially critical. While dry rooms have long been established in conventional lithium-ion production, new battery types and specialized applications are introducing additional challenges. We spoke with Bahattin Celik, dry room expert at Weiss Technik, about how dry room requirements are currently evolving — and why these specialized production environments are becoming a priority once again. Dry rooms have been a central component of battery cell production for years. What role do they play today in practice — and why is moisture control so critical for many battery types? Dry rooms are no longer a ‘nice to have’ — they are an absolute prerequisite for many battery manufacturing processes. Depending on the cell chemistry, moisture directly interferes with the electrochemical properties and can significantly impact both performance and lifetime. Particularly in early process steps, such as electrode manufacturing or cell assembly, even trace amounts of water are enough to cause problems that only manifest weeks or months later in the field. That is why maintaining a stable, reproducible dry room atmosphere is critical. Does this apply equally to all battery types — or do requirements differ significantly depending on the application? The differences can be substantial. Conventional NMC or LFP battery cells — for example, those used in automotive applications — are already sensitive to moisture, but many specialty batteries are considerably more critical. For certain types, even minimal deviations from the target dew point can irreversibly damage materials. Add to this the fact that in specialty applications we frequently work not with high production volumes, but with very precisely defined processes. There is little margin for error, and the requirements for stability and process control are correspondingly higher. Where do you see the most significant differences between dry rooms for conventional automotive cells and those for specialty batteries — for example, in defense or aerospace applications? Automotive battery dry rooms are strongly oriented toward throughput and standardization — which makes perfect sense. Specialty batteries are exactly the opposite: smaller material quantities, unique cell chemistries, and often elevated safety requirements. Production processes must be more flexible, since reconfigurations inside the dry room are more frequent, and there are often additional requirements stemming from explosion protection or hazardous materials regulations. All of this has a major influence on dry room design — from airflow management to sensor systems, filtration, and controls. You also work with battery types such as thermal batteries and thionyl chloride cells. What makes these applications particularly demanding from a dry room engineering perspective? Thermal batteries involve highly reactive, extremely moisture-sensitive materials — sometimes in powder or pellet form. Other systems use aggressive or unstable media that must also be handled safely. From a dry room perspective, this means very stable dew points, controlled particulate levels, and at the same time a high degree of process safety. The fact that only very small quantities of materials are processed makes control and monitoring even more challenging. Why do conventional gas detection systems and sensors struggle with very small quantities of substances? Many gas detection systems and sensors are designed for standard industrial applications. In extremely dry air and with very low emission levels, these systems quickly reach their physical detection limits. Measurement signals become unstable or fall near the detection threshold. In an emergency, this can be problematic, because trends or gradual changes are recognized too late — posing a risk to both personnel and product. In the specialty battery environment, simply monitoring threshold values is usually not sufficient. What solutions are available? Do sensor systems and safety concepts need to be specifically adapted for such environments? Absolutely. In these applications, sensor systems, gas detection concepts, and filtration must be developed in an integrated system. This can mean incorporating additional filtration stages or repositioning measurement points — for example, closer to the hazard source, or through the use of redundant sensors. The suitability of sensors for extremely dry ambient conditions must also be factored into the technical selection process. The control strategy plays a central role as well: it is not simply a matter of ‘alarm yes or no,’ but rather how the overall system responds to even the smallest deviations. For instance, when detecting hazardous substances, a pre-alarm level can be used to initiate technical countermeasures in the system at an early stage, preventing harm to personnel or product. In most cases, this is not purely a hardware issue, but rather a combination of well-thought-out design, intelligent programming, and the experience required for accurate hazard assessment. You mention specialized adaptations in sensor systems and filters. Another concept that plays a role here is that of mini environments. What is behind this term? Mini environments are essentially locally enclosed battery production units within a dry room that provide even stricter or more specialized conditions. Rather than bringing the entire dry room to an extremely low dew point, the focus is placed selectively on the truly critical process steps and production equipment along the battery manufacturing line. This increases process reliability while also being economically sensible — particularly for smaller production runs or changing production layouts. Comparing these concepts — the conventional dry room, the mini environment, and taking it one step further: micro environments, i.e., the complete encapsulation of the process itself — what are the respective strengths of each, and which approach is right for which use case? The conventional dry room is robust and easily accessible — ideal for many standard processes. Mini environments offer an excellent balance of control, flexibility, and cost. Micro environments — fully enclosed sections within the production equipment — enable maximum control, but also come with significant demands in terms of maintenance, service, and emergency procedures. The right solution depends heavily on the process, the cell chemistry, and the operational requirements. There is no blanket ‘better or worse’ answer. Micro environments sound attractive at first — less space, more