Disseminated on behalf of Surge Battery Metals Inc.
The global Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) market is growing at a rapid pace. The expansion is driven by the rise of renewable energy, the increasing need for grid stability, and the growth of electric vehicles (EVs).
BESS allows electricity to be stored when supply exceeds demand and released when demand is higher than supply. This technology is becoming essential for utilities, commercial users, and residential applications.
Powering Demand: EVs and Energy Storage Drive Growth
J.P. Morgan’s recent analysis shows that shipments of stationary energy storage batteries will rise by 50% in 2025 and 43% in 2026. This surge is causing the lithium supply to move into a deficit.
Analysts estimate that BESS will account for about 30% of global lithium demand by 2026, rising to 36% by 2030. Global lithium demand in lithium-carbonate-equivalent (LCE) terms could reach ~2.8 million tonnes by 2030.
Demand is rising not only from energy storage but also from the EV sector. J.P. Morgan has increased its forecast for EV-related lithium demand by 3–5% for the years 2025 to 2030. This change shows that more people are adopting electric vehicles globally.
The rising demand is further amplified by policies encouraging renewable energy adoption. Many countries are setting goals for renewable energy and cleaner grids. This opens up new chances for energy storage.
Utilities are using BESS more widely. They do this to manage peak loads, integrate renewable energy, and offer services like frequency regulation and black-start capability.
Price Sparks: Lithium Supply and Market Tightness
Despite growing demand, supply faces significant constraints. Many lithium producers hesitate to restart idle production. They want prices to rise enough for them to profit.
J.P. Morgan highlights that prices of $1,200–1,500 per tonne of spodumene are needed to bring new supply online. Spot prices have already risen from around $800/t to ~ $950/t, highlighting tightness in the market.
Lithium price forecasts have also been upgraded to reflect these market conditions:
- 2026/27: $1,100–1,200/t
- Long-term: $1,300/t
Higher price levels boost the economics of lithium projects. This benefits companies with strong ties to the BESS market. Higher prices also create incentives for new players to enter the market and expand existing projects.
Key Market Trends for BESS
The BESS market is evolving rapidly with several structural trends:
- Grid-scale storage growth: Large-scale BESS deployments are increasing to help utilities manage intermittent renewable generation and maintain grid stability.
- Distributed energy storage: Behind-the-meter storage for commercial, industrial, and residential users is rising as battery costs fall.
- Advances in battery technology: Lithium-ion battery performance is improving, with longer lifespans, higher efficiency, and better safety.
- Policy support: Governments worldwide are providing incentives and creating regulations that encourage energy storage adoption.
- Supply-chain risks: Lithium, nickel, cobalt, and other critical minerals remain a bottleneck, and securing a reliable supply is a key challenge for the industry.
J.P. Morgan says that high demand and limited supply are creating a structural deficit in the lithium market. This is pushing prices up and making companies that supply lithium for BESS applications more appealing.
Spotlight on Surge Battery Metals: A Rising Player
Surge Battery Metals (TSXV: NILI | OTCQX: NILIF) is advancing the highest-grade lithium clay resource currently reported in the United States. With this level of grade and consistency, the Nevada North Lithium Project (NNLP) represents the type of high-quality, domestic lithium supply that battery makers and grid-scale energy storage developers have been looking for – an “American-made” resource that strengthens U.S. supply chains and reduces dependence on imported material.
With the lithium market emerging from a prolonged downturn, high-quality projects with strong fundamentals are beginning to stand out. Surge Battery Metals is well-positioned in this environment as the company has:
- BLM approval for its Exploration Plan of Operations,
- Hosts the highest-grade lithium clay resource currently reported in the USA, and
- Maintains a strong treasury to advance the NNLP. NNLP holds an inferred resource of 11.24 Mt of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) at 3,010 ppm Li, showcasing the scale and potential quality of its lithium assets.
These advantages – combined with a high-grade, near-surface deposit located in mining-friendly Nevada – position Surge as one of the few lithium explorers with the potential to advance meaningfully toward production as market conditions improve. Demand for BESS is rising quickly, which boosts its potential advantage.
Forecasts and Industry Analysis: Lithium and BESS Outlook
The BESS market is expected to continue growing sharply over the next decade. According to J.P. Morgan, stationary energy storage will account for 30–36% of lithium demand by 2030. Utility-scale projects will lead this growth. However, commercial and residential installations will also play a big role.
Price trends are likely to remain supportive for suppliers. Spot prices are near $950/t, with long-term forecasts at $1,300/t. Companies that produce and supply lithium efficiently can capture significant value.
Industry analysts also highlight several emerging trends:
- Integration of smart-grid technology: AI and software solutions are being deployed to optimize energy storage and distribution.
- Hybrid energy storage solutions: Combining batteries with other forms of storage, such as pumped hydro or thermal storage, is becoming more common.
- Recycling and secondary supply chains: As BESS adoption grows, recycling lithium and other critical metals will become increasingly important.
These trends should boost the flexibility, efficiency, and sustainability of power networks globally.
Strategic Moves: Surge’s Path to Market Leadership
Surge Battery Metals is positioned to benefit from these industry dynamics. Its focus on high-quality lithium assets aligns with the rising demand for BESS. Key strategic considerations for the company include:
- Advancing projects efficiently to meet growing market demand.
- Forming strategic partnerships with battery manufacturers and utility companies to secure offtake agreements.
- Maintaining operational discipline and cost efficiency to maximize project returns.
Surge Battery Metals is currently advancing lithium exploration at its Nevada North Lithium Project with the goal of defining resources that could support future production. Its metallurgical testing has shown promising results. These include lithium carbonate of 99% purity, but the company is still working toward a full feasibility study. If development proceeds as planned, Surge could become a significant future supplier for the BESS market, although current supply remains limited.
The Bright Future of Energy Storage
Battery Energy Storage Systems are no longer a niche market. The growing use of renewable energy, the rise of electric vehicles, and updates to the grid are increasing the demand for lithium and other battery materials.
Moreover, the outlook for BESS is positive. Demand growth, tech improvements, and policy support all suggest the market will keep expanding. Supply limits and higher prices are opening doors for companies that can deliver lithium effectively.
By 2030, BESS could account for more than one-third of global lithium demand. Surge Battery Metals and similar companies are key to this shift. They help create cleaner, stronger, and more efficient electricity systems.
As the market grows, execution, timing, and partnerships will decide which companies benefit the most. Surge Battery Metals can shine in the energy storage market by focusing on high-quality lithium resources, smart development, and staying aligned with market trends.
- READ MORE: Lithium’s Surge: Why Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) Is Outperforming NVIDIA Stock in 2025
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. Surge Battery Metals Inc. (“Company”) made a one-time payment of $50,000 to provide marketing services for a term of two 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, 2024, 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.
The post How BESS and Lithium Demand Are Shaping Energy Storage: Global Shipments to Surge 50% in 2025 appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits