The industrial sector accounts for ~23% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, driven largely by energy-intensive processes in steel, cement, and chemicals. As climate pressure mounts, decarbonizing this segment is now a national priority. Electrification of low- and medium-temperature heat can deliver 25–40% energy efficiency gains, while hydrogen-based alternatives are being piloted for high-temperature operations, albeit with 20–35% higher costs compared to fossil fuels.
The U.S. Department of Energy’s $6.3 billion Industrial Demonstrations Program is funding CCS and clean heat tech pilots, aiming to cut sectoral emissions by 35% by 2035. Early CCS projects in Texas and Louisiana show capture costs falling to $58–$67/ton, down from ~$100/ton five years ago. However, 70% of industrial energy use still relies on natural gas, and less than 15% of U.S. plants have begun transition planning.
Momentum is building, but scale depends on aligning grid capacity, carbon pricing, and regulatory certainty.
5 Key Takeaways:
Download the full report for cost benchmarks, policy tailwinds, and the emerging tech stack driving industrial decarbonization in America.
Sodium-ion batteries are projected to scale from <10 GWh in 2025 to ~110 GWh by 2030, with China accounting for 70% of this capacity. Initial adoption is led by grid-scale and two-wheeler applications. Rapid pilot-to-commercial transitions in 2026–27 are expected as BYD and HiNa Battery deploy large-scale facilities in Jiangsu and Gujarat. Global market penetration reaches ~12–15% by 2030, reflecting sodium’s cost and availability advantages over lithium.
Sodium-ion’s key cost advantage lies in raw materials: sodium carbonate at ~$260/ton vs lithium carbonate at $13,000–18,000/ton. Absence of nickel and cobalt further trims pack costs by 15–18%. Manufacturing CAPEX is comparable, but cell assembly requires lower environmental control, reducing facility costs by ~12%. By 2030, Na-ion packs are expected to cost ~$60/kWh compared to lithium-ion’s ~$115/kWh, driving strong substitution potential in cost-sensitive markets.
Stationary storage (grid and renewables) will represent ~55% of Na-ion demand by 2030, followed by two-wheelers (25%) and light EVs (15%). Consumer electronics remain a minor use case (<5%). Unlike lithium-ion, Na-ion’s moderate energy density (~160 Wh/kg by 2030) restricts long-range EVs but aligns with daily commuter and distributed storage markets. OEMs in India and Southeast Asia are early adopters due to favorable climate compatibility.
Current sodium-ion limitations include lower energy density (160–180 Wh/kg vs 250–300 Wh/kg for Li-ion) and suboptimal cycle life (~2,000 cycles). R&D efforts by Faradion and Tiamat Energy target density gains via hard carbon anodes and Prussian white cathodes. Thermal stability is an advantage, reducing fire risk by 25–30%. Key engineering focus through 2027 remains electrolyte optimization and mass-production standardization.
CATL leads commercialization with Na-ion battery packs integrated into Chery and Sehol EVs. Faradion (India/UK) and HiNa Battery (China) are major cell developers, while Northvolt and BYD plan hybrid Na-Li product lines by 2027. Patent filings for Na-ion tech rose 4.5x from 2021–2024. Supply chain verticalization — especially in China — provides a 20% cost edge. Europe trails with pilot-scale production under Tiamat and Altris initiatives.
Unlike lithium, sodium resources are geographically ubiquitous — primarily derived from seawater and soda ash. Raw sodium feedstock prices are 99% less volatile than lithium, ensuring predictable supply chains. Sodium carbonate capacity (~80 Mt globally) easily meets 2030 battery-grade demand of 5.5 Mt. The absence of cobalt and nickel cuts ESG risk and reduces mining dependency. China, India, and the U.S. collectively control >60% of sodium refining capacity.
China dominates Na-ion battery manufacturing with over 70% capacity by 2027, led by CATL and HiNa. India and the EU emerge as secondary hubs; Reliance and Tata Chemicals target 6–8 GWh combined capacity by 2030. Europe’s focus is stationary storage; India’s is two-wheelers. U.S. adoption lags due to policy gaps but could accelerate post-2028 with DOE-backed pilot programs.
OEMs are leveraging Na-ion packs to reduce dependence on lithium volatility and cut pack cost-to-sales ratio from 22% to 16% by 2030. BYD’s hybrid LFP–Na-ion platforms optimize cell integration, while Tata Motors plans sodium-based EVs under $10,000. Suppliers are co-locating cathode and pack assembly plants to minimize logistics and tariffs, saving ~$7–8/kWh. Enhanced thermal tolerance reduces need for expensive BMS systems.
Despite cost advantages, challenges include low energy density and limited charging infrastructure compatibility. Investment risks stem from uncertain automotive demand and lack of global standards. If energy density improvements stall below 170 Wh/kg, mass EV adoption could be delayed by 2–3 years. Dependence on Chinese supply chains also poses geopolitical risks. Analysts expect cost parity with LFP only by 2028 if large-scale localization occurs.
By 2030, Na-ion is projected to reach 180 Wh/kg energy density and 2,500 cycle life, narrowing the performance gap with LFP. Hybrid chemistries (Na–Li blends) may enter market by 2027, enabling flexible manufacturing lines. Global capacity expansion to 110 GWh reflects strong investment from CATL, BYD, Reliance, and Northvolt.
Global lithium demand is on a steep trajectory. From ~400,000 tons LCE in 2020, demand doubled to ~850,000 tons by 2023. By 2030, it is forecast to reach ~2.5M tons. EVs remain the largest driver, requiring 8–10 kg of lithium per vehicle, while grid-scale storage adds incremental pressure. Despite planned mines in Africa and Canada, long development timelines mean supply will remain tight. Recycling and demand efficiency will be crucial stabilizers.
Lithium production is highly concentrated: Australia holds ~47% share, Chile ~30%, and China ~15%. This concentration creates risks ranging from Chile’s resource nationalism to China’s dominance in refining (>60% global capacity). Latin America faces additional hurdles from permitting delays and community opposition. Western governments are responding with funding and the EU Critical Raw Materials Act, but execution will take years. Near-term supply remains vulnerable to geopolitics and environmental disputes.
EVs are the dominant driver of lithium demand. Global EV sales hit ~14M in 2023 and are expected to surpass 40M annually by 2030. Each EV battery requires 40–60 kg of LCE depending on chemistry. China leads with ~60% of global sales, followed by Europe and the U.S. Aggressive emissions mandates and OEM phase-out commitments fuel growth. Electrification of fleets, buses, and two-wheelers in emerging markets will further strain supply.
Recycling is emerging as a critical buffer. In 2025, recycled lithium will supply <10% of global demand, but by 2030 this could rise to 20–25%. Hydrometallurgy and direct recycling are improving recovery yields, while regulatory frameworks mandate higher recycling quotas. As end-of-life batteries grow in volume, recyclers can secure meaningful supply. This shift could reduce dependence on mining, stabilize costs, and cut carbon intensity in the value chain.
Hydrometallurgical processes dominate due to higher yields and controllable recovery rates. Direct recycling (cathode-to-cathode) is gaining traction for cost and energy efficiency, while pyrometallurgy remains relevant for mixed or contaminated feedstocks. Technology choice depends on chemistry, scale, and purity targets. The biggest hurdle is economics—direct recycling requires innovation at industrial scale, while hydrometallurgy faces energy intensity issues. Advancements in sorting, preprocessing, and modular plants are expected to improve viability.
Virgin lithium mining is capital-heavy, environmentally taxing, and slow to scale. Recycling offers 15–20% cost savings when factoring in logistics and refining costs. While recycling requires upfront plant investment, ongoing operational costs are lower and less exposed to geopolitical risks. Virgin extraction carries high energy and water use, while recycling reduces emissions and energy intensity. A dual-path strategy is expected: mining for new supply, recycling for long-term stability.
Policy frameworks are accelerating the recycling shift. The EU Battery Regulation mandates recycling quotas and introduces battery passports. The U.S. has rolled out Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), requiring OEMs to manage end-of-life batteries. China, already dominant in refining, is mandating traceability and high recovery rates. These policies are forcing automakers and suppliers to invest in closed-loop systems, creating compliance-driven demand for recycling infrastructure and reshaping supply contracts globally.
Despite optimism, scaling recycling is complex. Challenges include securing consistent feedstock, sorting diverse chemistries, achieving purity standards, and financing high-capex projects. Many plants struggle with throughput efficiency. Logistics of collecting, transporting, and storing end-of-life batteries add costs. Regulatory approvals and community opposition to new facilities further delay scaling. Without coordinated investment and policy support, recycling will fall short of its potential contribution by 2030.
OEMs are integrating recycling into supply chains to reduce volatility. Tesla, CATL, and European automakers have announced closed-loop partnerships with recyclers. Gigafactories increasingly co-locate recycling units to minimize logistics costs and secure raw materials. By 2030, closed-loop ecosystems could supply 20–30% of their lithium needs internally. This model reduces cost exposure, strengthens ESG credentials, and aligns with regulatory compliance. The strategy is becoming a key differentiator in the competitive EV landscape.
Lithium prices have been highly unstable. After surging in 2021–2022, prices collapsed ~80% by 2024. Supply-demand imbalances, speculation, and regulatory actions all contribute. Recycling offers a stabilizing effect by smoothing supply and reducing dependence on volatile mining markets. Analysts expect continued volatility, but greater recycling penetration could dampen extreme swings by 2030. Investors must plan for cyclical pricing but recognize recycling as a structural hedge.
By 2030, ~1.3M tons of EV batteries are expected to reach end-of-life annually, with the U.S. and Europe accounting for nearly half. This represents a significant feedstock for recyclers, enabling scale-up of circular supply. However, collection systems and logistics remain fragmented. Companies that secure feedstock contracts early will hold competitive advantages. This volume also raises safety and environmental considerations, underscoring the urgency of robust recycling infrastructure.
Mining remains essential, but recycling is rapidly becoming a growth frontier. Investors are diversifying exposure—some backing traditional miners in Latin America and Africa, others focusing on recycling startups in Europe, the U.S., and Asia. Recycling offers faster scaling potential, lower geopolitical risk, and stronger ESG credentials. Strategic investments via joint ventures, acquisitions, and vertical integration are expected to define the competitive landscape. Long-term, mining and recycling will be complementary, not competing, pillars of the lithium economy.
By 2030, commercial EV fleet deployment in the US & EU is projected to reach ~4.5 million vehicles, up from 600k in 2024. This translates to a CAGR of ~23%. Penetration of new commercial vehicle sales will hit 25–30% by 2030, with EU adoption outpacing the US due to stronger policy mandates. Fleet operators in last-mile logistics (Amazon, DHL, UPS) lead adoption, while municipal bus fleets in EU cities are also electrifying rapidly.
TCO parity between EVs and diesel fleets is expected by 2027 in last-mile delivery. By 2030, EVs will offer a 10–15% lower lifetime cost due to cheaper fuel (electricity vs diesel), lower maintenance, and declining battery prices. In 2025, EVs remain 5–10% costlier upfront but parity in operating costs accelerates adoption. Fleet operators will increasingly factor in carbon pricing and ESG-driven procurement mandates.
The main drivers include regulatory mandates (EU Green Deal, US state-level ZEV mandates), corporate ESG commitments, and cost savings from electrification. In surveys, 65% of fleet operators cited cost savings as the top driver, while 55% pointed to regulatory compliance. ESG mandates are particularly strong in the EU, where major cities are setting 2030 zero-emission logistics targets. Combined, these factors create a favorable environment for electrification.
Battery pack prices are expected to fall from ~$140/kWh in 2024 to $70–80/kWh by 2030, improving TCO economics. Every 10% decline in battery prices lowers vehicle CAPEX by ~6–7%. Energy density improvements also extend vehicle range by 20–25%, reducing downtime. US fleets benefit from Inflation Reduction Act subsidies, while EU fleets gain from CAPEX grants. These cost curves make commercial EVs increasingly attractive.
To support mass deployment, over 1.5M depot and public chargers are needed by 2030 in the US & EU. Depot charging (60%) will dominate for last-mile and logistics fleets, while public fast charging (25%) is critical for intercity transport. The remaining 15% will come from workplace and destination charging. Grid upgrades are also necessary, with electricity demand from fleets rising 5–7% annually.
The EU Green Deal mandates 100% zero-emission new vehicle sales by 2035, with interim 2030 targets. US regulations are more fragmented, with California leading (Advanced Clean Trucks mandate) and other states following slowly. Subsidies differ: US offers IRA tax credits of up to $40,000 per vehicle, while EU supports CAPEX grants and CO2 penalties on ICE fleets.
OEMs like Daimler, Volvo, Tesla, and BYD are leading in commercial EV launches. Charging providers (ABB, ChargePoint, Ionity) are scaling depot and fast-charging solutions. Fleet operators (Amazon, DHL, UPS) are early movers with large EV orders. By 2030, the top 5 OEMs are projected to hold ~65% of the market, while charging infrastructure remains fragmented across multiple players.
Logistics fleets are electrifying faster due to shorter routes and depot charging compatibility. Public transport fleets (buses) in the EU are supported by city-level zero-emission mandates, reaching ~40% electrification by 2030. In the US, adoption is slower, at ~25% for buses, due to fragmented funding. By contrast, logistics fleets in both regions are expected to exceed 35% electrification by 2030.
High upfront CAPEX remains a barrier. Leasing, battery-as-a-service (BaaS), and green bonds are emerging financing models. By 2030, ~30% of commercial EVs in the EU are expected to be financed via leasing/BaaS. US adoption of these models is slower but gaining traction. Subsidies reduce CAPEX burden, making these financing solutions more viable and accelerating fleet conversion.
Major risks include battery supply chain constraints (lithium, nickel), grid strain from rapid charging demand, and policy uncertainty in the US. If raw material bottlenecks persist, battery costs could stabilize instead of falling, delaying TCO parity. Grid strain could increase electricity prices by 5–7% annually in high-adoption regions. Policy rollbacks in the US pose another risk, though ESG and corporate commitments may mitigate impacts.
By 2030, commercial EV fleet deployment in the US & EU is projected to reach ~4.5 million vehicles, up from 600k in 2024. This translates to a CAGR of ~23%. Penetration of new commercial vehicle sales will hit 25–30% by 2030, with EU adoption outpacing the US due to stronger policy mandates. Fleet operators in last-mile logistics (Amazon, DHL, UPS) lead adoption, while municipal bus fleets in EU cities are also electrifying rapidly.
TCO parity between EVs and diesel fleets is expected by 2027 in last-mile delivery. By 2030, EVs will offer a 10–15% lower lifetime cost due to cheaper fuel (electricity vs diesel), lower maintenance, and declining battery prices. In 2025, EVs remain 5–10% costlier upfront but parity in operating costs accelerates adoption. Fleet operators will increasingly factor in carbon pricing and ESG-driven procurement mandates.
The main drivers include regulatory mandates (EU Green Deal, US state-level ZEV mandates), corporate ESG commitments, and cost savings from electrification. In surveys, 65% of fleet operators cited cost savings as the top driver, while 55% pointed to regulatory compliance. ESG mandates are particularly strong in the EU, where major cities are setting 2030 zero-emission logistics targets. Combined, these factors create a favorable environment for electrification.
Battery pack prices are expected to fall from ~$140/kWh in 2024 to $70–80/kWh by 2030, improving TCO economics. Every 10% decline in battery prices lowers vehicle CAPEX by ~6–7%. Energy density improvements also extend vehicle range by 20–25%, reducing downtime. US fleets benefit from Inflation Reduction Act subsidies, while EU fleets gain from CAPEX grants. These cost curves make commercial EVs increasingly attractive.
To support mass deployment, over 1.5M depot and public chargers are needed by 2030 in the US & EU. Depot charging (60%) will dominate for last-mile and logistics fleets, while public fast charging (25%) is critical for intercity transport. The remaining 15% will come from workplace and destination charging. Grid upgrades are also necessary, with electricity demand from fleets rising 5–7% annually.
The EU Green Deal mandates 100% zero-emission new vehicle sales by 2035, with interim 2030 targets. US regulations are more fragmented, with California leading (Advanced Clean Trucks mandate) and other states following slowly. Subsidies differ: US offers IRA tax credits of up to $40,000 per vehicle, while EU supports CAPEX grants and CO2 penalties on ICE fleets.
OEMs like Daimler, Volvo, Tesla, and BYD are leading in commercial EV launches. Charging providers (ABB, ChargePoint, Ionity) are scaling depot and fast-charging solutions. Fleet operators (Amazon, DHL, UPS) are early movers with large EV orders. By 2030, the top 5 OEMs are projected to hold ~65% of the market, while charging infrastructure remains fragmented across multiple players.
Logistics fleets are electrifying faster due to shorter routes and depot charging compatibility. Public transport fleets (buses) in the EU are supported by city-level zero-emission mandates, reaching ~40% electrification by 2030. In the US, adoption is slower, at ~25% for buses, due to fragmented funding. By contrast, logistics fleets in both regions are expected to exceed 35% electrification by 2030.
High upfront CAPEX remains a barrier. Leasing, battery-as-a-service (BaaS), and green bonds are emerging financing models. By 2030, ~30% of commercial EVs in the EU are expected to be financed via leasing/BaaS. US adoption of these models is slower but gaining traction. Subsidies reduce CAPEX burden, making these financing solutions more viable and accelerating fleet conversion.
Major risks include battery supply chain constraints (lithium, nickel), grid strain from rapid charging demand, and policy uncertainty in the US. If raw material bottlenecks persist, battery costs could stabilize instead of falling, delaying TCO parity. Grid strain could increase electricity prices by 5–7% annually in high-adoption regions. Policy rollbacks in the US pose another risk, though ESG and corporate commitments may mitigate impacts.
The NEVI program targets 500,000 chargers by 2030, up from ~50,000 installed in 2024. Annual installations must accelerate to 75,000+ chargers per year between 2026–2030 to stay on track. Early deployments focus on interstate corridors, expanding later into urban centers and underserved regions.
The NEVI program represents a $12–15B cumulative investment opportunity by 2030. California, Texas, New York, and Florida are expected to capture nearly 45% of the market due to large EV populations and highway networks. The Midwest and Southeast also offer high growth potential with federal matching funds accelerating adoption.
Deployment is slowed by permitting bottlenecks and utility interconnection timelines, adding 12–18 months to project schedules. Permitting delays vary by state, with California averaging 14 months, while Texas and Midwest states are closer to 9–10 months. Federal coordination with utilities is critical to accelerate deployments.
NEVI funding complements state programs like California’s CEC grants and New York’s NYSERDA incentives. State-level co-funding can cover up to 50% of project CAPEX, boosting ROI for developers. States with stronger programs will see faster NEVI rollouts, creating uneven adoption across the U.S.
California, Texas, and New York lead early deployment, followed by Florida and Illinois. Rural and underserved areas are prioritized under NEVI’s equity mandate, ensuring nationwide corridor coverage by 2030. Deployment speed will hinge on utility grid readiness and local permitting efficiency.
Charging providers are shifting from pure pay-per-kWh models to diversified revenue streams, including subscriptions, fleet contracts, and bundled services. By 2030, subscriptions and fleet charging are expected to represent ~55% of revenues, compared to <25% in 2025.
By 2030, the top five charging providers (Tesla, ChargePoint, EVgo, Electrify America, Blink) are projected to control over 60% of NEVI-funded sites. Market consolidation is expected as smaller players face scale disadvantages.
Utilities are central to NEVI deployment, handling interconnection and grid upgrades. Peak load management, demand response, and renewable integration are key priorities. Grid investments of $20–25B will be required by 2030 to support charging demand.
States with higher EV adoption rates (California, Washington, New York) align closely with NEVI rollout speed. By 2030, EV penetration is projected at 25–30% of new sales nationally, driving demand for corridor charging infrastructure.
Major risks include permitting delays, utility interconnection backlogs, supply chain shortages (chargers, transformers), and policy uncertainty post-2028. Addressing these bottlenecks is essential to achieving the 500,000-charger target by 2030.