EU competitiveness in advanced li-ion batteries for e-mobility and stationary storage applications : opportunities and actions.
Date: 2018-04-25
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: clean technology, competitiveness, electricity storage device, energy efficiency, energy policy, energy research, energy storage, energy technology, job creation, research and development, research report

EU Competitiveness in Advanced 
Li-ion Batteries for E-Mobility and 
Stationary Storage Applications –
Opportunities and Actions 

Steen, M. 
Lebedeva, N. 
Di Persio, F. 
Boon-Brett, L. 

2017 

EUR 28837 EN

This publication is a Science for Policy report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s 
science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European 
policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European 
Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is 
responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. 

JRC Science Hub 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

JRC108043 

EUR 28837 EN

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-79-74292-7         ISSN 1831-9424 

doi:10.2760/75757

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017

© European Union, 2017 

Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. The reuse policy of European Commission documents 
is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). 

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the EU copyright, permission must be 
sought directly from the copyright holders. 

How to cite this report: Steen, M., Lebedeva, N., Di Persio, F. and Boon-Brett, L., EU Competitiveness in 
Advanced Li-ion Batteries for E-Mobility and Stationary Storage Applications – Opportunities and Actions,
EUR 28837 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2017, ISBN 978-92-79-74292-7, 
doi:10.2760/75757, JRC108043.

All images © European Union 2017, unless otherwise specified 

Title: EU Competitiveness in Advanced Batteries for E-Mobility and Stationary Storage Applications – 
Opportunities and Action 

Abstract 
Projected global demand for Li-ion batteries for mobility and stationary storage applications will exceed 
currently available and known planned production capacities already in the near future. Conditions for 
establishing a globally competitive Li-ion battery value chain in the EU are identified and enabling measures 
that the Commission can deploy are proposed. 

Contents 

Executive summary ............................................................................................... 1 

1  Introduction ...................................................................................................... 2 

2  Cost evolution of LIBs ........................................................................................ 3 

3  Markets for LIBs ................................................................................................ 6 

4  LIB Cell manufacturing capacity........................................................................... 9 

5  Opportunities for EU competitiveness in LIB cell manufacturing ............................. 15 

5.1  Supply of materials .................................................................................... 17 

5.2  Enhanced cost competitiveness ................................................................... 17 

5.2.1  Materials related costs: ...................................................................... 17 

5.2.2  Cell manufacturing cost: ..................................................................... 18 

5.3  Offering added value beyond cost ................................................................ 18 

5.4  Need for sustained R&I efforts ..................................................................... 21 

6  Investment costs for setting up LIB production capacity ....................................... 22 

7  Job creation potential ....................................................................................... 24 

8  Requirements for competitive domestic EU LIB cell manufacturing ......................... 26 

9  Conclusions .................................................................................................... 29 

References ......................................................................................................... 31 

List of abbreviations and definitions ....................................................................... 35 

List of figures ...................................................................................................... 36 

List of tables ....................................................................................................... 37 

Annexes ............................................................................................................. 38 

Annex I. Cost projection methodologies and results - Important points to consider .. 38 

Annex II. Manufacturing innovation for higher efficiency and quality at reduced costs

 ............................................................................................................... 42 

Annex III. Overview of EC activities on batteries structured along the value chain ... 44 

i 

Executive summary 

This JRC Science for Policy Report focuses on competitiveness aspects related to batteries 
as a key enabling technology for electric mobility and  stationary storage. The report fits 
within the overall JRC effort aimed at addressing European industrial competitiveness as 
outlined  in  the  Clean  Energy  Package  [1]  and  serves  as  input  to  the  definition  of  the 
overall Enabling Framework for the Energy Union. 

Following  an  introduction,  the  document  reviews  recent  cost  and  market  evolution  of 
Lithium-ion  battery  (LIB)  cells  (chapter  2  and  3  resp.),  focussing  on  e-mobility  and 
stationary  energy  storage  applications.  This  is  followed  by  an  overview  of  current  and 
announced  global  capabilities  for  large-volume  manufacturing  of  LIB  cells  in  terms  of 
capacity and geographical location (chapter 4). Chapter 5 lists opportunities for the EU to 
become  competitive in LIB  manufacturing  and is  followed  by  an  overview  of  investment 
costs  related  to  the  establishment  of  industrial  LIB  cell  manufacturing  facilities  (chapter 
6). Chapter 7 provides available data on job creation potential associated to establishing 
LIB manufacturing capacities. Finally, chapter  8 identifies the conditions that have to be 
fulfilled  for  establishing  a  globally  competitive  LIB  cell  manufacturing  chain  in  the  EU, 
additional  factors  that  can  support  the  business  case,  and  suggests  measures  that  the 
Commission can take to support their realisation and thereby enable EU industry to take 
its share in a globally booming market. 

1 

1  Introduction 

This  JRC  Science  for  Policy  Report  builds  upon  the  JRC  Science  for  Policy  Report  Li-ion 
battery value chain and related opportunities for Europe [2] issued in December 2016 by 
providing  updates  on  LIB  deployment  estimates  for  electric  vehicle  applications  (xEV: 
BEV,  PHEV,  HEV),  as  well  as  extending  its  scope  to  include  LIB  for  stationary  energy 
storage (ES) applications. The report elaborates further on the potential of and suggests 
the  measures  that  need  to  be implemented  for  achieving  a  globally  competitive  LIB  cell 
manufacturing industry in the EU. 

The  cost  of  and  domestic  capacity  to  manufacture  LIB  cells  and  battery  pack  systems 
have a direct impact on the EU's ability to compete with the global market leaders in this 
sector.  Cost  and  manufacturing  targets  with  a  time  horizon  up  to  2030  were  agreed  in 
2016  between  EU  industry,  Member  States  and  the  Commission.  These  targets  are 
enshrined  in  a  Declaration  of  Intent  (DoI)  on  batteries  for  e-mobility  and  stationary 
storage applications [3] which has been prepared in the frame of the Integrated SET-Plan 
[4]. Accordingly, and because of the relevance of manufacturing cost and capacity to EU 
competitiveness in the battery sector, these targets are considered in this document. 

While  LIB  performance  in  the  two  major  application  areas  of  xEVs  and  ES  is  a  decisive 
factor for their large-scale deployment, battery performance and related targets are not 
considered  explicitly  in  this  document.  This  does  not  eclipse  their  importance  to 
competitiveness  since  the  performance  and  safety  of  any  advanced  European  battery 
technology  in  any  application  will  need  to  be  as  good  as,  if  not  better  than,  those  of 
competing  incumbent  technologies.  High  performance  and  safety  are  a  prerequisite  to 
competitiveness and therefore considered a given in the following discussion. 

2 

 
 
 
2  Cost evolution of LIBs  

Recent cost evolution (past and projected) of LIB a is illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. Annex 
I provides background information on methodologies used for cost projections and on the 
sometimes (quite) different results obtained from their application. 

Figure 1:   Evolution of LIB component, cell and pack costs for EV applications [5]. 

Figure 2:   Evolution of LIB cell and system costs for EV and stationary storage application [6]. 

a   Studies on battery costs do not always differentiate between cell, pack and  system level. This is one of the 
reasons why quite different numbers for "battery costs" appear in the literature; other reasons are discussed 
in Annex I. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
It should be noted that some sources already now indicate lower costs for LIB cells than 
those  shown  in  Figs.  1  and  2  (or  imply  lower  cell  costs  because  of  claimed  lower  pack 
costs):  

  EV battery cell prices <200€/kWh for OEMs [7] 

  Audi buys batteries at $114/kWh cell price [8] 

  General Motors paying $145/kWh for the LIB of Chevy Bolt [9] 

 

lithium-ion-batteries selling for under $140/kWh [10] 

This indicates that cost targets for packs in the DoI of 90 €/kWh in 2022 and 75 €/kWh in 
2030 for EV and of 150 €/kWh for ES by 2030 are feasible (see also Fig. I.3 in Annex I). 

Two main causes can be discerned for the drastic cost decreases shown in Figs. 1 and 2: 

 

 

steady  improvement  of  battery  performance  (primarily  energy  density)  through 
sustained  R&D  aimed  at  improving  materials,  reducing  the  amount  of  non-active 
materials,  reducing  the  cost  of  materials,  improving  cell  design,  increasing 
production speed and improving production yield. This has resulted in lower costs 
at both cell level and battery pack level. 

increased  production  volumes,  particularly  in  China,  bring  economy  of  scale  to 
lithium-ion  battery  manufacturing.  According  to  [5],  LIB  global  manufacturing 
investments  in  the  period  2011-2014  exceeded  10-12  B$  for  50  GWh  additional 
capacity,  leading  to  an  average  specific  investment  cost  of  $250/kWh.  In  the 
period 2014-2017 average specific investment costs decreased to $150/kWh. 

The  effect  of  production  volume  on  cost  of  LIB  packs  (2015  figures)  is  shown  in  Fig.  3 
which  indicates  a  levelling-off  of  pack  cost  towards  $175/kWh  for  BEV  batteries  for 
production volumes exceeding 200,000 packs/year [11]b. This pack level cost is reported 
to be equivalent with a LIB cell cost of $100/kWh, which is widely considered by battery 
experts to trigger acceleration of storage technologies uptake, both for e-mobility and for 
stationary applications. Such a cost is deemed achievable by 2025 or by 2030 at the very 
latest  [12,  13,  Annex  I]  and  may  lead  to  a  situation  where  global  demand  for  LIB  cells 
outpaces  production  capacity  available  at  that  time  (see  chapter  4).  In  fact,  an 
acceleration  of  the  uptake  of  xEVs  has  most  recently  been  forecasted  to  occur  even 
earlier, particularly in Europe, as of 2020 onwards [12].  

Figure 3:   Dependence of LIB pack cost for xEV on production volume [11]. 

b See considerations in Annex I on costs levelling-off. 

4 

 
 
 
 
                                           
The evolution in the ratio between LIB cell and pack/system costs for EVs shown in Figs. 
1 and 2 is expected to be affected by the degree of vertical integrationc along the battery 
value  chain.  This  is  mainly  because  products  in  the  segments  upstream  of  cell 
manufacturing  (see  chapter  5)  represent  commodities  in  a  cost-driven  world  market, 
whereas  downstream  from  cell  manufacturing  they  depend  on  the  application  and  are 
therefore  value-driven.  Enhanced  vertical 
the 
mega/gigafactories currently being planned (see chapter 4) – is expected to decrease the 
cost ratio between LIB packs and cells.  

integration  –  as  expected 

in 

The lower degree of vertical integration along the production chain explains why LIBs for 
energy storage applications have not fully realised the same economies of scale as for EV 
applications (Fig. 2 and Fig. I.1 in Annex I). Whereas energy storage costs have dropped 
considerably  and  will  continue  to  fall,  they  are  expected  to  continue  to  lag  cost 
development  in  the  xEV  market,  which  has  first-mover  advantage  in  a  currently  larger 
volume market (see chapter 3). 

When  interpreting  technology  cost  reductions  as  presented  in  Figs.  1,  2,  3  above,  it 
should be realised that the cost of application of the  considered technologyd, and hence 
its  competitive  position  versus  incumbent  technologies,  is  additionally  affected  by 
technical performance parameters, such as e.g. technology lifetime, efficiency, etc. 

Take-Away #1: 

The  costs  of  LIBs  continuously  decrease  and  will  soon  reach  a  level  that  triggers 
their wide-spread, accelerated deployment in xEVs and ES applications. 

c   Vertical  integration  is  the  combination  in  one  company  of  two  or  more  stages  of  production  normally 
operated by separate firms, aimed at reducing costs by decreasing transportation expenses and turnaround 
time. 

d   known as the application-specific levelised cost 

5 

 
 
 
                                           
3  Markets for LIBs 

Current  and  projected  annual  global  market  forecasts  for  LIB  from  a  number  of  recent 
sources  [5,6,14,15,16,17,18]  are  summarised  in  the  table  below  (market  values  are 
expressed at cell level):  

Market (GWh) 

Value (B$) 

notes 

2016 

2020 

2025 

2016 

2020 

2025 

All 
applications 

78 

130-
250 

210-
535 

18.5-
20.6 

28-48 

36-88  Consumer products, 

power tools, e-
mobility, energy 
storage 

Growth 
factor 
compared 
to 2016 

2.3 

4.3 

(1.7-
3.2) 

(2.7-
6.8) 

1.9 

2.9 

(1.4-
2.6) 

(1.7-
4.8) 

xEVe, f 

33 

60-
116 

105-
300 

7.5-
9.5 

12-34 

16-63  LDV + buses, >50% 

in China alone 

Growth 
factor 

Non-
automotive 
(excl. 
consumer) 

Growth 
factor 

ES 

2.5 

5.4 

(1.8-
3.5) 

(3.2-
9.1) 

2.4 

3.8 

(1.3-
4.5) 

(1.7-
8.4) 

0.3 

1.4 

6.2 

0.2 

1.2 

4.5 

by 2025 50% marine  

4.8 

20.7 

6.0 

22.5 

1.5-
4.7 

9-18  17-48 

0.5-
1.3 

2.5-6 

4-10 

LIB technology 
assumed to increase 
from 70% (2016) to 
>95% (2020 and 
beyond) of all new 
installed capacity; 
2nd use not 
considered 

Growth 
factor 

4.8 

11 

(1.9-
12.) 

(3.6-
32) 

4.8 

(1.9-
12) 

7.8 

(3.1-
20) 

Table  1:  Global  market  forecasts  and  increase  factors  in  terms  of  size  and  monetary  value  for 

different applications of LIBs [sources as indicated in text]. 

e   Market volume numbers for xEV consider the scenarios for xEV (BEV, PHEV, HEV) deployment numbers as 

well as the evolution in battery capacity needed for the different types of xEV. 

f   The numbers for xEV in 2025 in [12] are considerably higher because of the forecasted earlier mass uptake: 
256-1331 GWh, corresponding to 23-120 B$. Similarly, [13] forecasts 408 GWh capacity for EVs (light duty 
vehicles only) in 2025 and 1.3 TWh in 2030, and 81 GWh ES in 2024. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Fig.  4  shows  that  the  largest  global  deployment  share  of  LIB  till  2025  will  be  in  xEV, 
whereas deployment of LIB for ES, while starting from a smaller base, is projected to be 
approximately  twice  faster  than  for  xEV  applications  throughout  the  considered  period 
(Fig. 5).  

Figure 4:   Share  of  different  applications  of  the  total  global  market  for  LIB  [average  estimates 

from sources used for Table 1]. 

Figure 5:  Growth  factor  (in  terms  of  GWh(20xx)/GWh(2016))  for  global  LIB  deployment  in 

different applications [median values from Table 1]. 

Market forecast numbers for xEV in Europe range from 14 to 24 GWh in 2020 and from 
37  to  117  GWh  in  2025,  with  the  lower  estimate  corresponding  to  a  conservative 
scenario  and  the  higher  estimate  to  an  optimistic  scenario)  [19].  The  forecast  average 
corresponds to around 22% of the global xEV market in 2020, increasing to around 35% 
in 2025g.  

g  Not considering the forecasted earlier mass uptake of xEVs in [12] and [13]. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Market  forecasts  for  batteries  for  ES  applications  in  Europe  are  given  in  [20],  starting 
from  an  installed  capacity  in  2016  of  5.3  GW,  increasing  to  7.6-9.8  GW  in  2020  and 
11.5-14.5 GW in 2025. These numbers, in unit of power (GW) instead of energy (GWh)h, 
indicate  growth  factors  of  1.6  till  2020  and  of  2.5  till  2025.  A  number  of  reasons  may 
explain the difference with the increase factors shown for ES applications globally in Fig. 
5:  deployment  number  and  type  of  storage  facilities,  share  of  LIB  in  battery  storage 
facilities, etc.  

Take-Away #2: 

The global market for LIBs in xEV and ES applications is huge. xEVs will represent 
the largest market in the near future, whereas expected growth rates are highest 
for ES  applications. Most recent market forecasts for both applications are being 
revised upwards. 

h   The power capacity (GW) of storage cannot directly be translated into energy capacity (GWh) because this 

depends on the discharge time and the number of charge-discharge cycles.  

8 

 
 
 
 
                                           
4  LIB cell manufacturing capacity 

In 2015 the world’s total LIB cell manufacturing capacity amounted to 60 GWh and was 
primarily located in China, Japan, and Korea [2]. Together, these countries hosted 88% 
of  total  global  LIB  cell  manufacturing  capacity  for  all  end-use  applications.  Asian 
countries  were  also  home  to  a  significant  share  of  the  LIB-specific  materials  global 
manufacturing capacity in 2015: cathodes (85%), anodes (97%), separators (84%), and 
electrolytes  (64%).  This  concentration  of  cell  manufacturing  capacity  and  upstream 
supply chains contributes to LIB industrial clusters in each of these countries [2], which 
strengthens  their  competitive  position  vis-à-vis  the  rest  of  the  world,  through  vertical 
integration  or  through  joint  ventures  covering  successive  segments  in  the  production 
chain up to and including cell manufacturing.  

The global dominance of Asian LIB cell manufacturers is also reflected in the trade of LIB 
materials and cells [21]. Fig. 6 (left) shows the positive trade balance of Asian producers 
and  the  negative  trade  balance  for  other  world  regions  in  2014  for  LIB  cells  for  all 
applications.  The  right  hand  side  illustrates  the  magnitude  of  trade  flows  between 
countriesi.  

Figure 6:  Flow  of  LIB  cells  between  major  trading  partners  (dark  shades  represent  exports, 

lighter shades represent imports) [21]. 

The  chart  in  Fig.  7  [6]  shows  the  evolution  of  the  LIB  production  capacity  considering 
available,  ongoing  and  announced  capacities  targeting  xEV  and  ES  applications: 
production capacity is expected to rise from ca. 70 GWh in 2015 over 150 GWh in 2016 
to 260 GWh by 2020. Similar numbers, more than doubling in 5 year, from 103 MWh in 
2016  to  278  MWh  in  2021  are  mentioned  in  [16],  as  well  as  in  [12]:  from  80  GWh  in 
2016 to 285 GWh in 2020. 

i   More recent information on trade flows than dating from 2014 could not be found. 

9 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Figure 7:  LIB cell production capacity for xEV and ES worldwide (from [6], based on info from a 

number of sources]. 

Figure  7  shows  that,  with  the  exception  of  the  Tesla-Panasonic  factory  (35  GWh),  only 
companies  in  Asia  contribute  to  the  expanding  global  LIB  manufacturing  capacity  for 
xEVs  and  ES.  In  China  alone  up  to  9  factories  are  being  constructed  which  will  raise 
production capacity from 16 GWh at present to a total of 107 GWh in 2020 [22] and 120 
GWh  in  2021  [23],  thereby  bringing  China's  share  in  global  LIB  production  to  65%. 
Some  of  these  new  plants  are  expected  to  be  huge,  with  the  CATL  facility  at  50  GWh 
being  by  far  the  largest.  However,  not  exclusively  Chinese  companies  are  involved  in 
manufacturing  capacity  increases  in  China;  also  Korean,  Japanese  and  US  companies 
contributej. 

Whereas  Fig.  7  shows  the  expected  global  nominal  capacity  increases  for  LIBs  for  xEV 
and  ES  till  2020,  Fig.  8  includes  projections  till  2025  on  "realistic"  capacity  increases, 
considering  the  maximum  yield  of  present-day  factories  and  the  degree  of  actual 
capacity  utilisation  [7].  Fig.  8  also  includes  an  optimistic  and  a  conservative  xEV+ES 
demand  projectionk.  For  both  the  optimistic  and  conservative  scenario,  the  projected 
demand is expected to exceed the estimated realistic capacity in 2022-2023.  

While  East-Asian  companies  dominate  cell  production  and  until  recently  contributed 
practically  exclusively  to  the  ongoing  and  planned  capacity  expansions,  a  number  of 
plans  for  giga-factories  in  other  parts  of  the  world  have  been  announced  over  the  last 
months [24], [25]: Thailand (50 GWh by 2020), US (15 GWh in New York State, 4 GWh 
in Los Angeles), Australia (2 locations, resp. 1 and 15 GWh), India  (unspecified location 
and capacity, [26]), EU (see Table 2 below), evidencing the tendency for cell production 
to increasingly locate closer to areas of expected demand growth. Also Asian companies 
are establishing factories for cell components in other parts of the world, such as e.g. a 
separator factory in Europe [27]. 

j   Conflicting information exists on capacity increases in China by non-Chinese companies. 
k   In line with the data in Table 1, i.e. not considering the earlier mass uptake of xEVs forecasted in [12], [13]. 
10 

 
 
 
                                           
Figure 8:  Global  LIB  cell  production  capacity  for  xEV  and  ES  (lines)  and  projected  demand 

evolution (shaded areas) [7]. 

The  current  lack  of  a  domestic  LIB  cell  manufacturing  base  in  the  EU  jeopardises  the 
competitive  position  of  EU  industrial  customers  of  LIBs  for  xEV  and  ES  applications 
because of security of supply chain issues, increased costs due to transportation, loss of 
part  of  the  value,  time delays,  relinquished  control  on  quality  and limitations  on design 
options. Whereas establishment of a domestic LIB cell manufacturing chain by European 
this  competitive 
manufacturers 
disadvantage,  Korean  cell  producers  have  already  seized  the  opportunity  and  are 
currently establishing cell manufacturing capacity in Europe in which, to strengthen their 
position,  they  go  for  vertical  integration  from  component  to  pack  production  [19]l.  The 
opposite  also  applies  to  some  extent:  European  battery  pack  assemblers  investing  in 
facilities in China and extending into local battery cell manufacturing through a local joint 
venture,  as  demonstrated  by  the  recent  investment  made  by  a  major  European  car 
manufacturerm [28].  

the  obviously  preferred  option 

to  address 

is 

Table 2 lists known initiatives and plans for establishing battery cell/pack manufacturing 
in  Europe  for  xEV  and  ES  applications.  The  only  currently  operational  facilities  by  EU 
companies  in  the  EU  are  a  number  of  relatively  small  manufacturing  and  assembly 
plants. 

l   Whereas not embarking on production in Europe yet, CATL (China) is establishing R&D facilities in Germany, 

and has started collaboration with European automotive manufacturers PSA and BMW. 

m   Daimler  through  BBAC,  its  joint  venture  with  BAIC.  Such  investments  offer  the  advantage  of  allowing 
foreign manufacturers to avoid the 25% import tariff that applies to imported vehicles being sold in China. 
11 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Who 

Where 

Annual Capacity 

When 

Comments 

LG Chem (KR) 

Wroclaw, PL 

100.000 EV batteries, > 2 GWh  

2018 

CELLS 

Samsung SDI (KR) 
SK Innovation (KR) 
Tesla (US) with Panasonic (JP) 
Northvolt (SE) 

Göd, HU 
HU or CZ 
DE, others?n 
?, SE 

50.000 EV batteries, 2.5 GWh 
? 
? 
8 GWh initially,  
32 GWh final 

2018H2 
2018H2 

2020 - 2024 

TerraE (DE) 

DE  
(2 locations) 

6-8 GWh; 
34 GWh (2028) 

2028 final 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

SERI (IT) 

IT 

200 MWh 

Monbat (BG) 

Nordhausen, DE 

? 

2018 

? 

PACKS 

chain 

supply 

including 

Target cost 80-110$/kWh; 
Use of well-known, foundry-based manufacturing 
process;  
vertical integration; new chemistries >2025;  
aims at being replicable 
consortium  consisting  of  companies  throughout 
the 
infrastructure, 
manufacturing  planners,  material  producers, 
machine  engineering  groups,  cell  manufacturers 
and industrial consumers 
EV + ES 
Operated according to the "foundry principle" 
Development of cells based on results from Giga-
LIB project (DE) 
Preparing vertical supply chain in IT 
EV+ES 

 
 
  Merger of two existing companies into new entity 

EAS Batteries 
First LFP, later other chemistries 

 

Nissan (JP) 

BMZ (Deutsche Accumotive)o 
Kreisel Electric GmbH  
Continental 
Dow Kokam (KR) 
Bolloré 
BYD (CN) 

Sunderland, UK 

Kamenz, DE 
Rainbach, AT 
Nuremberg, DE 
FR 
FR 
HU 

60.000 packs,  
1.5 GWh 
80 million packs totalling 5 GWh 
800 MWh 
330 MWh 
105 MWh 
300 MWh  
400 buses 

2013 

2018-2020 

cells from AESC (joint venture between Nissan and NEC, 
JP), taken over by GSR (China)  
cells from LGChem 
cells from Samsung 

2008 

2018 

Table 2: Initiatives and plans for LIB cell and pack producing facilities in the EU 

references 

29,30,31,32 

33,34 
35 
36,37 
38,39 

40,41,42,43 

44 

45 

46 

47,48 
2 
2 
2 
2 
49 

n   Locations in EU candidate for establishing a Tesla gigafactory are: Trollhattan (SE), Vaasa (FI), Tilburg (NL), Kamenz (DE), Fessenheim (FR), Paterna (ES), Guarda (PT) 
o   Daimler Deutsche Accumotive (Daimler battery subsidiary) will triple its pack production capacity by building a second plant. Daimler shut down its cell  manufacturing 

subsidiary Li-Tec in 2015. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Fig. 9 compares the expected market volume of xEVs in the EU (see chapter 3) with the 
expected  evolution  of  cell  manufacturing  capacity  in  Europe  from  Table  2  and 
demonstrates that currently known planned cell production capacities in Europe are likely 
to be sufficient to meet the minimum projected European demand for xEVs in 2025, but 
would definitely not suffice for meeting the maximum demand estimate. The figure also 
reveals that 2030 targets included in the DoI are likely to be met. 

Figure 9:  Comparison  of  planned  production  capacity  in  Europe,  European  xEV  demand  and 

manufacturing volume targets from the DoI [3]. 

It  is  worth  mentioning  here  that  in  the  aftermath  of  "dieselgate",  VW  has  announced 
stepping  up  its  production  of  EVs.  Whereas  VW  currently  relies  on  external  battery 
suppliers,  management  has  made  a  pledge  to  create  9000  new  jobs  in  the  area  of 
battery  production  and  mobility  services  at  factories  in  Germany  as  part  of  efforts  to 
shift toward electric and self-driving cars [50]. In 2016 VW reckoned it will require about 
150  GWh  of  battery  production  capacity  per  year  (date  unspecified)  and  indicated  it 
considers  using  solid-state  batteriesp,  which  would  require  an  investment  of  10  B€q. 
Recently also Toyota has indicated intention to use solid-state batteries for its future EVs 
as of 2022 [51]. 

Most recently VW predicts that, should all OEMs target 25 percent of sales volumes from 
battery  electric  vehicles  by  2025,  there  will  be  a  massive  shortage  of  LIB  cells  as 
demand  raises  to  some  1.5  TWh  r  (equivalent  to  40  Tesla  gigafactories,  each  with  an 
annual  capacity  to  produce  35  GWh  of  lithium  ion  cells)  [52].  To  reduce  this 
manufacturing  volume  need,  VW  is  currently  investigating  powering  its  future  EVs  with 
higher energy density lithium-sulphur cells. 

p   Solid  state  batteries  (generation-4  LIBs,  see  chapter  5)  offer  higher  energy  density  (higher  range), 
enhanced intrinsic safety and reduced charge time compared to lower-generation LIBs, but still suffer from 
lower cyclic performance. 

q   In this context, it is worth noting that Bosch has bought US solid-state battery maker Seeo in 2014, a move 

that could make it a potential candidate for localized cell making in Europe. 

r   The associated capacity need even exceeds the highest estimate of demand for xEV in [12] and [13] of 1.33 

TWh.  

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Take-Aways #3-5 

  Current LIB manufacturing capacity is concentrated in Asia and is not able to 
meet the increasing global demand for xEV and ES. LIB cell manufacturers, in 
particular  Asian  ones,  are  investing  in  additional  and  new  production 
capabilities close to the major demand centres, i.e. in Asia, US and Europe. 

  The  absence  of  domestic  LIB  cell  manufacturing  in  the  EU  negatively  affects 
the competitiveness of European xEV producers and ES service providers. 

  Currently known planned cell production capacities in Europe are expected to 
suffice  for  meeting  the  minimum  estimate  of  xEV  deployment  in  Europe  in 
2025,  but  most  likely  will  not  be  able  to  meet  the  maximum  projected 
demand. 

14 

 
 
 
5  Opportunities for EU competitiveness in LIB cell 

manufacturing  

Fig.  10  depicts  the  battery  value  chain  [2]  and  highlights  that  it  contains  a  transition 
from  cost-dominated  to  value-dominated  segments.  In  the  latter,  such  as  battery  pack 
manufacturing,  the  decisive  criterion  for  a  positive  business  case  is  the  ability  to  meet 
the specific requirements of the customer (both OEMs of xEVs and ES operators). Hence, 
competition at global level does not play an important part for LIB pack manufacturing. 
The  following  discussion  therefore  does  not  consider  EU  competitiveness  in  LIB  pack 
manufacturing. 

Figure 10: LIB value chain (based on [2]). 

On the other hand, segments in the chain  upstream from pack manufacturing, covering 
materials  processing,  manufacturing  of  components  and  of  cellss,  are  primarily  cost-
dominated  and  therefore  subject  to  worldwide  competition.  Considerations  on  EU 
competitiveness  should  hence  in  first  instance  cover  these  segments  and  target 
technology  innovation  in  cell  chemistries,  in  cell  formats  and  in  cell  manufacturing 
technologies/processes.  

This  view  is  confirmed  by  the  results  of  a  survey  carried  out  among  European  battery 
experts on the position of the  EU in the global battery value chain compared to that  of 
the rest of the world in the frame of the Batstorm project [20]. As indicated in Fig. 11, 
EU-based companies are perceived strong only in the downstream stages of the battery 
value  chain  and  overall  weaker  in  the  materials  and  cell  manufacturing  segments. 
Measures  to  enhance  EU  competitiveness  should  therefore  in  first instance  target  these 
segments. 

It is to be noted here that global competitiveness of EU industry in the LIB sector  – and 
the  associated  benefits  for  growth  and  jobs  –  critically  depend  on  the  ability  for  EU 
industry to also serve non-EU markets with battery cells and packs, as well as with final 
products  (xEV  and  ES  products).  This  applies  specifically  for  being  able  to  supply  the 
boosting xEV market in China. Therefore trade barriers which hamper market access of 
foreign-produced  final  products  should  be  removed,  as  well  as  requirements  on  a 
minimum  share  of  domestic  production  of  LIBs  that  needs  to  be  incorporated  in  these 
end productst. 

s   In  general,  LIB  cells  are  to  some  extent  customised  to  the  end-use  application  and  their  manufacture  is 

therefore also partly value-driven. 

t   In the 2016 list of companies allowed to supply batteries in China, not a single foreign company is included. 
Draft guidelines issued at the end of 2016 moreover specify that battery manufacturers need a minimum of 
8 GWh annual production capacity in China in order for car owners to qualify for EV purchase subsidies; only 
2 Chinese producers (BYD and CATL) can meet this requirement.  

15 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Figure 11: Rating of EU position in the global LIB value chain [20]. 

At present, optimised LIB cells of generation-1 and -2a (Fig. 12, [19]) represent the core 
technology  for  xEVs  and  for  ES.  Given  the  lead  time  from  R&D  on  battery  materials  to 
their  actual  incorporation  in  large  scale  production  of  cells,  these  generations  –  and 
incremental improvements to them – are expected to remain the chemistry of choice for 
at  least  the  next  10  years.  Because  manufacturing  capacity  build-up  for  these 
chemistries is already ongoing in Asia – particularly in China – it does not seem effective 
to  spend  significant  efforts  to  establish  a  mass  production  chain  in  Europe  on  cell 
chemistries  up  to  and  including  generation-2a  u.  Efforts  for  establishing  manufacturing 
capacity in Europe should hence primarily target LIB cells of generation-2b and beyond 
and should moreover focus on the operations in the production chain which are critical to 
quality  of  the  end-product,  as  they  represent  areas  where  IP  may  confer  competitive 
advantagev.  Furthermore,  advantages  gained  in  these  production  processes  may  be 
transferable to other end-applications and thereby offer increased market potential. 

> 2025 ? 

~ 2025 

~ 2020 

current 

Figure 12: Classification of LIB cell chemistries [19]. 

u   This obviously does not rule out continuation and/or uptake of EU industrial involvement in the production of 
components  for  generation-1  and-2a  LIBs,  which  is  also  a  production  chain  segment  subject  to  global 
competition  (see  e.g.  Umicore  new  capacity  in  China  and  South  Korea  at  existing  sites  for  production  of 
NMC cathodes for automotive applications).  

v    This  applies  primarily  for  cathode  manufacturing  and  explains  why  many  of  the  Asian  cell  manufacturers 

also produce their cathodes themselves. 

16 

 
 
 
                                           
When  assessing  the  attractiveness  and  feasibility  of  establishing  LIB  cell  manufacturing 
capacities in Europe the following aspects should be considered:  

(1) access to supply (in terms of import dependence of raw materialsw),  

(2) cost competitiveness,  

(3)  added  value  beyond  cost  which  may  differentiate  EU  companies  from  Asian 
incumbents, and 

(4) sustained R&I efforts.  

These factors are discussed below. 

5.1  Supply of materials 

Critical  materials  for  LIB  (i.e.  those  having  high  supply  dependence  and  economic 
importance)  are  cobalt,  natural  graphite  and  silicon  metal  [2].  China  dominates  global 
production  of  natural  graphite  and  of  silicon  metal  and  steadily  increases  its  control  of 
cobalt productionx . Moreover, whereas lithium itself is not considered a critical material, 
China is home to the majority of the world’s lithium refining facilities. As a result, China 
has  acquired  and  is  still  expanding  its  dominant  position  in  the  LIB  supply  chain  and 
there is little possibility for EU industry to become competitive in raw material supply for 
LIB.  

However, building up and strengthening EU activity in material supply may have a pay-
off  in  terms  of  reduced  future  dependence  on  imported  battery  component  materials 
(particularly  Co  and  Li,  and  high-purity  Ni  later  on)  for  cell  manufacturing  and  of 
shortening supply distances and times. This can be achieved through: 

  developing  domestic  sourcing  of  Li  (Sweden,  Finland,  Portugal,  Czech  Republic, 
Serbia), Co (Finland), graphite (Sweden) – this approach is being investigated for 
the  establishment  of  a  battery  megafactory  in  Scandinavia  [53]  and  of  a 
production facility for cathode materials in Europe [54].  

 

substitution  of  Co  by  other  materials  (already  ongoing  for  optimised  cathodes) 
and  mitigating  the  dependence  on  their  supply  (e.g.  by  expanding  EU  domestic 
production of high-grade Ni). 

 

increasing the volumes of recycling/reuse of battery materials.  

However,  raw  materials  (and  cell  components)  sourced  from  the  EU  will  not  be  able  to 
meet the demand. Hence, security in their supply is a precondition for setting up LIB cell 
manufacturing capabilities in the EU. 

5.2  Enhanced cost competitiveness 

Identifying measures to reduce costs requires  analysis of the cost structure. Major  cost 
components  for  LIB  cells  are  material  (supply  and  logistics),  labour,  energy, 
depreciation, R&D and SGA (selling, general and administrative expenses).  Battery cells 
typically  account  for  70%  of  the  total  value  of  the  battery  pack  (see  Fig.  1),  and  cell 
costs are roughly composed of 50% materials and 50% manufacturing.  

5.2.1  Materials related costs: 

Because  all  cell  manufacturers,  including  foreign  incumbents,  have  to  import  raw 
materials, there is no direct competitive disadvantage for the  EU from the raw material 
supply  side.  Non-EU  manufacturers  may  however  benefit  from  lower  transportation 
distances,  times  and  costs  for  acquiring  the  high-purity  materials  needed  for  cell 
manufacture.  In  this  respect,  Asian  LIB  manufacturers,  and  Chinese  ones  in  particular, 

w   From a non-technological point of view also the availability of and access to competences, labour and capital 

is important. 

x   In particular by increasing its control of Co-production in the Democratic Republic of Congo which produces 

more than half the global supply and of which the price has doubled over the last year. 

17 

 
                                           
have  a  competitive  advantage  because  of  the  concentration  of  Li-refining  capacity  in 
China.  In  future,  exploitation  of  indigenous  EU  resources  of  Li  from  geothermal  brines 
may partially relax this situationy [55]. 

Cost  for  materials  can  be  reduced  through  the  development  and  large-scale  production 
of better performing materials for cathodes, anodes, separators and electrolytes. In this 
area,  Europe  can  profit  from  its  high  quality  R&Dz,  covering  both  material  design  and 
development, as well as manufacturing processes and technologies.  

Additionally,  increased  recycling  of  materials  from  end-of-life  batteries  in  the  EU  will 
result  in  reduced  need  of  primary  raw  materials  and  lower  material  transport  costs. 
Accordingly,  the  DoI  [3]  targets  70%  battery  collection/takeback  by  2020  and  85%  by 
2030, and 50% recycling efficiency by 2020. Also increased use of LIBs after they have 
reached their end-of-life in a first-use application contributes to reduced material needs 
and costs. 

5.2.2  Cell manufacturing costs: 

Costs  for  cell  manufacturing  are  typically  composed  of  energy  (10%),  labour  (10%), 
maintenance (20%) and depreciation (60%)aa [56]. Because labour  constitutes a minor 
part of manufacturing costs, the difference in wages in Asia, China, US and EU does not 
have  a  large  impact.  On  the  other  hand,  established  (i.e.  Asian)  cell  producers  have  a 
cost advantage resulting from production scale and expertise, supply chain optimisation, 
vertical integration and partnerships that have been developed over the last decades in 
LIB manufacturing for consumer electronic applications. 

As  shown  in  Fig.  3,  cell  manufacturing  costs  critically  depend  on  the  manufacturing 
volume. A 2015 model-based analysis [7] of the overall manufacturing costs for LIB cells 
(generations  2a,  2b  and  3a)  for  BEVsbb  as  a  function  of  the  manufacturing  volume  has 
revealed  that  for  a  maximum  allowable  manufacturing  cost  of  130  €/kWh  in  2020,  the 
manufacturing  of  2nd  generation  LIB  cells  is  not  economical  in  Germany  for  volumes 
ranging  between  1  GWh/y  and  13  GWh/y.  The  threshold  production  volume  for  LIB  of 
generation-3a  to  become  economical  lies  at  9  GWh/y.  The  model  reveals  that  under 
these conditions, mass manufacturing in Germany can be competitive with that in Korea 
and  in  China  (Japan  was  not  included  in  the  analysis).  Other  sources  [57]  indicate  a 
2019  threshold  production  capacity  of  4.5  GWh/y,  for  a  100  €/kWh  threshold 
manufacturing cost. 

5.3  Offering added value beyond cost 

Competing  with  foreign  global  economies  (especially in  Asia) in  the  battery  sector  on  a 
cost-only  basis  is  difficult,  considering  the  supply  and  market  advantages  enjoyed  by 
Asian  players.  To  overcome  this  and  gain  competitive  ground,  Europe  needs  to 
differentiate itself on other factors including (environmental) sustainability and safety, as 
well as performance.  

The EU competitive position can benefit from more efficient use of resources resulting in 
a  reduction  of  the  energy,  CO2  and  material  footprints  in  the  overall  manufacturing 
chain. As illustrated in Fig. 13, the largest contributions to energy use and therefore to 
CO2 emissions along those segments in the production chain in Fig. 10 which are subject 
to worldwide competition, originate from electrode production (cathode and anode) [58].  

Typically,  the  energy  required  to  manufacture  a  LIB  is  about  500  times  its  energy 
storage  capacity.  This  can  be  lowered  by  increasing  process  efficiency,  through  e.g. 

y   As product of long-term water-rock interactions at elevated temperatures at depth, brines contain dissolved 
chemical  components  at  various  concentrations.  Despite  the  low  concentrations,  they  contain  significant 
quantities of select minerals that could be recovered due to the large volumes of brine used by geothermal 
power plants. A project coordinated by ERAMET is currently ongoing under the EIP on Raw Materials.  

z   Note however that Europe lags behind in number of patents for Li-ion batteries and applications: only Bosch 

(DE) and CEA (FR) figure among the top-30 global entities holding Li-ion patents [20]. 

aa  These numbers vary with cell chemistry and format. 
bb  For cell types and formats used in PHEVs, higher costs prevail (see Fig. 3). 

18 

 
                                           
the  size  of  dry 

(e.g. 
reducing 
reduction/elimination of formationcc) and by better overall integration allowing re-use of 
energy.  EU  has  a  well-developed  equipment  manufacturing  industry  which  should  be 
able  to  capitalise  on  this  to  secure  its  place  in  the  attractive  growth  market  of  LIB  cell 
manufacturing plantsdd.  

through  optimizing  process  steps 

rooms, 

Figure 13: Primary  energy  consumption  and  CO2  emissions  for  LIB  manufacturing  [58].  (GWP  = 

Global Warming Potential) 

The  high  energy  intensity  of  electrode  production  underscores  the  importance  of 
availability  of  cheap  energy  for  competitivenessee.  From  the  point  of  view  of  reducing 
CO2  footprint,  switching  to  renewable  energy  for  cell  manufacturing  is  an  obvious 
approachff.  Furthermore,  locating  battery  cell  production  in  Europe  avoids  the  CO2 
emissions  linked  to  the  transportation  to  the  EU  of  cells  manufactured  in  Asia,  with 
added benefits in terms of reduction of associated time and cost. 

Reduction of waste can be achieved by process-measures (such as e.g. replacing organic 
solvents  in  electrode  fabrication  and  use  of  biodegradable  materials)  and  by  enhanced 
use of and improving the efficiency of recycling processes. EU industry has a well-proven 
track  record  in  the  latter  and  should  exploit  and  strengthen  its  dominant  positiongg.  In 
particular,  it  can  profit  from  implementing  cost-effective  recycling  approaches  able  to 
deal with the several different LIB chemistries used in different types of xEVs according 
to their specific needs for energy, power, safety, lifespan and cost.  

cc   A controlled charge and discharge cycle designed to activate the battery materials. 
dd  Some EU equipment suppliers (Manz, PEC) already serve Asian cell producers and could exploit their know-

how for the benefit of establishing state of the art LIB cell manufacturing plants in the EU. 

ee  Access to cheap energy is even more relevant when considering possible upstream integration with refinery 

operations which are also very energy-intensive. 

ff   This approach is applied in the Tesla gigafactory and is also claimed a major consideration for locating the 

Northvolt manufacturing facility in Scandinavia. 

gg  The ongoing revision of the Battery Directive 2006/66/EC is critical in this respect. 

19 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Further  added  value  can  come  from  enabling  second  use  of  lithium-ion  automotive 
batteries after first use. When xEV LIBs no longer meet the  requirements for continued 
use  in  a  vehicle,  they  still  retain  sufficient  energy  storage  capacity  which  can  be 
potentially  re-purposed  and  deployed  for  stationary  storage  applications  [59]  and 
thereby results in a reduction of the lifetime cost of ownership of the batteryhh. However, 
full  exploitation  of  the  2nd-life  potentialii  requires  additional  efforts  for  assessing  and 
quantifying  the  technical  feasibility  as  well  as  the  environmental,  economic  and  social 
impacts  of  xEV  battery  second  use.  The  former  requires  a  structured  methodology  for 
State  of  Health  (SoH)  assessment  [60],  whereas  the  latter  needs  systematic  analysis 
through Life Cycle Assessment.  

The competitive position of EU industry in setting up and operating new state-of-the-art 
LIB  cell  manufacturing  capacities  can  also  benefit  from  being  able  to  ensure  higher 
operational  safety  along  the  LIB  cell  production  chain  than  that  achieved  in  existing 
plants  and  avoid  accidents  such  as  those  that  have  occurred  in  a  number  of  cell  or 
battery  pack  production  facilities  worldwidejj  [61],  [62].  Also  numerous  accidents  have 
occurred at battery recycling facilities [61]. Although the exact cause for many accidents 
remains unknown, some of them have been linked to human errors in either the product 
and  process  design,  or  in  testing  product  quality  and  safety.  Possible  measures  to 
improve  safety  in  the  production  chain  include  selection  of  more  intrinsically  safe 
materials  [63]  (e.g.  less  flammable  and  less  toxic  electrolytes),  increased  process 
automation,  use  of  better  fit-for-purpose  testing  methodologies,  improved  battery  and 
cell labelling to facilitate the sorting process [64], etc. 

Manufacturing  process-related  innovation  measures  to  seize  the  competitiveness 
opportunities described above are discussed in Annex II.  

In  addition  to  the  factors  identified  above  which  directly  affect  LIB  cell  manufacturing, 
opportunities also exist for European industry actors to establish and/or strengthen their 
global competitive position in the overall e-mobility and stationary storage markets. This 
applies in  first instance  for  EU  battery  plant  manufacturers,  but  also  for  other  actors  in 
the  overall  LIB  value  chain.  Whereas  upstream  from  cell  manufacturing  some  EU 
industries are already active in the production of LIB electrode materials and/or want to 
establish an activity in this area in Europe [54]; downstream these include producers of 
battery  management  systems,  of  power  electronics  suppliers,  system  integrators,  grid 
integrators (V2G) and battery recyclers. 

Further  opportunities  arise  for  stationary  storage  applications  because  batteries  in 
general and LIB in particular cannot meet the demand for high energy storage capacity 
combined with high power capacity over the range of response/discharge times required 
in  a  number  of  applications  [65].  Such  applications  necessitate  the  development  of 
hybrid energy storage systems to deliver power capacity, energy duration and cycle life 
in  a  single  system.  In  particular  the  increased  complexity  in  hardware  (inverters, 
converters,  …)  and  software  for  hybrid  energy  storage  systems  offers  economic 
opportunities [66]. 

Finally, it should be noted that EU competitiveness in the LIB sector will also benefit from 
deployment of LIBs in numerous  other applications besides xEVs (incl. vans and buses) 
and  ES,  such  as  2-  and  3-wheelers,  material  handling  vehicles  (forklifts,  tow  trucks), 
ferries,  medical  devices,  garden  equipment,  cordless  power  tools,  etc.,  which  also 
constitute a growing market relying on the availability of safe and high-performant LIBs. 

hh  Currently Renault-Nissan, BMW, VW and BYD have linked up with utilities for exploiting used xEV batteries 

for stationary storage purposes. 

ii   Estimated  globally  at  3.6  GWh  in  2025  to  12  GWh  in  2030  [59],  resp.  at  26  GWh  by  2025  [13],  non-

negligible compared to the market for 1st life ES applications in Table 1. 

jj   explosion at Matsushita Battery Industry factory in Japan in August 1997, large fire at the BMZ battery pack 
manufacturing  facility  in  Germany  in  August  2008,  fire  in  February  2017  at  the  waste  depository  of 
Samsung SDI facility in China. 

20 

 
                                           
5.4  Need for sustained R&I efforts 

To be able to exploit the above indicated measures to establish a competitive position in 
LIB  cell  manufacturing,  there  is  a  need  for  sustained  and  even  stepped-up  R&I  efforts. 
Recent  Commission  Communications  and  Staff  Working  Documents  have  outlined  the 
priorities for batteries, including LIB [67], [68]. Additionally, the Implementation Plan of 
Action  7  of  the  Integrated  SET-Plan,  to  be  delivered  by  Nov.  2017,  will  outline  the 
activities, actors and means by European industry, Member States and the Commission 
to realise the set of targets contained in the DoI [3].  

Take Aways # 6-9 

  Considerations  on  EU  competitiveness  in  LIB  cell  manufacturing  should  target 
innovation in cell chemistries, formats and manufacturing technologies/processes. 

  Efforts for establishing LIB cell manufacturing capacity in the EU should primarily 
target  LIB  cells  of  generation-2b  and  beyond  and  should  focus  on  production 
stages which are critical for LIB quality, performance and safety. 

  Competing  with  non-EU  LIB  cell  producers  on  cost-only  basis  is  unlikely  to  be 
successful. A competitive EU LIB cell production should offer added value beyond 
cost, in terms of enhanced sustainability, safety and performance. 

  Sustained and even increased R&I efforts, covering materials and manufacturing 
processes in terms of technical, safety and sustainability performance are needed 
to underpin competitive battery manufacturing in the EU. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
6  Investment costs for setting up LIB production capacity 

Learning  curves  (see  Annex  I)  can  be  exploited  to  estimate  the  cumulative  financial 
effort  required  for  establishing  a  given  production  volume  of  technology  products,  e.g. 
LIB cells or packs. As shown in Fig. I.2 of Annex I, using a single historical data set of EV 
battery  manufacturing  prices  (used  as  proxy  of  cost)  as  a  function  of  the  cumulative 
installed  capacity,  the  overall  budget  required  for  deploying  300  GWh  of  EV  batteries 
globally by 2025 (as per Table 1), is estimated at 39 B$. Assuming no change in learning 
rate, the larger predicted global demand in [12], [13] of 1.3 TWh by 2025 would require 
around 80 B$.  

Table  3  lists  investment  costs  published  for  a  number  of  planned/announced  LIB  cell 
mega-factories  (unless  otherwise  indicated,  references  as  in  Table  2) as  well  as  from  a 
recent German study [19]:  

LIB cell production plant 

NPE [19] 
NPE [19] 
Tesla (Nevada) 
Panasonic (China) [69] 
LG Chem (PL)  
Samsung SDI (HU) 
Northvolt (SE) 
TerraE (DE) 
Energy Absolute (Thailand) [70] 
Dynavolt (CN) [71] 
VW (DE)kk [50] 

Capacity 
(GWh/y) 
13  
4.5  
35  
2.5  
2  
2.5  
32  
8  
1 
6 
150  

reported 
investment cost 
1.3 B€ 
700 M€ 
5 B$ 
0.5 B$ 
340 M$ 
300 M€ 
4 B€ 
1 B€ 
88 M$ 
400 M€ 
10 B€ 

Specific 
investment cost 
100 €/kWh 
155 €/kWh 
142 $/kWh 
200 $/kWh 
170 $/kWh 
120 €/kWh 
125 €/kWh 
125 €/kWh 
88 $/kWh 
67 €/kWh 
66 €/kWh 

Table 3: Investment costs of planned LIB cell manufacturing plants. 

The  investment  costs  estimated  for  new  to-be-built  LIB  cell  manufacturing  plants  from 
Table 3 are shown as a function of their production capacity in Figure 14. The figure also 
includes the estimated required financial effort as a function of additional manufacturing 
volume  derived  from  the  learning  curve  considered  in  Annex  I,  as  well  as  the  specific 
investment  costs  quoted  in  [5]  for  the  periods  2011-2014  and  2014-2016.  The  slight 
overprediction of investment costs by the solid curve can be explained by the pack to cell 
cost  ratio  (see  e.g.  Figs.  1,  2).  Based  on  the  good  agreement  between  all  data,  the 
investment cost corresponding to the expected needed manufacturing capacity increase 
in Europe can be determined from the curve shown in Fig. 14. 

kk Solid state batteries 

22 

 
 
 
                                           
Figure 14: Investment cost as a function of additional pack production capacity. The solid curve is 
taken  from  Annex  I,  whereas  symbols  refer  to  the  announced  investments  listed  in 
Table 3 (the data point corresponding to solid-state LIB (green symbol) has not been 
considered  in  the  regression).  Dashed  lines  represent  specific  investment  costs 
mentioned in [5].  

Take Aways # 10-11 

  Learning curves  – although subject to a number of intrinsic and data availability 
limitations  -  enable  the  projection  of  future  technology  costs,  from  which  the 
cumulative  investment  needed  for  deploying  the  technology  (in  this  case  LIBs) 
can be estimated. The latter can subsequently be used to assess the investment 
costs for setting up new, additional manufacturing capacity.  

  Specific investment  costs for new  LIB  cell manufacturing capacity has decreased 
to  around  $  150/kWh  and  will  further  decrease  as  additional  manufacturing 
capacities come on line. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
7  Job creation potential 

Establishing  a  domestic  LIB  cell  production  industry  is  expected  to  have  a  major  effect 
on employment in the EU. The aforementioned German study [19] estimates creation of 
1050 to 1300 new direct jobs for a 13 GWh/y capacity plant requiring an investment of 
1.3 B€: 750-900 employees working in 4 shifts, 150-200 in administration, procurement 
and  sales  and  another  150-200  in  R&D.  More  than  3000  indirect  jobs  could  be  created 
within  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  cell  producing  plant  for  suppliers,  subcontractors, 
logistics, mechanical engineering, construction and automatization companies. Published 
data  on  job  creation  from  other  sources  are  included  in  Table  4  (unless  otherwise 
indicated, references as in Table 2).  

LIB cell production plant 
NPE [19] 
Tesla (Nevada) 
Panasonic (China) [72] 
Northvolt (SE) 
TerraE (DE) 
Boston 
(Australia) [73] 
VW (DE)ll [52] 

Energy 

and 

Capacity (GWh/y) 
13 
35 
2.5 
32 
8 
15 

150 

expected job creation 
1300 direct, 3000 indirect 
6500  
500  
2500-3000 direct, 20000+ indirect 
400 direct 
1000 
direct support, 5000 indirect 
9000 

in  manufacturing,  1000 

Innovation 

Table 4: Job creation potential of planned LIB cell manufacturing plants. 

Fig. 15 shows the number  of direct jobs created as a function of the  annual production 
capacity  based  on  the  data  in  Table  4.  For  the  range  of  cell  manufacturing  capacity 
covered, between 90 to 180 direct jobs are expected to be created per GWh of LIB cells 
produced annually (excluding solid-state). 

Figure 15: Estimated number of direct jobs created [data from Table 4, data point corresponding 

to solid-state LIB (red symbol) not considered in the regression].  

ll   Solid state batteries 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Whereas  the  job  creation  numbers  listed  in  the  above  table  and  figure  refer  to  cell 
manufacturing,  the  establishment  of  new  LIB  cell  production  capacities  in  Europe  in 
response  to  the  globally  booming  market  of  xEVs  and  ES  is  expected  to  strengthen  all 
European  industries  active  along  entire  the  battery  value  chain.  In  this  context,  the  US 
Supercharge  initiative,  a  public-private  partnership  proposed  in  2016  for  co-funding  by 
the Department of Commerce and aimed  at achieving US global leadership in advanced 
battery  manufacturing,  has  an  objective  of  supporting  180  GWh  of  domestic  LIB 
manufacturing  capacity  with  an  estimated  120.000  job  creation  potential  [74]. 
Comparing  the  latter  number  with  the  data  in  Fig.  15  reveals  a  multiplication  factor 
between the total number of jobs created along the complete value chain and the direct 
ones created in cell manufacturing in the range of 3.7 to 7.5, which agrees with the ratio 
of indirect to direct jobs created from the available data in Table 4.   

Take Away #12 

Establishing a competitive LIB cell manufacturing capability in the EU is expected 
to create between 90 and 180 direct jobs per GWh/y production volume.  

25 

 
 
 
 
 
8  Requirements for competitive domestic EU LIB cell 

manufacturing 

Establishing  competitive  LIB  cell  manufacturing  in  Europe  by  European  companies  is 
feasible  but  depends  on  two  main  factors:  reducing  risk  for  private  investors  (see 
investment  costs  in  Table  3  and  Annex  I)  and  realising  economies  of  scale.  To  achieve 
this, a set of conditions have to be met: 

 

Industrial cell production is primarily targeted at "advanced" LIB chemistries, i.e. 
generation-2b and beyond 

  A secure material supply is guaranteed, as well as access to non-EU markets 

  Flexibility  in  the  design  of  the  facility  allows  for  manufacturing  of  different 

chemistries and sizes/formats 

  The  facility  has  a  sufficiently  large  capacity,  say  >  5  GWh/y,  to  enable 

exploitation of technology learning 

  The plant can be operated for a long enough period at a sufficiently high capacity 
utilisation  rate  to  enable  generating  profit  following the  period  of  negative  cash-
flow upon production start 

  A skilled competent workforce is available 

If  the  above  "sine  qua  non"  requirements  can  be  met,  the  following  factors  contribute 
positively to a business case by strengthening the position of European newcomers vis-
à-vis Asian manufacturers who "copy and paste" from their proven manufacturing lines: 

  Geographical proximity of customers, in first instance of OEMs of xEVs (reduction 
of  transport  costs,  facilitation  of  exchange  of  technical  specifications,  fast 
response and delivery times) 

  Establishment  and  exploitation  of  synergies  and  knowledge  spill-overs  through 
co-location,  vertical  integration  or  joint  ventures  along  the  production  chain,  at 
least up to and including cell manufacturing (borrow from the Airbus model?) 

  Reduced energy and CO2 footprint 

  Optimum  re-use  of  end-of-first-life  xEV  batteries  or  of  materials  recycled  from 

them 

  Diversification to non-xEV markets, in particular ES and high-value niches such as 

power tools 

  Adequate provisions for IP protection 

  Reduced time for siting and permitting processes 

While  fully  realising  that  decisions  on  mass  production  of  LIB  cells  in  the  EU  are  in  the 
hands of EU industry, the Commission can undertake the following actions to reduce the 
investment  risk,  so  that  EU  industry  can  reap  the  benefits  of  a  large  and  fast-growing 
global  LIB  cell  and  cell  manufacturing  market.  Successful  implementation  of  these 
actions  requires  commitment  and  active  involvement  of  all  stakeholders  along  the  LIB 
value  chain.  The  activities  by  Commission  services  along  the  value  chain  are  shown  in 
Annex III, taken from the input prepared in the formulation of the Mobility Package [75]. 

a) Overall Energy Union policy-level 

  Maintain  and  strengthen  the  commitment  to  the  transition  of  the  overall  EU 
energy system, as outlined in the five overarching objectives of the Energy Union. 
In particular pursue the legislative initiatives already started with RED II, the new 

26 

 
 
 
 
electricity market design, the revision of the CO2 emissions of LDV legislation, to 
foster  deeper  and  accelerated  integration  and  coupling  of  the  power,  transport 
and  heat  sectors  through  deployment  of  energy  storage  solutions,  a.o.  through 
the use of LIBs (DG ENER, CLIMA, MOVE).  

  As  indicated  in  the  ACEI  Communication  [67],  make  increasing  use  of  the 
possibility  under  the  Annual  Union  Work  Programme  for  Standardisation  of 
including  requests  to  the  European  Standards  Organisations  (ESOs)  to  develop 
European  standards  to  support  implementation  of  Energy  Union  objectives, 
notably  for  the  decarbonisation  of  the  economy  and  support  for  green  public 
procurement (DG ENER, JRC, GROW).  

  As  outlined  in  the  ACEI  Communication  [67],  optimally  exploit  the  potential  of 
current EU-level financial instruments, enhance the synergies between them and 
where  necessary  deploy  new,  targeted  financial  instruments  to  lower  the  risk  of 
investments  in  untested  but  promising  clean  energy  technologies  or  business 
models and thereby contribute to more favourable market access conditions (DG 
ENER, CLIMA, ECFIN, GROW, REGIO, MOVE, COMP, …). 

  As mentioned in the ACEI Communication [67], examine options to boost market 
uptake  of  innovative  clean  energy  solutions  through  public  procurement  and 
strengthen the role that public administrations can play to support smart, clean & 
innovative industry & economy (DG GROW). 

  Through  supporting  social,  economic  and  financial  innovation,  enable  all 
categories  of  energy  end-users  (individuals,  companies,  institutions)  to  assume 
and  effectively 
increasingly  decarbonised, 
decentralised and digitised service-based energy systems of power, transport and 
heat. 

their  role 

implement 

the 

in 

  Step up support to establishing a skilled, competent EU work force in new energy 
repair,  permitting 

technologies 
authorities, first responders, …) (DG EMPL, EAC, RTD, GROW, …). 

(producers,  suppliers,  maintenance  and 

  Strike  the  appropriate  balance  between  the  conflicting  aspects  of  protection  of 
intellectual  property  and  dissemination  of  research  outcomes  from  publically 
supported R&I projects. 

b) more specifically for batteries: 

  ensure  stable  and  fair  access  by  EU  industry  to  the  supply  of  LIB  component 
materials (import) and to international markets for LIB cells and packs, xEVs and 
ES systems produced in the EU (export) (DG TRADE). 

  Critically assess the measures and the commitment outlined by European industry 
and Member States for efforts to better focus, coordinate and integrate their R&I 
efforts  on  batteries  for  e-mobility  and  for  stationary  storage  applications 
(forthcoming  Implementation  Plan  of  Action  7  of  the  Integrated  SET-Plan)  (DG 
RTD, ENER, JRC, MOVE, GROW). 

  Pursue the activities set out for the Battery Flagship Initiative under the recently 
published Mobility Package [75], covering the what-who-how of this initiative and 
play on the strengths of the Commission's convening power to arrive at common 
solutions  shared  between  key  actors  in  industry,  public  authorities,  financing 
sector and research (SG, DG GROW, EPSC, JRC, RTD, COMP, ECFIN, …). 

  Prioritise  access  to  financing  for  the  establishment  of  first-of-a-kind  and  pilot 

production lines based on the latest and best available technology.  

  Together  with  stakeholders  identify  and  propose  measures  for  eliminating  non-

technological barriers to the use of LIBs in a number of applications. 

27 

 
 
  Ensure that the revision of the Battery Directive (2006/66/EC) and of the End-of-
Life  Vehicles  Directive  (2000/53/EC)  strike  the  appropriate  balance  between 
environmental  and  competitiveness  considerations  and  that  the  revisions  are 
timely  available  for  safeguarding  and  strengthening  the  EU  competitive  edge  in 
recycling of batteries (DG ENV). 

  Maintain  and  expand  in-house  test  facilities  for  performance  and  safety 
characterisation  and  development  of  an  enabling  set  of  European  standards  for 
next generation batteries, cells and packs (JRC). 

  Prepare  for  the  inclusion  of  LIB  related  topics  in  the  2018  Annual  Union  Work 
Programme on standardisation; in this respect monitor the follow-up given by the 
ESOs  to  the  conclusions  of  the  JRC-organised  Putting  Science  into  Standards 
Workshop on batteries for e-mobility [64] (DG GROW, JRC). 

  Sustain and improve the focus of R&I funding on battery chemistries (in particular 
for electrodes and to allow fast charging), on cell design and on high added-value 
manufacturing  processes  (DG  RTD  as  per  Annex  to  the  ACEI  Communication 
[67]). Next to the KLIB battery competence network [76] in Germany, the 4-year 
government-funded  Faraday  Challenge  initiative  endowed  with  £246m  recently 
launched  in  UK  [77]  is  an  interesting  example  of  structuring  battery-related 
research over the complete value chain, with targets set on cell cost, gravimetric 
energy density, operating temperature range and pack recyclability to be reached 
by 2035.  

  Maintain R&I support in order for  EU industry not to lose its competitive edge in 
the pack manufacturing and subsequent segments in the battery value chain (DG 
RTD). 

  Enhance  synergy  with  other  relevant  EU-cofunded  R&I  programmes,  e.g. 

Graphene Flagship, Smart Manufacturing, Industry 4.0 (DG RTD). 

Take Away # 13 

For  domestic  LIB  cell  manufacturing  by  European  companies  to  be  globally 
competitive, two conditions have to be met: the risk for private investors has to 
be  reduced  and  realising  economies  of  scale  must  be  made  possible.  A  set  of 
actions  that  the  Commission  can  take  to  enable  EU  industry  meeting  these 
requirements is proposed. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
9  Conclusions 

The  Commission  has  been  an  early  supporter  of  the  development  of  batteries  as  a  key 
enabling  technology  for  electric  mobility  and  for  achieving  Energy  Union  objectives  on 
energy storage. Following their successful deployment in consumer electronics, LIBs are 
currently  the  main  chemistry  being  pursued  for  these  applications  and  this  is  likely  to 
remain  so  for  the  next  decade.  However,  the  EU  does  not  have  a  complete  LiB  value 
chain albeit being competitive in several of its segments: the EU is lagging on production 
of  active  materials  and  cell  manufacture,  whereas  its  competitive  strengths  reside  in 
downstream  segments  (packing,  applications)  and  in  its  good  potential  to  become  a 
global leader in recycling.  

Given  the  growing  strategic  interest  in  batteries  for  achieving  EU  policy  goals,  the 
Commission is reflecting on the need and activities to be deployed for establishing large-
scale  LiB  cell  manufacturing  in  Europe  for  mobility  as  well  as  for  stationary  storage 
applications.  To  underpin  future  decision-making  towards  this,  the  present  report  has 
reviewed  cost  and  market  volume  projections  for  LiBs  and  has  looked  into  factors 
affecting  EU  competitiveness  in  the  different  stages  of  the  LiB  value  chain.  The  major 
findings can be summarised as follows: 

Economic potential for LIBs for mobility and stationary storage applications: 

  The costs of LIBs continuously decrease and will soon reach a level that triggers 

their wide-spread, accelerated deployment in xEVs and ES applications. 

  The global market for LIBs in xEV and ES applications is huge. xEVs will represent 
the largest market in the near future, whereas expected growth rates are highest 
for ES  applications. Most recent market forecasts for both applications are being 
revised upwards. 

Adequacy of existing and planned LiB cell manufacturing capacity:  

  Current  LIB  manufacturing  capacity  is  concentrated  in  Asia  and  is  not  able  to 
meet  the  increasing  global  demand  for  xEV  and  ES.  LIB  cell  manufacturers,  in 
particular  Asian  ones,  are  investing in  additional  and  new  production capabilities 
close to the major demand centres, i.e. in Asia, US and Europe. 

  The  absence  of  domestic  LIB  cell  manufacturing  in the  EU  negatively  affects  the 

competitiveness of European xEV producers and ES service providers. 

  Currently  known  planned  cell  production  capacities  in  Europe  are  expected  to 
suffice for meeting the minimum estimate of xEV deployment in Europe in 2025, 
but most likely will not be able to meet the maximum projected demand. 

Scope for an EU LIB cell production activity: 

  Considerations  on  EU  competitiveness  in  LIB  cell  manufacturing  should  target 
innovation in cell chemistries, formats and manufacturing technologies/processes. 

  Efforts for establishing LIB cell manufacturing capacity in the EU should primarily 
target  LIB  cells  of  generation-2b  and  beyond  and  should  focus  on  production 
stages which are critical for LIB quality, performance and safety. 

  Competing  with  non-EU  LIB  cell  producers  on  cost-only  basis  is  unlikely  to  be 
successful. A competitive EU LIB cell production should offer added value beyond 
cost, in terms of enhanced sustainability, safety and performance. 

Necessary enabler for an EU LIB cell manufacturing capacity: 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
  Sustained and even increased R&I efforts, covering materials and manufacturing 
processes  in  terms  of  technical,  safety  sustainability  performance  are  needed  to 
underpin competitive battery manufacturing in the EU. 

Estimation of required investments: 

  Specific investment  costs for new  LIB  cell manufacturing capacity has decreased 
to  around  $150/kWh  and  will  further  decrease  as  additional  manufacturing 
capacities come on line. 

Estimation of job creation potential 

  Establishing a competitive LIB cell manufacturing capability in the EU is expected 

to create between 90 and 180 direct jobs per GWh/y production volume. 

Based on these findings, the report identifies two major conditions for domestic LIB cell 
manufacturing  by  European  companies  to  be  globally  competitive:  the  risk  for  private 
investors  has  to  be  reduced  and  realising  economies  of  scale  must  be  made  possible. 
The report concludes by proposing a number of actions that the Commission can take to 
assist EU industry to meet these requirements and thereby enable it to take its share in 
a globally booming market. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
References 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 
7. 
8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 
13. 

Commission Communication Clean Energy for All Europeans, 
COM(2016)860 
N. Lebedeva, F. Di Persio, L. Boon-Brett: Lithium-ion battery value chain 
and related opportunities for Europe, available at 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/jrc105010_161214_li-
ion_battery_value_chain_jrc105010.pdf 
https://setis.ec.europa.eu/system/files/integrated_set-
plan/action7_declaration_of_intent_0.pdf 
European  Commission:  Towards  an 
Integrated  Strategic  Energy 
Technology  (SET)  Plan:  Accelerating  the  European  Energy  System 
Transformation, C(2015)6317 
C. Pillot, The rechargeable battery markets and main trends 2016-2025, 
The Battery Show Europe, April 2017.  
Deutsche Bank Market Research Industry: EV battery makers, June 2016 
VDMA, Roadmap Battery Production Equipment 2030 – Update 2016 
https://electrek.co/2017/06/28/audi-electric-car-battery-cost/, June 
2017 
http://insideevs.com/gm-chevrolet-bolt-for-2016-145kwh-cell-cost-volt-
margin-improves-3500/ 2015 
http://benchmarkminerals.com/lithium-ion-batteries-are-now-selling-for-
under-140kwh-new-york-hears-on-benchmark-world-tour-2017/, May 
2017 
ICCT: Update on electric vehicle technology and incentive analysis, Jan. 
2017 
UBS Global Research Q-series, May 2017 
C. Curry, Lithium-ion battery costs and market, 
https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-costs-squeezed-
margins-new-business-models/ (2016) 

14.  M. Rosina: Main drivers and key trends observed in advanced batteries, 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

25. 

26. 

27. 

EES Europe Conference, May 2017 
Fraunhofer ISI: Gesamt-Roadmap Lithium-Ionen-Batterien 2030, Dec. 
2015 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-22/move-over-tesla-
europe-s-building-its-own-battery-gigafactories?, May 2017 
Goldman-Sachs, quoted in www.ft.com/content/8c94a2f6-fdcd-11e6-
8d8e-a5e3738f9ae4, March 2017 
Navigant Research: Market Data non-automotive transportation markets 
for advanced batteries, 2017Q1 
Nationale Plattform Elektromobilität: Roadmap integrierte Zell-und 
Batterieproduktion Deutschland, Jan. 2016 
Batstorm project, deliverable D7 - Costs and benefits for deployment 
scenarios of battery systems, March 2017 
Clean Energy Manufacturing Analysis Center, Benchmarks of Global Clean 
Energy Manufacturing, 2015 
http://www.visualcapitalist.com/china-leading-charge-lithium-ion-
megafactories/, July 2017 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-28/china-is-about-
to-bury-elon-musk-in-batteries, June 2017 
https://climateprotection.org/10-battery-gigafactories-wow-works-elon-
musk-may-add-4/, June 2017 
https://electrek.co/2017/08/24/factory-ev-batteries-engineer-spacexs-
falcon-and-dragon-battery-packs/ August 2017 
https://www.energy-storage.news/news/two-or-more-gigafactories-
expected-for-india-by-2019, July 2017 
https://asia.nikkei.com/Japan-Uptake/Toray-building-plant-for-electric-
car-battery-parts-in-Europe, August 2017 

31 

 
28. 

29. 

30. 

31. 

32. 
33. 

34. 
35. 

36. 

37. 

38. 

39. 

40. 

41. 

42. 

43. 

44. 

45. 

46. 

47. 

48. 
49. 
50. 

51. 

52. 

53. 

54. 

http://media.daimler.com/marsMediaSite/en/instance/ko/Daimler-builds-
battery-factory-in-Beijing.xhtml?oid=22832397, July 2017 
http://insideevs.com/lg-chem-to-construct-battery-factory-in-poland/, 
April 2016 
http://www.reuters.com/article/lg-chem-poland-idUSL3N17H1IV ,April 
2016 
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/10/06/lg-chem-building-ev-battery-
production-plant-near-wroclaw-poland-1-3-billion-zloty/ , Oct. 2016 
http://insideevs.com/lg-chem-build-battery-plant-europe/., Oct. 2015 
https://hipa.hu/electromobility-construction-of-samsung-sdi-battery-
factory-in-god-completed, May 2017 
http://www.samsungsdi.com/sdi-news/1642.html?idx=1642, May 2017 
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/business/asia/korea/2017/08/02/499782/korean-
battery.htm, August 2017 
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/08/tesla-adds-
german-firm-grohmann-to-european-operations , Nov. 2016 
http://www.manager-magazin.de/fotostrecke/tesla-diese-standorte-in-
europa-wollen-die-gigafactory-fotostrecke-145546.html ,March 2017 
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/euro-gigafactory-rivals-
line-up-against-tesla , Dec. 2016 
P. Carlsson (CEO Northvolt), presentation to the EC, March 2017, 
Brussels 
K. Eberhardt: Smart size battery cell factory, EES Europe Conference, 
May 2017. Also some info is available on internet 
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/elektromobilitaet-neue-
firmenallianz-will-batteriezellen-in-deutschland-
produzieren/19304568.html; 
http://www.oemoffhighway.com/electronics/power-systems/batteries-
capacitors/news/20862261/terrae-plans-gigafactory-for-lithiumion-cells-
in-germany, May 2017 
https://www.pressebox.de/pressemitteilung/bmz-batterien-montage-
zentrum-gmbh/TerraE-formt-Konsortium-fuer-Gigafactory/boxid/864014, 
July 2017 
https://tiresandparts.net/news/parts/terrae-plans-set-huge-factory-
lithium-ion-batteries-germany/, August 2017 
SET-Plan Temporary Working Group on Batteries for e-mobility and 
stationary storage – Italian input to Annex B 
https://seenews.com/news/bulgarias-monbat-buys-two-lithium-ion-
battery-businesses-in-germany-573573, June 2016 
http:www.greencarreports.com/news/1110772_nissan-to-sell-electric-
car-batteryy-unit-aesc-to-Chinese-company-report, August 2017 
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/24/largest-battery-factory-europe-
construction-daimler/, May 2017 
http://www.bmz-gmbh.de/press/press-releases/0,2,4545,568.html 
http://www.byd.com/news/news-390.html, June 2016 
http://www.autonews.com/article/20161018/COPY01/310189944/vw-
labor-boss-demands-commitment-to-battery-production-report-says, 
Oct. 2016 
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/07/toyota-wants-to-commercialize-
solid-state-ev-batteries-by-2022-reports-say/, July 2017 
http://www.autonews.com/article/20170710/OEM01/170719958/vw-
battery-gigafactory-tesla, July 2017 
Copenhagen Economics, Opportunities for new metal value chains in 
Sweden, March 2017 
http://benchmarkminerals.com/basf-targets-cathode-supply-security-
with-norilsk-nickel-cobalt-negotiations,  July 2017 

32 

 
55. 

56. 

57. 

58. 

59. 

60. 

61. 

62. 

63. 

64. 

65. 

66. 
67. 

68. 

69. 

70. 

71. 

72. 

73. 

74. 

75. 

76. 

77. 

https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/eip-raw-
materials/en/content/development-innovative-and-sustainable-lithium-
extraction-process-medium-lithium-grade 
H. Heimes: Outlining emerging best practices in next-generation battery 
manufacturing, The Battery Show Europe, April 2017 
R. Stanek: Potentials for European Battery manufacturing capabilities for 
battery systems, The Battery Show Europe, April 2017 
K. Brandt: Carbon footprint of Li-ion batteries and ways to reduce it, EES 
Europe Conference, May 2017 
Navigant research brief, Alternative revenue models for advanced 
batteries, 2016Q1 
JRC Exploratory Research Intermediate Report on Sustainability 
Assessment of Second Life Application of Automotive Batteries, December 
2016 
C.Mikolajczak, M.Kahn, K.White, R.T. Long, Lithium-ion batteries hazard 
and use assessment, Fire Protection Research Foundation, 2011, p. 72-
84. 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-08/samsung-sdi-
puts-out-minor-fire-at-tianjin-battery-factory, Feb. 2017 
A.Pfrang, A.Kriston, V.Ruiz, N.Lebedeva, F.Di Persio, Safety of 
Rechargeable Energy Storage Systems with a focus on Li-ion Technology, 
Chapter 8 in Emerging Nanotechnologies in rechargeable energy storage 
systems, Eds. L.M. Rodriguez-Martinez, N. Omar, Elsevier, 2017. 
V. Ruiz, L. Boon-Brett, M. Steen, L. van den Berghe: Putting Science into 
Standards - Driving Towards Decarbonisation of Transport: Safety, 
Performance, Second Life and Recycling of Automotive Batteries for e-
Vehicles; 2016; available at 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/jrc104285_jrc104285_final_repo
rt_psis_2016_pubsy_revision.pdf 
European Commission SWD (2017)61: Energy Storage – the role of 
electricity 
Navigant Research report: Hybrid Advanced Battery Markets, 2017Q2 
Commission Communication Advancing Clean Energy Innovation, 
COM(2016)763 
European Commission SWD (2017): Towards clean, competitive and 
connected mobility: the contribution of transport Research and 
Innovation to the Mobility Package, SWD(2017)223 
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170426006938/en/Panasonic-
Opens-Automotive-Lithium-Ion-Battery-Factory-Dalian/, April 2017 
https://www.bestmag.co.uk/content/thailand-become-major-li-ion-
player, May 2017 
http://www.pv-magazine.com/2017/04/06/dynavolt-opens-6-gwh-
lithium-battery-production-plant-in-china/, April 2017 
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170426006938/en/Panasonic-
Opens-Automotive-Lithium-Ion-Battery-Factory-Dalian/, April 2017 
http://reneweconomy.com.au/boston-energy-consortium-advances-
plans-for-queensland-battery-gigafactory-63187/, (may 2017) 
New York Battery and Energy Storage Technology Consortium: NIST 
NNMI Proposal: Supercharge US, 2016 
Commission Communication Europe on the Move – An agenda for a 
socially fair transition towards clean, competitive and connected mobility 
for all, COM(2017)283 
KLIB: Research and Development for Batteries – Proposal for Future 
Funding Programmes, March 2017 
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/07/20170724-apc.html, July 
2017 

33 

 
78. 

79. 

80. 

81. 

82. 

O. Schmidt, A. Hawkes, A. Gambhir, I. Staffell, The future cost of 
electrical energy storage based on experience rates, Nature Energy, 2, 
2017 article number 17110 
N. Kittner, F. Lill, D. Kammen, Energy storage deployment and innovation 
for the clean energy transition, Nature Energy, 2, article number 17125 
S. Yeh and E. Rubin: Uncertainties in Technology Experience Curves for 
Energy-Economic Models, in Modeling the Economics of Greenhouse Gas 
Mitigation: Summary of a Workshop, K. John Holmes Rapporteur; 
National Research Council, Washington DC, USA, 2011. Full text available 
from The National Academies Press at 
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13023 
B. Nykvist, M. Nilsson, Rapidly falling costs of battery packs for electric 
vehicles, Nat. Clim. Chang. 5, 329-332 (2015) 
Deutsche Bank Market Research Industry: Solar, Feb. 2015 

34 

 
 
 
List of abbreviations and definitions 

EV 

BEV 

HEV 

electric vehicle 

battery electric vehicle 

hybrid electric vehicle 

PHEV 

plug-in hybrid electric vehicle 

xEV 

ES  

LIB 

all EV classes 

energy storage 

lithium-ion battery 

SET-Plan 

Strategic Energy Technology Plan 

EU 

DoI 

DE 

IT 

JP 

US 

KR 

PL 

HU 

SE 

BG 

CN 

CZ 

AT 

UK 

FI 

NL 

FR 

ES 

PT 

OEM 

EIP 

GWP 

SoH 

V2G 

LDV 

ESO 

IP 

RED 

SGA 

European Union 

Declaration of Intent (of Integrated SET-Plan Action 7) 

Germany 

Italy 

Japan 

United States 

South Korea 

Poland 

Hungary 

Sweden 

Bulgaria 

China 

Czech Republic 

Austria 

United Kingdom 

Finland 

The Netherlands 

France 

Spain 

Portugal 

original equipment manufacturer 

European Innovation Partnership 

global warming potential 

state of health 

vehicle to grid 

light duty vehicle 

European Standard Organisations 

intellectual property 

Renewable Energy Directive 

sales, general and administrative (expenses) 

35 

 
List of figures 

Figure 1:   Evolution of LIB component, cell and pack costs for EV applications 

[5]. .............................................................................................. 3 

Figure 2:   Evolution of LIB cell and system costs for EV and stationary storage 

application [6]............................................................................... 3 

Figure 3:   Dependence of LIB pack cost for xEV on production volume [11]. ........ 4 

Figure 4:   Share of different applications of the total global market for LIB 

[average estimates from sources used for Table 1]. ........................... 7 

Figure 5:  Growth factor (in terms of GWh(20xx)/GWh(2016)) for global LIB 

deployment in different applications [median values from Table 1]. ..... 7 

Figure 6: 

Figure 7: 

Flow of LIB cells between major trading partners (dark shades 
represent exports, lighter shades represent imports) [21]. ................. 9 

LIB cell production capacity for xEV and ES worldwide (from [6], 
based on info from a number of sources]. ....................................... 10 

Figure 8:  Global LIB cell production capacity for xEV and ES (lines) and 

projected demand evolution (shaded areas) [7]. ............................. 11 

Figure 9:  Comparison of planned production capacity in Europe, European xEV 

demand and manufacturing volume targets from the DoI [3]. ........... 13 

Figure 10:  LIB value chain (based on [2]). ..................................................... 15 

Figure 11:  Rating of EU position in the global LIB value chain [20]. ................... 16 

Figure 12:  Classification of LIB cell chemistries [19]. ....................................... 16 

Figure 13:  Primary energy consumption and CO2 emissions for LIB 

manufacturing [58]. (GWP = Global Warming Potential) ................... 19 

Figure 14:  Investment cost as a function of additional pack production capacity. 
The solid curve is taken from Annex I, whereas symbols refer to the 
announced investments listed in Table 3 (the data point 
corresponding to solid-state LIB (green symbol) has not been 
considered in the regression). Dashed lines represent specific 
investment costs mentioned in [5]. ................................................ 23 

Figure 15:  Estimated number of direct jobs created [data from Table 4, data 

point corresponding to solid-state LIB (red symbol) not considered in 
the regression]. ........................................................................... 24 

36 

 
 
List of tables 

Table 1:  Global market forecasts and increase factors in terms of size and 

monetary value for different applications of LIBs [sources as indicated 
in text]. ............................................................................................... 6 

Table 2: Initiatives and plans for LIB cell and pack producing facilities in the EU ...... 12 

Table 3:  Investment costs of planned LIB cell manufacturing plants....................... 22 

Table 4:  Job creation potential of planned LIB cell manufacturing plants................. 24 

37 

 
 
 
 
Annexes 

Annex I.  Cost projection methodologies and results - Important points 

to consider 

General Considerations 

Scientific  literature  and  market  analysis  reports  contain  a  large  number  of  cost 
projection  methodologies  for  new  technologies,  incl.  for  LIB  batteries.  These 
methodologies  are  mostly  based  on  "technology  learning  or  experience"  (e.g. 
[78],  [79])  and  express  technology  cost  (sometimes  price)  as  a  function  of 
factors  such  as  annual  (e.g.  Fig.  3)  or  cumulative  production,  of  cumulative 
patent  number,  etc.  Extrapolation  of  the  double-logarithmic  relation  between 
cost  and  the  considered  technology  learning  factor(s)  established  from  historic 
data series allows predicting the future cost evolution.  

is 

that  unforeseeable 

future  changes  (disruptive 

Cost  extrapolation  from  learning  curves  presents  inherent  limitations.  A  first 
limitation 
technology 
breakthroughs,  knowledge  spill-overs,  changes  in  commodity  prices,  …)  as  well 
as  commercial  selling  below  cost  in  order  to  capture  a  market  share  cannot  be 
accounted  for.  Second,  only  the  learning  factor(s)  included  in  the  analysis  can 
contribute to technology cost reduction. Cost decreases from other origin which 
scale  differently  with  or  do  not  depend  on  cumulative  production  capacity  (e.g. 
raw materials, technology progress) cannot be captured. Consequently projected 
technology  costs  monotonously  decrease  as  the  considered  learning  factor(s), 
e.g.  cumulative  production  volume,  increase  and  a  minimum  cost  threshold 
associated with intrinsic costs does not appear  in the projectionsmm. The  use  of 
S-shaped learning curves may prove more realistic in such a case [80]. 

In  addition  to  considering  implications  from  the  above  inherent  limitations, 
prediction  of  technology  cost  evolution  through  extrapolation  of  learning 
curve(s) should be assessed cautiously, as it is affected by the number and type 
of  learning  factors  considered,  their  range  used  in  establishing  the  learning 
curve,  the  corresponding  time  period,  the  number  of  data  in  that  range  and 
period,  the  type  of  mathematical  relation  used  for  numerically  fitting  the  data, 
etc.  All  of  these  affect  the  result  of  the  extrapolation  and  it  is  therefore  not 
surprising  that  cost  evolution  projections  in  scientific  literature  cover  a  wide 
range (e.g. [20], [81], [82]).  

Integration  of 
the  cost  versus  cumulative  production  volume  relation 
represented  by  the  learning/experience  curves,  allows  to  determine  the 
cumulative  financial  effort  (consisting  of  capital  investment  and/or  subsidy) 
required  to  achieve  given  cost  reductions  through  increasing  manufacturing 
volumenn.  

The time for reaching a given level of technology cost is obtained by introducing 
the future expected capacity need into a market growth model (chapter 3), from 
which  projections  of  costs  versus  time,  such  as  shown  in  Figs.  1  and  2,  are 
subsequently  derived.  For  such  cost  versus  time  projections,  the  uncertainties 
associated with the extrapolation of learning curves are compounded with those 
emanating from the market deployment scenario assumptions. 

mm  Conversion  of  the  logarithmic  axis  for  the  learning  factor  into  a  linear  axis  results  in  horizontal 
asymptotic behaviour of the learning curve, suggestive of – but not actually reflecting an explicitly 
included - minimum cost threshold (see e.g. Fig. 3) 

nn  see  e.g.  JRC  Scientific  and  Policy  Report  Technology  Learning  Curves  for  Energy  Policy  Support 

(EUR25471 EN, 2012) and SWD(2015) 142 Investment perspectives in electricity markets 

38 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Application to LIBs 

For the specific case of Li-ion batteries, there are additional factors which affect 
the  quality  and  reliability  of  the  cost  projections.  One  of  the  most  important  is 
the  lack  of  differentiation  between  costs  at  cell,  pack  and  system  level,  and 
indeed the lack of harmonised terminology for these levels. Another related one 
is  the  lack  of  differentiation  between  the  applications  considered:  LIB  for 
consumer electronics, power tools, xEVs, ES.  

The  above  points  are  illustrated  in  the  figure  below,  adapted  from  [78]  which 
contains the most extensive data set on LIB. The data points in the figure refer 
to  price  (not  cost)  as  a  function  of  installed  capacity  (not  production  volume) 
and therefore include additional cost factors such as R&D, depreciation warranty, 
profit.  

Fig. I.1:  Li-ion  experience  curves  for  various  technology  scopes  (from  [78],  with  solid 
red,  blue  and  green  lines  added).  Note  that  the  term  "battery"  is  used  to 
denote portable battery for consumer electronics and that "pack" and "system" 
refer to EV and ES application respectively.  

Comparing the cost evolutions for cells and  packs in Fig. I.1 indicates that cost 
reductions for EV and ES batteries can be mainly attributed to decreases in cell 
manufacturing  costs  and  to  a  lesser  extent  to  cost  reductions  of  additional 
components  required  for  the  packs.  Extrapolating  to  a  cumulative  capacity  for 
EV  packs  of  100  GWh  (green  arrow,  corresponding  to  one  of  the  two  literature 
sources for EV-data considered in the figure and assuming similar high learning 
rates  as  observed  for  high-volume  production  of  Li-ion  portable  batteries  and 
cells  shown  by  the  blue  and  red  arrows)  reveals  a  price  of  $170/kWh,  whereas 
$100/kWh is reached for a cumulative capacity of ca. 240 GWh. 

required 

to  achieve  given  cost 

For the above example (based on a high learning rate), the cumulative financial 
effort 
increasing 
manufacturing  volume  is  shown  by  the  solid  blue  curve  in  Fig.  I.2,  where  the 
labels  correspond  to  the  cumulative  manufacturing  volume  and  the  year  by 
which  this  volume  is  reached  (taken  from  Fig.  8).  The  figure  also  shows  the 
contribution  of  the  cost  of  cell  materials  from  [79],  which  is  assumed  not  to 
depend  on  manufacturing  volume  and  acts  as  a  lower  cost  threshold  for  the 
packs. 

reductions 

through 

39 

 
 
 
Fig.  I.2  shows  that  starting  from  the  2016  price  of  $332/kWh  for  a  EV  pack 
production  volume  of  33  GWh  (see  Table  1),  the  financial  effort  required  to 
reach a target price of $100/kWh corresponding to a cumulative pack production 
volume of 240 GWh, amounts to 33 B$oo.  

For  a  given  manufacturing  volume,  subtracting  the  sales  income  from  the 
required  cumulative  financial  effort  results  in  the  cumulative  financial  spend 
required  to  manufacture  (and  deploy)  a  defined  number  of  packs  at  a  given 
price.  If,  e.g.  consumers  were  prepared  to  pay  a  price  of  $100/kWh,  the 
financial  effort  required  from  manufacturers  to  reach  $100/kWh  target  price 
could  be  reduced  nearly  threefold  from  33  B$  to  12  B$  (red  curve  in  Fig.  I.2). 
Similarly,  for  a  pack  price  of  $70/kWh  charged  to  the  customer,  the  required 
financial effort is nearly halved and decreases to 19 B$ (orange curve)pp.  

Conversely, Fig. I.2 shows that a cumulative budget envelope of 10 B$ enables 
manufacturers  to  reach  a  manufacturing  cost  of  about  $208/kWh,  down 
$124/kWh  from  the  current  cost  of  $332/kWh,  by  more  than  doubling  the 
cumulative  production  volume  from  33  GWh  to  70  GWh.  Taking  into  account 
sales  income  generated  from  a  sales  price  of  $70/kWh,  this  cost  is  further 
reduced  to  $173/kWh,  for  a  correspondingly  larger  cumulative  production  of 
about 100 GWh.  

Fig. I.2: Cumulative  spend  (horizontal  axis)  required  for  establishing  manufacturing 
capability  (labels)  to  produce  LIB  packs  at  a  given  cost  (vertical  axis). 
Individual curves correspond to a selected fixed price charged to the customer. 
The year  number associated  to  a given  cumulative  capacity is taken  from  the 
optimistic demand scenario in Fig. 8. 

oo  Assuming  a  1:1  conversion  $:€,  the  2030  target  from  the  DoI  of  75  €/kWh  requires  a  financial 
expenditure of around 46 B€ corresponding to ca. 390 GWh cumulative production volume in the 
EU by that time.  

pp  When  fixed  sales  prices  are  assumed  in  the  analysis,  a  vertical  asymptote  in  Fig.  I.2  is 

approached when costs on the vertical axis approach the sales price.  

40 

 
 
 
 
                                           
The  projected  evolution  of  LIB  pack  cost  versus  time  derived  from  Fig.  I.2  is 
shown  in  Fig.  I.3,  which  also  includes  the  most  recent  cost  projections  from 
other  sources.  The  figure  illustrates  that  cost  estimates  have  been  revised 
downward in the last two years. It also shows that the cost projections based on 
extrapolation  of  the  learning  curve  shown  in  Fig.  I.1  (green  arrow,  i.e.  high 
learning  rate)  and  on  the  optimistic  demand  scenario  (Fig.  8)  fall  within  the 
range  corresponding  to  these  updated  lower  cost  estimates.  Finally,  the  cost 
targets  of  the  DoI  seem  to  be  quite  realistic  (assuming  a  1:1  conversion  ratio 
from € to $). 

Fig. I.3:  Cost  evolution  for  EV  LIB  packs  compiled  from  a  number  of  sources  (labels 
represent  actual  costs).  The  dashed  curves  represent  upper  and  lower  values 
of the projected cost range in [81]. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex II. Manufacturing innovation for higher efficiency and quality at 

reduced costs 

Technology  innovations  in  the  LIB  manufacturing  process  should  target 
achieving the opportunities for EU competitiveness identified in Chapter  5. Next 
to implementing improvements in the individual production steps resulting from 
R&D  (e.g.  [76]),  this  can  be  realised  by  (1)  production  scale-up,  (2)  higher 
stability  of  the  manufacturing  process,  (3)  building  in  flexibility,  while 
simultaneously paying due attention to additional considerations with respect to 
added value beyond cost (section 5.3).  

1. Production scale-up  

Increasing  the  production  volume  can  be  achieved  through  multiplication  of 
production  lines  or  through  increasing  the  production  volume  of  the  line,  i.e. 
scale-up.  A  higher  production  volume  is  usually  associated  with  reduced 
throughput  time.  Scale-up  is  the  major  enabler  of  technology-learning  which 
contributes to manufacturing cost reduction (see Annex I). 

2. Increased yield 

For  a  given  throughput  volume,  increasing  the  stability  of  the  production 
process,  e.g.  through  automation,  results  in  less  rejected  products  and  thus 
higher yield. Also higher integration of electrode and cell manufacturing process 
steps  contributes  to  increased  yield  by  reducing  the  possibility  for  electrode 
contamination, as does the  use of high speed in-situ non-destructive inspection 
techniques for quality control to detect flaws and internal short circuits. Process 
stability also benefits from increased use of automation in production scale-up. 

3. Flexibility in manufacturing  

Whereas  measures  for  scaled-up  and  more  stable  production  processes  are  not 
specific to the manufacture of LIB cells, higher flexibility in production definitely 
is, and needs to consider the different aspects of battery chemistry, format (e.g. 
cylindrical, prismatic, pouch) and size: 

The production of generation-3 LIBs for BEV does not require drastic changes to 
the  production  processes  used  for  generation-2  cells.  Rather  it  requires 
adaptations  to  process  parameters  or  modifications  in  individual  parts  of  the 
manufacturing  chain  to  be  able  to  deal  with  different  materials  for  cell 
components  (e.g.  high-Ni  cathode,  Si-based  anode,  high  voltage  liquid 
electrolyte).  Additionally,  modifications  may  be  needed 
reaching 
requirements  for  higher-power  cells.  Process  modifications  may  cover  e.g. 
water-based  coating,  high  speed  coating  and  stacking,  …  and  should  also 
consider the possibility to deal with different cell formats and sizes:  larger cells 
enable quality-optimised handling of thin sheet material, which combined with a 
greater thickness of active materials, results in higher energy densities and fast 
charging  ability.  Use  of  large  format  cells  may  also  benefit  battery  pack 
manufacturers (incl. OEMs) due to lower complexity (fewer connections, simpler 
thermal balancing system, simpler electronics). 

for 

Production  of  generation-4  and  5  cells  will  require  more  substantial  changes  to 
the  production  process,  particularly  for  processing  and  coating  of  electrode 
materials  and  for  manufacturing  of  solid  electrolytes.  For  these  chemistries  no 
known significant manufacturing base has yet been developed by any Asian LIB 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
manufacturerqq.  This  provides  an  opportunity  for  Europe  to  break-in  to  cell 
manufacturing for these chemistries. 

The  needed  flexibility  for  handling  chemistries  of  both  generation  3  and 
subsequent generations with different cell sizes and formats can be achieved in 
two ways: 

o  Dual  line  design:  one  (larger)  line  is  used  for  production  of 
batteries  with  conventional  chemistries  and  formats,  while  a 
new 
allows 
second 
materials/techniques/formats  that  can  be  scaled  up  quickly  when 
needed. 

introduction 

flexible 

line 

of 

o  modular  design  plants,  whereby  modules  connected  in  series  in 
the  overall  production  line,  can  be  individually  exchanged, 
modified and/or expanded. 

All the above measures should not jeopardise efforts to increase the efficiency of 
the  overall  cell  manufacturing  process  in  terms  of  the  inter-related  parameters 
of time, costs and quality. A number of areas in particular merit attention [56]:  

  Acceleration  of  formation  and  ageing  of  battery  cells  to  reduce  process 
time  and  associated  storage  periods  and  thereby  reduce  the  impact  of 
high capital costs. 

  Reduction of the size of dry (humidity-controlled) clean rooms needed for 
reducing  possibilities  of    contaminant  ingress  during  electrode  coating, 
drying,  calendaring,  electrolyte  filling,  and  cell  assembly,  including  cell 
sealing 

  Designing  cells  (format,  size,  manufacturing  processes,  labeling)  so  that 

their constituent materials can easily be recycled. 

All  of  the  above  evidently  benefit  from  implementation  of  the  opportunities 
offered by "Manufacturing 4.0": e.g. the ability to deal with vast data volumes in 
the  production  process,  new  forms  of  human-machine  interaction,  advanced 
robotics  and  3-D  printing,  new  and  increased  capabilities  for  traceability  of 
process parameters, etc. 

qq Note however the recently announced Toyota effort into using solid-state LIBs for their xEVs as of 

2022. 

43 

 
 
                                           
Annex III. Overview of EC activities on batteries structured along the value chain 

44 

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the 
address of the centre nearest you at: http://europea.eu/contact 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this 
service: 

- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or 

- by electronic mail via: http://europa.eu/contact 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa 
website at: http://europa.eu 

EU publications 
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: 
http://bookshop.europa.eu. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe 
Direct or your local information centre (see http://europa.eu/contact). 

K
J
-
N
A
-
2
8
8
3
7
-
E
N
-
N

doi:10.2760/75757
ISBN 978-92-79-74292-7