News

RHINOCEROS & RENOVATE exchange lessons on reintegrating recycled battery materials into new cells

10/11/2026

Recovering valuable materials from spent batteries is only a part of recycling challenge. Making sure those materials can be used again in new battery cells is the other part of the story. A bilateral technical exchange between the RHINOCEROS and RENOVATE projects looked at what happens after battery materials are recovered, when they need to be reintegrated into electrode and cell manufacturing and deliver the required performance.

The exchange was facilitated through the Cluster Hub ‘Materials for batteries’ and arrived in a moment when RHINOCEROS is working towards validating recovered cathode and anode active materials in new cells. RENOVATE’s experience brought a complementary perspective through FAAM/FAENIX’s work as battery manufacturer testing recycled graphite from production scrap and the regeneration of lithium iron phosphate (LFP) cathode materials. Currently, FAAM purchases pristine LFP and graphite from external suppliers. Its future plans include developing European LFP production and expanding the recovery of active materials from manufacturing scrap – objective that has led their involvement in RENOVATE project.

On behalf of FAAM/FAENIX, Dr Carmen Cavallo presented preliminary results from RENOVATE’s work on low-temperature LFP regeneration, alongside laboratory tests assessing the suitability of recycled graphite for new battery electrodes.

FAAM/FAENIX tested electrode formulations containing 100% recycled graphite as well as blends, examining viscosity, electrode properties and electrochemical performance. The first conclusions indicate that integration is not necessarily straightforward. But prospects for further investigation are interesting and should consider differences between laboratory and industrial mixing processes:

  • the electrodes made entirely from recycled graphite material showed comparatively stable electrochemical performance;
  • the blended formulations tend to be characterized by more pronounced capacity loss during cycling.

Take-away #1: The performance of recycled materials depends not only on their intrinsic characteristics but also on the manufacturing technologies and processing conditions used to integrate them into new electrodes.

In addition to the reintegration of recovered graphite into new electrodes, Cavallo also presented their work performed in RENOVATE to recover and regenerate LFP cathode material. Their approach involves separating recovered LFP from other battery components and applying low-temperature regeneration to restore its lithium content.

Take-away #2: Preliminary characterisation showed promising material characteristics after regeneration. Further work is needed, however, to assess factors such as lithium content and impurities before regenerated materials can be considered for reintegration into battery production.

FAAM/FAENIX is examining direct recycling and regeneration particularly for relatively clean production scrap, where preserving the value of active materials may be possible. More complex end-of-life battery streams can require different treatment routes, including hydrometallurgical processing.

Challenges shared across battery chemistries and R&I projects

Bilateral exchanges explored additional challenges encountered by both projects and their impact in processing steps in battery recycling:

  • battery chemistry: although the work presented by FAAM focused on LFP and graphite, Cavallo specified that various problems apply also to NMC recycling.
  • the importance of binder and conductive additive separation in metal recovery;
  • the difficulty of processing poorly characterised battery scrap. Better material traceability, including information that could be made available through battery passports, could help address this problem.
  • the necessity to consider process economics. In RENOVATE’s case, cathode materials recovered from aged batteries may require additional treatment to restore their electrochemical properties. Often this requires additional energy and materials use, and thus increasing costs.

Take-away #3: A recovered material may meet the necessary technical specifications and perform well in a battery cell, but manufacturers must also be able to integrate it at a competitive cost. If regeneration and processing make recycled active materials more expensive than pristine alternatives, there is less incentive for manufacturers to adopt them.

Additional to the techno-economic aspects, this online encounter underlines one more time the important role played by the Cluster Hub in opening exchange channels between EU-funded R&I projects and connecting recycling research with industrial experience.