In 2026, as restored lithium iron phosphate (LFP) capacity expands from 150,000–160,000 tons to 170,000–180,000 tons, traditional hydrometallurgical LFP recycling companies are facing a wave of profit and competitive landscape reshaping driven by rivalry between different technological routes.

In recent years, the advertised figures for driving range and battery energy density of NEVs have been continuously refreshed. However, many people may not have noticed that such improvements do not entirely stem from breakthroughs in electrochemical systems—the iterations of cathode materials, anode materials, and electrolytes often take years or even longer. The more direct changes have occurred at the structural level within the battery pack. CTM, CTP, CTB, and CTC represent several technology routes with progressively higher levels of battery integration. Their shared logic is simple: reduce intermediate layers and pack the battery more tightly into the auto body. Yet each generation of solutions differs in the trade‑offs among space utilization, manufacturing cost, and ease of repair. I. CTM (Cell to Module): Traditional “Nested Dolls” Approach In the early stages of NEV development, assembly methods for battery packs followed a relatively conservative approach. Battery cells were first assembled into modules, the modules were then arranged into a battery pack, and finally the battery pack was fixed beneath the vehicle floor. Cell→Module→Pack→Auto body thus formed four independent layers. The advantages and disadvantages of this solution are both obvious. The advantage lies in repair convenience—if a single module fails, it can be replaced individually without touching the entire battery pack. At the same time, the module housing provides extra protection for the cells, resulting in relatively mature structural safety. Yet the cost is just as direct: module housings, connectors, and cooling pipes occupy a large amount of space, usually leaving the internal space utilization rate of the battery pack at only about 40%. This meant that for the same volume, the CTM solution could accommodate the fewest cells, limiting the driving range potential. For a long period, CTM was the industry’s default choice because it fit the division‑of‑labor logic of traditional automotive supply chains—battery enterprises supply modules, while automakers are responsible for integration. However, this division of labor also created a structural ceiling: the volumetric utilization rate of the battery pack was difficult to break through. II. CTP (Cell to Pack): Removing the “Middleman” The core change introduced by CTP is eliminating the intermediate module layer, allowing cells to form the battery pack directly; the space utilization rate rose from around 40% to over 70%. Meanwhile, because module housings, connectors, and fasteners were removed, the number of components in the battery pack dropped, and manufacturing costs decreased accordingly. Within the industry, two different technical choices have emerged for the implementation path of CTP. One is the completely module‑free solution represented by BYD’s blade battery. By manufacturing cells into elongated strips and arranging them directly into the battery pack, supported by a honeycomb structure, it not only improves space utilization but also assumes some structural functions. The other is the highly integrated solution represented by CATL’s CTP 3.0 (Qilin battery). It combines cells with multifunctional elastic interlayers into an integrated energy unit and integrates components such as crossbeams, longitudinal beams, cooling plates, and thermal insulation pads, further optimizing the internal layout and thermal management. The Qilin battery achieved a volumetric utilization rate of 72% and a system energy density of 255 Wh/kg. In terms of market penetration, CTP has already secured a dominant mainstream position. Currently, leading domestic NEV manufacturers have launched mass‑produced models equipped with CTP solutions, covering both independent and joint‑venture brands, and spanning a broad price range from entry‑level to high‑end products. At the same time, the market share of the traditional CTM solution has continued to shrink, now retained mainly in some micro vehicles or specific export models. Overall, CTP has become the most prevalent battery integration technology route at this stage. III. CTB and CTC: The Battery Becomes Part of the Auto Body The idea behind CTB (Cell to Body) is to integrate the upper cover of the battery pack with the vehicle floor into a single part. Battery cells are installed directly onto the vehicle floor, eliminating the separate battery pack upper cover. One of the main benefits of this solution is releasing vertical layout space, making the passenger compartment more spacious or creating conditions to lower the vehicle stance. Meanwhile, once the battery pack participates in the body’s load‑bearing, the torsional rigidity of the whole vehicle can increase by more than 70%. BYD’s Seal series and Xiaomi’s Pengcheng series are representative models employing the CTB solution. The torsional rigidity of the Seal body officially announced by BYD reaches 40,500 N·m/°; Xiaomi’s announced CTB battery volumetric efficiency is 77.8%. CTC (Cell to Chassis) goes a step further, integrating the battery system more deeply with the chassis or lower vehicle body and further weakening the structural boundary of the battery pack as an independent assembly. In some solutions, the battery system is also integrated collaboratively with thermal management, electric drive, and high/low‑voltage control modules. Representative examples of this approach are the Tesla Model Y (produced at the Texas factory) and the CTC2.0 Plus solution installed on the Leap Motor C10. The technical goals of CTB and CTC are consistent—exchange structural integration for higher space utilization and body stiffness. The difference between the two routes is mainly reflected in engineering implementation: CTB subtracts elements from the existing body architecture while retaining a relatively independent chassis frame; CTC, on the other hand, treats the chassis and battery as an integrated whole from the very beginning of design, demanding a higher level of upfront vehicle platform definition. From market data, although CTB and CTC are still at a relatively early stage of penetrating from the high‑end to the mass market, this technology route has already begun to extend down to lower price brackets. The 2026 MG4 applies CTB technology to the 60,000–100,000 yuan price range, indicating that structural integration solutions are no longer exclusive configurations for high‑end models. Concerns Regarding Structural Integration Solutions The most direct challenge faced by CTB and CTC structural integration solutions is repair economy. Under the traditional CTM approach, some faults could be repaired by replacing the module. Once CTP eliminated modules, the battery pack can usually still be removed as an independent assembly, but the smallest unit for on‑site repair and the difficulty of repair depend on the specific structure. CTB and CTC further increase the degree of integration between the battery and the auto body, which may raise the difficulty of disassembly, detection, and damage assessment. According to estimates by industry institutions, the single‑repair cost of CTB/CTC solutions is 3 to 5 times that of CTP solutions for equivalent damage. This poses new challenges for insurance companies, repair systems, and used‑car residual‑value management. Currently, some automakers, when promoting CTB solutions, simultaneously roll out supporting services such as “battery‑body integrated warranty” or “chassis armor” to alleviate consumer concerns, but a standardized solution at the industry level has yet to be formed. In addition, CTB and CTC solutions impose significantly higher requirements on vehicle manufacturing precision and after‑sales detection equipment. Once the battery is integrated with the auto body, the disassembly process involves the removal and installation of body structural components. The repair equipment and technical capabilities of traditional 4S stores may need corresponding upgrades, and behind this lies the cost of restructuring the entire after‑sales system. Evolution Direction From CTM to CTP, and then to CTB and CTC, the direction of battery pack integration technology evolution is clear—the fewer the layers, the higher the space efficiency and the stronger the body stiffness. This is an advancement path driven by space efficiency and manufacturing costs. Yet this trend is not a linear acceleration. For CTB and CTC to achieve large‑scale popularization, in addition to breakthroughs in engineering technology, supporting systems such as repair standards, insurance pricing, and used‑car evaluation need to be developed synchronously. Based on current industry data, CTP will maintain its mainstream position, while the penetration rate of CTB/CTC will depend on two variables: the degree of standardization of structural integration solutions, and the speed at which repair costs and the insurance system can adapt. SMM New Energy Industry Research Lithium Battery End‑User Analyst Fu Linqi 18122430020

In recent years, the official figures for NEV driving range and battery energy density have been continuously refreshed. However, many may not realize that these improvements do not entirely stem from breakthroughs in electrochemical systems—iterations in cathode materials, anode materials, and electrolytes often take years. More direct changes have occurred at the structural level inside battery packs. CTM, CTP, CTB, and CTC represent several technological routes where battery integration levels continue to increase. Their common logic is simple: reduce intermediate layers to "stuff" the battery more tightly into the auto body. But the trade-offs between space utilization, manufacturing cost, and repairability vary from one generation to the next. 1. CTM (Cell to Module): The Traditional "Layered Doll" Approach In the early stages of NEV development, battery pack assembly followed a relatively conservative approach. Battery cells were first assembled into modules, the modules were then arranged into a battery pack, and finally, the battery pack was fixed under the vehicle floor. Battery cell → module → battery pack → auto body formed four independent layers. The pros and cons of this solution were clear. The advantage was repair convenience—a faulty module could be replaced individually without touching the entire battery pack. Simultaneously, the module casing provided additional protection for the cells, leading to relatively mature structural safety. But the cost was just as direct: module casings, connectors, and cooling pipes took up significant space, resulting in a space utilization rate of only about 40% inside the battery pack. This meant that, for the same volume, the CTM solution could hold the fewest battery cells, limiting its driving range potential. CTM was the industry's default choice for a long time because it aligned with the traditional automotive supply chain's division of labor—battery enterprises supplied modules, and automakers handled integration. But this division also created a structural ceiling: the volumetric utilization rate of the battery pack was difficult to break through. 2. CTP (Cell to Pack): Eliminating the "Middleman" The core modification in CTP was skipping the module layer, allowing cells to directly form the battery pack; space utilization improved from around 40% to over 70%. Simultaneously, by reducing module casings, connectors, and fasteners, the number of battery pack parts decreased, leading to lower manufacturing costs. Two different technological choices for CTP implementation existed in the industry. One was the thoroughly module-free solution represented by BYD's blade battery. By shaping cells into long strips and arranging them directly into the battery pack, supported by a honeycomb-like structure, it enhanced space utilization while also assuming some structural functions. The other was the highly integrated solution represented by CATL's CTP 3.0 (Qilin battery). It combined cells with multi-functional elastic interlayers into integrated energy units and integrated components like crossbeams, longitudinal beams, water-cooling plates, and thermal pads to further optimize internal layout and thermal management. The Qilin battery achieved a volumetric utilization rate of 72% and a system energy density of 255 Wh/kg. From a market penetration perspective, CTP has achieved a dominant mainstream position. Mainstream NEV manufacturers in China have launched mass-produced car models equipped with CTP solutions, ranging from independent brands to joint ventures, covering a broad price range from entry-level to high-end products. Meanwhile, the market share of traditional CTM solutions continues to shrink, currently remaining only in some micro-vehicles or specific export models. Overall, CTP has become the most prevalent battery integration technology route at the current stage. 3. CTB and CTC: The Battery Becomes Part of the Auto Body The concept behind CTB (Cell to Body) is to merge the battery pack's top cover with the vehicle floor. Cells are installed directly onto the vehicle floor, eliminating the need for a separate battery pack top cover. One of the main benefits of this solution is freeing up vertical space, allowing for a more spacious cabin or creating conditions to lower the vehicle's stance. Simultaneously, when the battery pack participates in bearing vehicle loads, torsional stiffness can increase by over 70%. BYD's Seal series and Xiaomi's Pengcheng series are representative models featuring CTB solutions. BYD officially announced that the Seal's body torsional stiffness reached 40,500 N·m/°. Xiaomi Auto announced a CTB battery volumetric efficiency of 77.8%. CTC (Cell to Chassis) goes a step further, integrating the battery system more deeply with the chassis or underbody, further blurring the structural boundary of the battery pack as an independent assembly. In some solutions, the battery system is also integrated collaboratively with thermal management, electric drive, and high/low-voltage control modules. Representative examples of this approach include the Tesla Model Y (Texas factory version) and the Leapmotor C10 equipped with the CTC 2.0 Plus solution. The technical goals of CTB and CTC are aligned—exchanging space utilization and body stiffness through structural integration. The difference between the two routes is more apparent in engineering implementation: CTB simplifies on top of the existing body architecture, retaining a relatively independent chassis frame; CTC treats the chassis and battery as a single whole from the outset, placing higher demands on the vehicle platform's upfront definition. Market data indicates that while CTB and CTC are still in the relatively early stages of penetrating from the high-end to the mass market, this technological route has begun to filter down to lower price brackets. The 2026 MG4 brought CTB technology down to the price range of 60,000 to 100,000 yuan, showing that structural integration solutions are no longer exclusive to high-end car models. Concerns Over Structural Integration Solutions The most direct challenge facing CTB and CTC structural integration solutions is repair economics. In traditional CTM solutions, some faults could be repaired by replacing the module. After CTP eliminated modules, the battery pack could usually still be removed as an independent assembly, but the smallest repairable unit and repair difficulty on-site depended on the specific structure. CTB and CTC, however, further increase the degree of integration between the battery and auto body, potentially increasing the difficulty of disassembly, detection, and damage assessment. According to industry estimates, the single-occurrence repair cost for a CTB/CTC solution is 3 to 5 times that of a CTP solution under the same damage conditions. This poses new challenges for insurance companies, the repair system, and the residual value management of used cars. Currently, some automakers, when promoting CTB solutions, simultaneously launch supporting services like "battery-body integrated warranty" or "chassis armor" to alleviate consumer concerns, but this issue has not yet formed a standardized solution at the industry level. Additionally, CTB and CTC solutions demand significantly higher vehicle manufacturing precision and after-sales detection equipment. Once the battery is integrated with the body, the removal process involves disassembling and reassembling structural body parts, requiring potential upgrades to traditional 4S shops' repair equipment and technical capabilities, involving the restructuring costs of the entire after-sales system. Evolutionary Direction From CTM to CTP, and then to CTB and CTC, the evolutionary direction of battery pack integration technology is clear—fewer layers lead to higher space efficiency and greater body stiffness. This is a forward path driven by space efficiency and manufacturing costs. But this trend is not a linear acceleration. For CTB and CTC to achieve large-scale adoption, besides engineering breakthroughs, simultaneous progress is needed in supporting systems like repair standards, insurance pricing, and used car evaluation. Based on current industry data, CTP will continue to hold its mainstream position, while the penetration rate of CTB/CTC will depend on two variables: the degree of standardization in structural integration solutions and the pace at which repair costs and insurance systems adapt.

POSCO Future M said it is continuing to secure new customer orders for its cathode materials business, while preparing to strengthen cost competitiveness in LFP cathode materials. The company said it plans to apply a new LFP production process from 2029 after entering the market. The process is expected to leverage POSCO Group’s internal supply chain, including steel mill byproducts and lithium raw materials, to secure a cost advantage. In the anode materials business, POSCO Future M said its artificial graphite plant in Vietnam is scheduled to begin trial operations in the second half of next year, while its spherical graphite plant in Saemangeum is planned to start trial operations in the first half of next year. Through these projects, the company aims to raise its anode materials utilization rate to more than 70% next year and over 90% the following year.

LG Chem announced on July 31 that its consolidated revenue for Q2 stood at KRW 14.1759 trillion, with operating profit of KRW 599.6 billion. Revenue rose 19.0% YoY, while operating profit increased 25.8% YoY. In particular, In the advanced materials division, revenue increased on expanded cathode material sales and strong performance in the electronic materials business, while operating profit turned positive. For Q3, LG Chem expects battery materials revenue to expand, supported by higher cathode shipments to new customers and increased separator sales for ESS applications.

This week, the industry chain exhibited a diverging pattern, with upstream raw material and cobalt salt prices weakening while midstream and downstream material prices remained relatively stable. Trading in refined cobalt, intermediate products, cobalt sulphate, cobalt chloride, Co3O4, and cobalt powder was generally sluggish. Downstream buyers mostly maintained just-in-time procurement, as off-season demand was insufficient, and inventory pressure along with low-priced supply continued to weigh on market prices. Although some miners and smelters, supported by high-cost inventory, still intended to hold prices firm, traders and recycling companies became more active in selling, and the decline in the cost of refined cobalt reverse dissolution further strengthened market expectations of pushing for lower prices. In the short term, related product prices still face downward pressure. Ternary cathode precursor, ternary cathode material, and LCO prices remained stable overall. Leading ternary cathode precursor companies performed well in export orders, and domestic production schedules recovered somewhat, but small and medium-sized enterprises were still affected by the off-season. Demand for ternary cathode materials from the EV sector stayed at a high level; some battery cell enterprises stockpiled in advance, and August orders are expected to be stable with slight growth. Consumer-side demand remained mediocre. Affected by sluggish end-use demand and substitution by ternary cathode materials, LCO production and sales remained low, further narrowing enterprises' profit margins. Subsequent market recovery will still depend on the restocking pace in mid-to-late August and the release of demand during the September-October peak season.

[SMM Cobalt Lithium Morning Meeting Summary: Raw Material Price Divergence Intensifies; Energy Storage Demand Supports Continued Industry Prosperity] This week, the relevant material markets continued to diverge in performance. Upstream ore prices stopped falling and rebounded, but high-price transactions remained constrained. Some ex-China capacities gradually recovered, and market attention shifted from supply disruptions to the pace of new capacity releases. Salt products were supported by maintenance outages, tightening circulation of spot orders, and low inventories, leading to somewhat active spot transactions. However, downstream players still mainly made just-in-time procurement on price dips, and concentrated stockpiling has yet to emerge. The cobalt industry chain remained under pressure overall, with the price centers of refined cobalt, intermediate products, cobalt salts, and cobalt powder shifting downward. Off-season demand, inventory pressure, and low-priced cargoes continued to weigh on the market. Nickel sulphate inventories declined, and cost support strengthened somewhat. Prices of ternary cathode precursors and ternary cathode materials generally remained stable. The LFP, electrolyte, and sodium-ion battery sectors performed relatively strongly, with demand from energy storage, commercial vehicles, and Q3 stockpiling driving production schedules higher. Inventories of some products continued to decline. The anode and separator markets were generally stable. Different raw material varieties in the recycling sector showed divergent performance. The overall industry chain remained in a phase of concurrent demand improvement and cost pass-through.

① Policy: China's first national standard for vehicle solid-state batteries (GB/T43568-2026) took effect, paired with a consumption tax exemption; ② Materials: multiple hundred-ton-level sulfide production lines commenced commissioning in Q3, with a leading EV manufacturer completing a 1‑ton electrolyte tender (awarded below RMB 2 million/ton), signaling the industry's shift to "ton‑level transactions"; ③ Products ：SVOLT Energy's hybrid solid-liquid batteries entered volume production in Q3,

This week, the industry chain remained sluggish from top to bottom, with every segment from cobalt chloride to lithium cobalt oxide (LCO) under dual pressure from high inventories and weak demand. Cost side, the cost of recycled materials and refined cobalt financing has now fallen significantly below market quotes, but upstream smelters generally hold previously acquired high-cost inventories, making it difficult to lower costs through low-price purchases in a falling market. This kept cobalt chloride offer prices seemingly firm on the surface. Some enterprises have begun to gradually sell at reduced margins, trying to accelerate turnover to offset losses, but downstream uptake is extremely weak, and even price cuts cannot generate meaningful volumes. Midstream Co3O4 enterprises, squeezed by the triple pressures of high inventories, thin margins, and inventory buildup risks, have generally kept production rates low. Although there are market rumors of a few ultra-low price sources, they are not yet broadly representative. Downstream cathode material plants hold ample inventories, so short-term procurement is not needed to sustain production, with inquiries far outnumbering actual transactions. In the LCO segment, faced with persistently weak demand, enterprises had to cut prices to sell in order to defend market share, sharply compressing profit margins, while shipments did not improve correspondingly. Notably, although battery cell manufacturers’ production schedules rebounded, the growth did not trickle upstream, partly because the substitution ratio of ternary cathode materials increased, further diverting demand away from LCO. In summary, inventory destocking across the entire industry chain has been slow and demand transmission has been hindered. Cobalt chloride and Co3O4 prices still have downside room in the near term, while LCO prices will remain largely stable with limited fluctuations.

L&F announced on July 29 that it has signed an LFP cathode materials supply contract with Coreshell. The company did not disclose the contract period, supply volume or contract value.