Policy intervention can help unlock $3.5-bn li-ion battery recycling, production in India: Report
The report estimates that without any policy intervention and measures to facilitate investments, the present lithium
battery
(LiB) recycling expansion plans have the potential to generate revenue in the range of USD 500-1,000 million between 2025 and 2030.
The report has suggested measures to enhance cell manufacturing capacity, increase domestic recycling capacity through schemes like PLI, facilitate the trade of LiB scrap and black mass and improve reverse logistics and collection of domestic scrap.
"The proposed interventions will improve the domestic LiB ecosystem and unlock a total economic value of USD 3.5 billion, create 27,000 to 41,000 jobs, reduce emissions by 28 to 75 kT CO2e (kilotonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent), and enable water savings of approximately 5,700 million gallons by 2030," the report said.
Nearly 39 per cent of consumer electronics batteries that have reached their end of life (EoL) do not get collected, it said.
"Among the batteries that do enter collection streams, the majority (around 80 per cent) as of today are handled by unregulated informal channels. As a result, 45 per cent of collected batteries fail to reach formal mechanical recyclers. Additionally, around 2-8 per cent of the EoL batteries reaching formal recyclers, fail quality checks due to improper handling by informal collectors," the report said.
ICEA Chairman
Pankaj Mohindroo
said sustainability is "one of the most promising economic opportunities of our time".
"Battery recycling sits at the intersection of India's environmental priorities and its strategic autonomy in critical minerals. With the right policy support and entrepreneurial drive, India can unlock a USD 3.5 billion circular battery economy, reduce import dependencies, and establish itself as a global powerhouse in clean technologies," he said.
Mohindroo also announced the launch of Centre of Sustainability for Pure Earth.
Sandip Chatterjee -- global recycling expert and senior advisor at SERI, a non-profit body -- said iPhone uses about 69 elements and companies in India don't have the necessary technology to recycle several critical elements that can be used in the high-end phone.
He demanded that India impose restrictions on the export of black mass -- the state of battery after end of its life cycle. China has banned the export of black mass, he said.
According to the report, due to limited domestic
hydrometallurgical recycling
capacity, India has no restrictions on black mass export.
Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) Scientist-F & Division Head, WM-I, V P Yadav, said India lacks the technology to extract elements from batteries that can be put to use in the industry.
"Unless recycled material becomes cheaper than raw materials, no one will use it. Manufacturers will make product using cheaper materials," he said.
Yadav said he received feedback from a lithium ion battery maker that the quality of recycled material in the country is not of the quality that can be used for manufacturing products.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
23 minutes ago
- Indian Express
To become a developed country by 2047, India needs new economic ideas
Recent developments inimical to India's economic interests, such as China's curbs on the export of rare earths and fertilisers, and the reported withdrawal of engineers and technicians working on Foxconn's iPhone plants, raise the question: How should India respond? Any immediate response will more likely be geared towards ensuring that supply chain disruptions are minimal. Beyond that, however, there is a larger question: Will shifts in the global order, changes to the trading architecture and the weaponisation of trade, the growing economic imbalance between India and China and Delhi's economic and strategic realities, be the trigger for much-needed and far-reaching changes in the policy architecture? Will they spawn a new development compact, one that places growth and development front and centre? Looking back, growth has not always been the top priority. Post Independence, the overriding objective was to ensure the stability of the Union. Partition and the integration of princely states created the grounds for veering towards a strong Centre that prioritised stability. The centralising impulses of the Constitution also flow from this intent. To ensure that this compact held, deals were struck with various pressure groups over the decades. A strong Centre also complemented the overly centralised planning model adopted by governments in matters of economic policy. Sluggish growth over the years did not prompt a rethink of either approach or priorities. While some pro-business policy changes were introduced in the 1980s, increasing economic efficiency was not the predominant objective. As Dani Rodrik and Arvind Subramanian have argued, these changes were less about the economy and more about 'garnering political support from existing business groups'. This framework, however, did not deliver prosperity. Growth was anaemic and poverty was widespread. The crisis in 1991 created the space for a new compact where growth became the overriding objective. Economist Stefan Dercon has argued that the policy shift in the 1990s was a decisive step towards a development bargain. Dercon views development bargain as a commitment by those who wield power — the country's political and economic elite — 'to shape politics, the economy and society to strive for growth and development'. This bargain — formulated at a time when the political system was transitioning away from a period of one-party dominance to an era of coalitions where power was less concentrated at the Centre — had buy-in from parties across the political spectrum. With a broad consensus on the nature of policies to be pursued, subsequent governments stayed the course. The NDA government under Atal Bihari Vajpayee doubled down on the reforms push, and the UPA under Manmohan Singh trod along the path while adding a slew of welfare programmes to ensure the stability of this compact. This period coincided with the high noon of globalisation — a time when the rising tide of global trade lifted all boats. The pace of poverty decline accelerated and new pathways to upward mobility emerged. Investment activities gathered steam, exports surged, capital inflows soared and millions moved out of agriculture. While growth did slow down sharply during the UPA's second term, in large part due to policy mistakes, steps were taken during its final years to arrest the decline. In the run-up to the 2014 election, the overriding concern was to shore up the economic momentum. The BJP's rise to power was largely on the back of a promise to provide good governance and ensure high growth and development. The shift from a coalition era to one where a single party commanded a full majority was also taken as a sign that the pulls and pressures from allies would no longer be a hindrance in fulfilling the compact, which could now be pursued aggressively. The first few years of the new government did see several steps being taken towards this end. There was also a continuity in ideas — ideas that were birthed in earlier governments such as inflation targeting and GST found resonance. Somewhere along the way, however, the growth imperative weakened. The pandemic made matters worse. And as inequality rose and pathways for upward mobility shrivelled, the compact frayed and the political class pivoted towards populism. Cash transfers, tax giveaways and other populist schemes became the norm across political parties and governments as short-term electoral considerations took precedence over longer-term economic benefits. Few fresh ideas were articulated to reinforce the compact. Perhaps the Production Linked Incentive Scheme and the unstated strategy of promoting a handful of private firms as national champions can be considered new ideas. Even then, the limits of both were apparent. This weakening of the consensus around the compact comes at a time of significant changes in the global order. In the Trumpian era, trade, a pathway for many nations — from Bangladesh to Vietnam — to climb the ladder of prosperity has become a casualty. At this time, when the tailwinds of 'hyper' globalisation are no longer available, a strategy to rely just on trade deals with the developed world, but not seek deeper integration with countries at the heart of global supply chains, will limit the gains that are being envisaged. Alongside, the rapid adoption of AI will impact large swathes of IT jobs. Considering that the IT sector has provided millions with pathways to upward mobility — the great Indian middle class grew on the back of this sector — new drivers of growth are needed. This new reality is at odds with hopes that the country will become a developed nation by 2047. That goal, in any case, is a tall order, if the economic history of the world is anything to go by. Only a handful of countries have managed to ascend to the high-income category. And even if India manages to sustain its growth over the coming two decades — per capita income has grown at 5.7 per cent in dollar terms over the past 10 years — then average incomes would be just shy of $10,000 in 2047. The question is whether this or higher growth can be achieved. Growth does not miraculously endure. It isn't easy to sustain the momentum over such long periods without a development bargain and without an elite compact. Unless that happens, the goal of becoming a developed country will remain elusive.
Mint
23 minutes ago
- Mint
After Russia tariff penalty, Trump administration sanctions 6 India-based companies for trading oil with Iran
Sanctioning Entities That Have Traded in Iran's Petroleum The Iranian regime continues to fuel conflict in the Middle East to fund its destabilizing activities. Today, the United States is taking action to stem the flow of revenue that the regime uses to support terrorism abroad, as well as to oppress its own people. The Department of State is imposing sanctions on 20 entities engaged in Iranian petroleum, petroleum products, or petrochemical trade and is identifying 10 vessels as blocked property. All targets are being designated pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13846, which authorizes and reimposes certain sanctions with respect to Iran. Targeting Iran's Petrochemical Trade This action also includes the designation of thirteen entities across multiple jurisdictions, which have engaged in the transshipment, sale, and purchase of Iranian-origin petrochemicals. Although less significant in value than Iran's crude oil exports, Iran's petrochemical industry and exports are a critical sector of the Iranian economy and have grown in recent years to generate billions of dollars in illicit funds for Iran's destabilizing activities. Similar to the regime's illicit oil exports, Iranian petrochemical products are frequently transshipped through intermediaries in third countries in attempts to obfuscate their origin before the products reach their ultimate buyers. Today's action targets those intermediaries, as well as the buyers of Iranian petrochemical products. KANCHAN POLYMERS is an India-based company that has imported and purchased over USD 1.3M worth of Iranian-origin petrochemical products, including polyethylene, from TANAIS TRADING. KANCHAN POLYMERS is being designated pursuant to section 3(a)(iii) of E.O. 13846 for knowingly engaging in a significant transaction for the purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of petrochemical products from Iran. ALCHEMICAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED (ALCHEMICAL SOLUTIONS) is an India-based petrochemical trading company that has imported and purchased Iranian-origin petrochemical products valued at over USD 84M from multiple companies between January and December 2024. ALCHEMICAL SOLUTIONS is being designated pursuant to section 3(a)(iii) of E.Ο. 13846 for knowingly engaging in a significant transaction for the purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of petrochemical products from Iran. RAMNIKLAL S GOSALIA AND COMPANY (RAMNIKLAL) is an India-based petrochemical company that imported and purchased Iranian-origin petrochemical products valued at over USD 22M, including methanol and toluene, from multiple companies between January 2024 and January 2025. RAMNIKLAL is being designated pursuant to section 3(a)(iii) of E.O. 13846 for knowingly engaging in a significant transaction for the purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of petrochemical products from Iran. JUPITER DYE CHEM PRIVATE LIMITED (JUPITER DYE CHEM) is an India-based petrochemical trading company that has imported and purchased Iranian-origin petrochemical products, including toluene, valued at over USD 49M from multiple companies between January 2024 and January 2025 JUPITER DYE CHEM is being designated pursuant to section 3(a)(iii) of E.O. 13846 for knowingly engaging in a significant transaction for the purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of petrochemical products from Iran. GLOBAL INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS LIMITED (GLOBAL INDUSTRIAL) is an India-based company that has imported and purchased Iranian-origin petrochemical products, including methanol, valued at over USD 51M from multiple companies, between July 2024 and January 2025. GLOBAL INDUSTRIAL is being designated pursuant to section 3(a)(iii) of E.O. 13846 for knowingly engaging in a significant transaction for the purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of petrochemical products from Iran. PERSISTENT PETROCHEM PRIVATE LIMITED is an India-based company that has imported approximately USD 14 million worth of shipments containing Iranian-origin petrochemicals, such as methanol, from multiple companies, including from BAB AL BARSHA, with shipping dates between October 2024 and December 2024. PERSISTENT is being designated pursuant to section 3(a)(iii) of E.O. 13846 for knowingly engaging in a significant transaction for the purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of petrochemical products from Iran. As a result of today's sanctions-related actions, and in accordance with E.O. 13846, all property and interests in property of the designated persons described above that are in the United States or in possession or control of U.S. persons are blocked and must be reported to the Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Additionally, all entities and individuals that have ownership, either directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons are also blocked. All transactions by U.S. persons or within (or transiting) the United States that involve any property or interests in property of designated or otherwise blocked persons are prohibited unless authorized by a general or specific license issued by OFAC or exempt. These prohibitions include the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any blocked person and the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person. The power and integrity of U.S. government sanctions derive not only from the U.S. government's ability to designate and add persons to the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List, but also from its willingness to remove persons from the SDN List consistent with the law. The ultimate goal of sanctions is not to punish, but to bring about a positive change in behavior. Petitions for removal from the SDN List may be sent to: OFAC. Reconsideration@ Petitioners may also refer to the Department of State's Delisting Guidance page.
India Today
23 minutes ago
- India Today
Trump announces trade deal with South Korea, slashes tariff rate to 15%
President Donald Trump said on Wednesday the US will charge a 15 per cent tariff on imports from South Korea as part of a deal that eases, for now, tension with a top-10 trading partner and key Asian arrangement, announced shortly after Trump met with Korean officials at the White House, came during a blizzard of trade policy announcements ahead of a self-imposed August 1 is when Trump has promised higher tariffs will kick in on US imports from a range of countries. Imports from South Korea, a powerhouse exporter of computer chips, cars and steel, faced a 25 per cent rate. "I am pleased to announce that the United States of America has agreed to a Full and Complete Trade Deal with the Republic of Korea," Trump wrote on Truth negotiations were an early test for South Korean President Lee Jae Myung, who took office in June after a snap election. He said the deal had eliminated uncertainty in the export environment and set US tariffs lower than or at the same level as major competitors."We have crossed a big hurdle," Lee said in a post on Facebook. Trump said Lee would visit the White House "within the next two weeks" for his first meeting with the US said South Korea had agreed to invest USD 350 billion in the United States in projects selected by Trump and to purchase USD 100 billion of liquefied natural gas and other energy products, the U.S. president said. Both steps have been major priorities for Trump, a Republican, in other trade the USD 350 billion investment fund, USD 150 billion was aimed at a shipbuilding partnership while USD 200 billion would include funds for chips, nuclear power, batteries, and biologics, Kim Yong-beom, policy chief from the South Korean presidential office, told a said some existing investment plans by South Korean companies would be part of the fund, and that they had ensured there would be safeguards over how the funds were has not seen the text of the deal or analyzed its was not immediately clear how the investment deals would be structured, where the financing would come from, over what time frame they would be implemented and to what extent their terms would be binding on the parties involved. Trump said additional South Korean investments would be announced also said South Korea would accept American products, including cars, trucks and agriculture into its markets and impose no import duties on Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said on X that the South Korean energy purchases would take place "over the next 3.5 years."The US tariff rate on South Korean autos would be set at 15% and their semiconductor and pharmaceutical exports would not be treated more harshly than those from other countries, he added. Steel, aluminum, and copper were not covered by the new deal and UStariff rates on those goods would remain claims by Trump and US officials that non-tariff barriers on agriculture would be eliminated, Kim said that South Korea's rice and beef markets would not be Korean Finance Minister Koo Yun-cheol, Industry Minister Kim Jung-kwan and Minister for Trade Yeo Han-koo had been in Washington for talks with senior US officials and were believed to have met with Trump shortly before the deal had been mounting on South Korea since Japan clinched a deal to cut Trump's threatened tariffs to 15 per cent earlier this the last-minute push by government officials to reach a tariff deal, South Korea's Samsung Electronics inked a USD 16.5 billion chip deal with Tesla Korean battery maker LG Energy Solution also signed a $4.3 billion deal to supply Tesla with energy storage system batteries, a person familiar with the matter told Reuters.- EndsTune InMust Watch
