Fig. 4.

Losses in cumulative cost-saving and GHG-mitigation potential caused by spatial supply–demand mismatches, 2020–2050. a–b, Realizable cost-saving potential (a) and GHG-mitigation potential (b) under spatial constraints, expressed as percentages of the corresponding unconstrained potentials. c–d, Contributions of individual processes to cumulative cost changes (c) and GHG-emission changes (d) under the High-SU scenario, relative to BAU. e–f, Corresponding cumulative cost changes (e) and GHG-emission changes (f) under the High-DR scenario. In panels c–f, the grey dashed line separates outcomes without interprovincial transport (left) from the additional changes resulting from transport (right); red annotations report the net changes for each case. Negative values indicate cost savings or avoided GHG emissions relative to BAU. MR, metallurgical recycling; DR, direct recycling; SU, power-storage applications; BA, balanced allocation; BAU, business as usual; GHG, greenhouse gas; CNY, Chinese yuan; CO₂eq, carbon dioxide equivalent.