Disseminated on behalf of Alaska Energy Metals Corporation.
The electric vehicle (EV) revolution is unfolding at full speed. EV sales, battery factories, and electrification plans are all increasing rapidly across the world. But behind this clean‑energy success story lies a growing risk that few people fully grasp: the supply of high‑purity nickel — known as Class 1 nickel — is under increasing strain.
While overall nickel output appears large, the specific kind of nickel that powers EV batteries is far harder to secure. Add in rising geopolitical tensions and energy price shocks, and the result is a supply chain that is both fragile and critical.
Nickel’s Role in the EV Revolution
Nickel is a key ingredient in the lithium‑ion batteries that power most long‑range electric vehicles. Modern battery chemistries like NMC (Nickel‑Manganese‑Cobalt) and NCA (Nickel‑Cobalt‑Aluminum) use large amounts of nickel because it improves energy density, which helps EVs travel farther on a single charge.
- As a result, demand for nickel from EV batteries is soaring. IRENA data suggested that global demand for nickel used in EV batteries could reach more than 1.09 million tonnes by 2030 under current trends, depending on battery technology and adoption rates.
As per analysts and industry pundits, as EV markets grow across the U.S., Europe, China, and other regions, this nickel demand is only expected to rise further. What makes this particularly challenging is that EV battery producers only accept Class 1 nickel — nickel that is at least 99.8% pure and suitable for conversion into nickel sulfate, which is essential for battery cathodes.
Why Class 1 Nickel Is Scarce
On the surface, the global nickel supply seems large. Countries like Indonesia have rapidly increased production, and numerous mines operate in Asia, Russia, and Latin America. But most of this nickel is Class 2, a lower‑purity type used mainly in stainless steel production, which cannot easily or cheaply be turned into battery‑grade material.
This means the world may have enough nickel in total, but the kind that matters most to the EV industry is limited. This structural imbalance between total output and battery‑grade supply is now one of the EV sector’s biggest supply challenges.
According to McKinsey, Class 1 supply growth is lagging demand growth. Some analysts project that even by 2025, primary Class 1 capacity may only supply around 1.2 million tonnes, compared with demand closer to 1.5 million tonnes, indicating a shortfall right when EV adoption accelerates.
- MUST SEE: The Ultimate Guide to Nickel: Supply, Demand, and Nickel Prices for 2026 and Beyond
- CHECK: LIVE NICKEL PRICES
Global Conflict Adds Supply Risk
Geopolitics is also heightening uncertainty. Russia, historically one of the largest producers of high‑grade nickel, saw its exports disrupted after the Ukraine war began. Sanctions and shifting trade relationships have forced automakers and battery makers to look for alternatives.
Meanwhile, an analysis from S&P Global explained how instability in the Middle East may not directly affect nickel mining, but it does influence everything from energy costs to shipping routes. Critical passages like the Strait of Hormuz handle significant volumes of global oil and gas. Any disruption there can increase fuel prices, which raises costs throughout the mining, refining, and logistics chain.
Since nickel production and refining are energy‑intensive, rising energy costs feed directly into higher production costs. In this way, even conflict far from nickel mines can tighten the Class 1 supply chain.
Processing Bottlenecks Drive Hidden Risk
Another often overlooked factor is processing. Much of the world’s nickel comes from lateritic ores, especially in Indonesia and the Philippines. To turn these ores into battery‑ready nickel sulfate requires a complex High‑Pressure Acid Leach (HPAL) process that depends heavily on sulfuric acid and stable energy inputs.
Disruptions to sulfur supply — linked closely to global energy markets — can slow down or increase the cost of HPAL operations. Analysts have highlighted that future price swings in battery‑grade nickel could be driven not just by ore availability but by these processing input risks tied to sulfur and acid supply.
So even if mines produce enough nickel ore, the ability to convert it into usable battery material can become the real bottleneck.
A Two‑Tier Nickel Market
As a result of these pressures, the nickel world is dividing into a clear two‑tier market:
- A surplus of lower‑grade Class 2 nickel
- A shortage of high‑purity Class 1 nickel demanded by EV makers
This gap is expected to grow as EV battery demand rises more sharply than Class 1 production capacity. Data from IEA shows that demand for nickel in cleantech applications, mainly EVs, could more than double from around 560 kilotonnes in the early 2020s to over 1,349 kilotonnes by 2030.
Yet most new refining capacity is focused on processing laterite ores, and planned Class 1 expansions are relatively limited. This makes high‑purity nickel increasingly strategic.
Tight Battery Nickel Amid Shifting Market Trends
The same S&P report has emphasized this imbalance as a core structural challenge in the nickel market. While overall nickel supply may at times appear ample, the availability of battery‑grade nickel remains tight and vulnerable to both demand shifts and supply disruptions.
Furthermore, tracking the broader nickel market trends showed that industrial demand dynamics and tariff uncertainty have at times weighed on prices, even as battery‑grade demand continues to grow.
This mixed picture of soft prices amid growing strategic demand underscores how complicated the nickel supply story has become.
The Rising Value of Sulphide Nickel in North America
Not all nickel sources are equal. Sulphide nickel deposits — found in places like parts of Canada, Australia, and Alaska — are much easier to process into high‑purity Class 1 material than laterites. They also tend to have lower emissions and simpler refining paths.
Sulphide Nickel: Scarce but Strategic
Not all nickel sources are equal. Sulphide nickel deposits found in places like parts of Canada, Australia, and Alaska are much easier to process into high‑purity Class 1 material than laterites. They also tend to have lower emissions and simpler refining paths.
However, sulphide deposits are rare compared with laterite ores. Most of the easy‑to‑develop sulphide assets have already been mined. Discoveries are limited, making existing and new sulphide projects more strategically valuable.
This is why automakers and governments in Western countries are placing greater attention on domestic and North American projects as they seek to reduce reliance on geopolitically sensitive supply chains.
Alaska Energy Metals’ Nikolai Project and Cleaner Supply Chains
A high‑profile case is the Nikolai project in Alaska, developed by Alaska Energy Metals Corporation or AEMC. It contains not just nickel but also copper, cobalt, and platinum group metals — all important for EV batteries and broader clean energy technologies.
Projects like this offer several key advantages:
- Cleaner processing pathways
- Simpler conversion to battery‑grade nickel
- Stronger environmental, social, and governance (ESG) transparency
As of March 10, 2025, the nickel junior shows a major increase in contained metals. The resource estimate also confirms the presence of a treasure trove of energy transition metals: copper, cobalt, platinum, and palladium.
- The Indicated category now includes 5.6 billion pounds of nickel and 1.77 billion pounds of copper, and along with the value of the other metals equal to 11.03 billion pounds of nickel equivalent metal. This marks a 46% increase from the previous estimate.
- The Inferred category holds 9.38 billion pounds of nickel and 2.43 billion pounds of copper, and along with the value of the other metals equal to 17.98 billion pounds of nickel equivalent metal. This represents a sharp 122% increase, highlighting the scale of new resource growth.
As automakers push to decarbonize their supply chains, these attributes are becoming more valuable, not just economically but also in regulatory and brand terms.
Friendshoring and Supply Security
The concept of “friendshoring” — sourcing critical materials from politically stable and allied regions — is gaining traction. Governments in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere are funding and incentivizing projects that can produce strategic minerals like nickel in safer jurisdictions.
This shift aligns with national security goals as well as corporate sustainability targets. Securing battery metals in friendly regions helps reduce exposure to conflicts and sanctions while supporting long‑term industrial planning.
Outlook: Quality Over Quantity
In the early days of the EV transition, the focus was simply on increasing battery production. Today, the conversation has shifted. It is no longer enough for the world to produce more nickel — it must produce the right kind of nickel.
High‑purity, battery‑grade nickel is becoming one of the most strategic materials in the energy transition. Its supply chain is deeply influenced by geopolitics, processing challenges, and shifting industrial priorities.
Conflicts like the Russia‑Ukraine war, energy price shocks, and sulfur supply vulnerabilities have all shown how fragile the nickel ecosystem can be. At the same time, demand projections through 2030 make it clear that EV adoption will continue pushing nickel demand higher.
DISCLAIMER New Era Publishing Inc. and/or CarbonCredits.com (“We” or “Us”) are not securities dealers or brokers, investment advisers, or financial advisers, and you should not rely on the information herein as investment advice. Alaska Energy Metals Corp. (“Company”) made a one-time payment of $90,000 to provide marketing services for a term of three months. None of the owners, members, directors, or employees of New Era Publishing Inc. and/or CarbonCredits.com currently hold, or have any beneficial ownership in, any shares, stocks, or options of the companies mentioned.
This article is informational only and is solely for use by prospective investors in determining whether to seek additional information. It does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. Examples that we provide of share price increases pertaining to a particular issuer from one referenced date to another represent arbitrarily chosen time periods and are no indication whatsoever of future stock prices for that issuer and are of no predictive value.
Our stock profiles are intended to highlight certain companies for your further investigation; they are not stock recommendations or an offer or sale of the referenced securities. The securities issued by the companies we profile should be considered high-risk; if you do invest despite these warnings, you may lose your entire investment. Please do your own research before investing, including reviewing the companies’ SEDAR+ and SEC filings, press releases, and risk disclosures.
It is our policy that information contained in this profile was provided by the company, extracted from SEDAR+ and SEC filings, company websites, and other publicly available sources. We believe the sources and information are accurate and reliable but we cannot guarantee them.
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT AND FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
Certain statements contained in this news release may constitute “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable securities laws. Forward-looking information generally can be identified by words such as “anticipate,” “expect,” “estimate,” “forecast,” “plan,” and similar expressions suggesting future outcomes or events. Forward-looking information is based on current expectations of management; however, it is subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated.
These factors include, without limitation, statements relating to the Company’s exploration and development plans, the potential of its mineral projects, financing activities, regulatory approvals, market conditions, and future objectives. Forward-looking information involves numerous risks and uncertainties and actual results might differ materially from results suggested in any forward-looking information. These risks and uncertainties include, among other things, market volatility, the state of financial markets for the Company’s securities, fluctuations in commodity prices, operational challenges, and changes in business plans.
Forward-looking information is based on several key expectations and assumptions, including, without limitation, that the Company will continue with its stated business objectives and will be able to raise additional capital as required. Although management of the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated, or intended.
There can be no assurance that such forward-looking information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. Additional information about risks and uncertainties is contained in the Company’s management’s discussion and analysis and annual information form for the year ended December 31, 2025, copies of which are available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.
The forward-looking information contained herein is expressly qualified in its entirety by this cautionary statement. Forward-looking information reflects management’s current beliefs and is based on information currently available to the Company. The forward-looking information is made as of the date of this news release, and the Company assumes no obligation to update or revise such information to reflect new events or circumstances except as may be required by applicable law.
Disclosure: Owners, members, directors, and employees of carboncredits.com have/may have stock or option positions in any of the companies mentioned: .
Carboncredits.com receives compensation for this publication and has a business relationship with any company whose stock(s) is/are mentioned in this article.
Additional disclosure: This communication serves the sole purpose of adding value to the research process and is for information only. Please do your own due diligence. Every investment in securities mentioned in publications of carboncredits.com involves risks that could lead to a total loss of the invested capital.
Please read our Full RISKS and DISCLOSURE here.
The post EV Batteries Need Nickel: Why Class 1 Supply Is Becoming Critical Amid Global Conflict appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
