Imagine a customer looking at the bill of materials for a printed electronic circuit. Everything seems reasonable until they see the price of conductive silver ink. Then comes a question that anyone working in printed electronics has probably heard many times: “Do we really need to use silver?”
It is a fair question. Silver is expensive, its price changes constantly, and there are several alternatives available. Copper offers excellent electrical conductivity at a much lower raw material cost. Carbon-based inks are widely used, while graphene and carbon nanotubes promise interesting new possibilities. So why does silver remain one of the most important conductive materials in printed electronics?
After years of working with screen-printed electronics, I believe the answer is quite simple. We do not buy conductivity alone. We buy a reliable and repeatable manufacturing process. And sometimes the most expensive material is actually the cheapest solution.
Silver prices: an expensive rollercoaster
The price of silver has become a serious issue for manufacturers. According to the Silver Institute’s World Silver Survey 2026, the average annual LBMA silver price increased from $20.55 per troy ounce in 2020 to $40.03 in 2025. The increase was particularly strong in 2025, when prices reached almost $75 per ounce towards the end of the year. The market continued to experience exceptional volatility in early 2026. The Silver Institute
For companies producing thousands or millions of printed circuits, such changes cannot be ignored. Higher prices influence purchasing decisions, quotations and long-term agreements with customers.
But there is another important detail. Manufacturers do not purchase pure silver and turn it directly into circuits. They purchase carefully developed ink formulations containing conductive particles, binders, solvents and other additives. The price of the metal affects the cost of the ink, but it is not the only factor.
And the price of the ink is not the same as the cost of manufacturing the final product.
Why silver is still the industry standard
Silver has several advantages that are difficult to replace. It has excellent electrical conductivity, and manufacturers have decades of experience developing conductive silver inks. These materials are available for different printing technologies, substrates and applications.
A good example is LOCTITE ECI 1010, a conductive silver ink used in screen printing. According to Henkel’s technical documentation, it offers a typical sheet resistance of approximately 6 mΩ/sq at a dry layer thickness of 25 µm. Its recommended drying process is 15 minutes at 120°C, and it can be printed on substrates such as PET, PEN and polyimide. These are useful parameters when manufacturing flexible circuits, membrane switches or other printed electronic components. Henkel Datasheets
Of course, not every silver ink has the same properties. Some formulations are designed for fine lines, others for stretchable electronics or high-speed production. This is another advantage: manufacturers can select from many established materials rather than develop an entirely new process.
In production, this matters enormously. Good conductivity is important, but so are adhesion, printing accuracy, curing conditions and stability between production batches.
A material that works perfectly in the laboratory is not necessarily the one that will work reliably every Monday morning at seven o’clock.
Copper: an obvious alternative with hidden challenges
If we only compare raw material prices and electrical conductivity, copper looks like an excellent alternative to silver. Its conductivity is only slightly lower, while its market price is significantly lower.
So why have we not replaced silver with copper everywhere?
One of the biggest challenges is oxidation. Copper reacts with oxygen, forming oxides that can reduce electrical conductivity. This is particularly important in printed electronics, where small particles have a large surface area.
Some copper inks require special formulations, controlled atmospheres, chemical treatments or advanced sintering processes. These methods can produce excellent results, but they may also increase manufacturing costs and process complexity. Recent research confirms that protecting copper from oxidation remains an important challenge for conductive ink development. Springer
Imagine replacing a silver ink with a copper formulation that costs considerably less. The material saving looks attractive. But what happens if we need a new curing system, additional process control or more expensive equipment? What if the process becomes slower or the number of rejected parts increases?
Copper may still be the better solution. In many applications, it certainly deserves serious consideration. However, the comparison must include the complete manufacturing process, not just the price of the conductive material.
Carbon is not cheap silver
At LC Elektronik, we work with different conductive materials, including silver and carbon-based inks. One important lesson from practical experience is that these materials should not always be treated as direct competitors.
Carbon inks generally have much higher electrical resistance than silver inks. This makes them less suitable for some low-resistance circuits. But in other applications, resistance is exactly what we need.
Consider a printed pressure sensor. Its operating principle can involve a change in electrical resistance when pressure is applied. In this case, a carbon-based resistive material can be an essential part of the sensor.
The same principle applies to resistive heaters, where the electrical resistance of the printed structure is used to generate heat. Depending on the design, a heater may use carbon, silver or other conductive materials, sometimes in combination.
This leads to an important conclusion: the material with the highest conductivity is not always the best material for the application.
Sometimes we need low resistance. Sometimes we need controlled resistance. And sometimes we need a combination of both.
Graphene and CNTs: impressive materials, difficult questions
Graphene and carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are frequently presented as promising alternatives to traditional conductive materials.
Their electrical, mechanical and structural properties offer interesting opportunities, especially in flexible electronics, sensors and specialised applications. However, we must distinguish between the properties of a material and the performance of a printed circuit made from it.
In real manufacturing, graphene and CNTs must be incorporated into printable formulations. Particle dispersion, viscosity, adhesion, layer thickness, drying conditions and stability all influence the final result.
An excellent laboratory result does not automatically mean that the same performance can be achieved consistently across thousands of products.
This does not reduce the potential of these materials. It simply means that industrial applications require more than impressive material properties.
As manufacturers, we need to understand not only what a technology can achieve, but also how reliably and economically we can produce it.
The real cost is the cost per good part
When comparing conductive inks, the most useful question is not “How much does one kilogram cost?” but “How much does one correctly manufactured product cost?”
This changes the discussion completely.
We must consider how much ink is deposited, how many printing passes are required, how long curing takes and whether the process needs additional equipment. We must also include production speed, energy consumption, quality control and the number of rejected parts.
Consider a simple example. Material A costs 30% less than material B. However, the new material requires additional curing and reduces the production yield from 98% to 93%.
For every 10,000 parts manufactured, the first process produces 9,800 acceptable products, while the second produces only 9,300. That means 500 additional rejected parts.
Whether the cheaper material still makes economic sense depends on the value of the material savings compared with the additional costs. Without calculating both, we simply do not know.
This is why I believe manufacturers should focus on cost per good part, rather than cost per kilogram.
Perhaps we should simply use less silver
There is another approach that deserves more attention. Instead of trying to replace silver completely, perhaps we should first consider how to reduce the amount we use.
In printed electronics, the geometry of conductive tracks has a direct influence on electrical resistance. Track width, length and thickness determine how much conductive material is required to achieve the expected performance.
Sometimes changing the circuit design or optimising the thickness of the printed layer can reduce silver consumption without compromising the product’s functionality.
In other cases, hybrid solutions offer interesting opportunities. Silver can be used where low resistance is essential, while carbon or other materials can perform different functions within the same circuit.
This is particularly relevant in sensors, heating elements and human-machine interfaces, where different parts of a printed circuit often have very different electrical requirements.
From a manufacturing perspective, reducing unnecessary material consumption can also be more attractive than introducing a completely new technology.
Of course, thinner tracks and layers also have limits. They must still meet requirements for electrical performance, manufacturing tolerances and long-term reliability.
Material optimisation should never come at the expense of a stable process.
Silver is not perfect
There are good reasons to look for alternatives. Apart from its price, silver has technical limitations. Under certain conditions, electrochemical migration can cause reliability problems, especially when moisture and electrical voltage are present.
Environmental considerations are also becoming more important. Using less valuable metal, reducing production waste and improving recyclability are increasingly relevant goals for the printed electronics industry.
The OE-A Roadmap 2026 identifies sustainability, circularity and alternatives to scarce conductive materials as important areas for future development. Copper and carbon-based materials are among the possible alternatives being explored.
But replacing one material with another does not automatically make a product more sustainable. Energy consumption, chemical processing, waste generation and product lifetime must also be considered.
A material that is cheaper and more abundant may still require a more energy-intensive manufacturing process.
Once again, the answer lies in evaluating the complete process and product lifecycle, rather than one individual parameter.
The future is not necessarily silver-free
I believe the printed electronics industry will continue to develop new conductive materials. Copper formulations will improve, carbon-based technologies will find new applications, and graphene and CNTs may become more practical for industrial manufacturing.
However, I do not expect one material to replace silver in every application. Different technologies will continue to exist because they solve different problems.
For engineers and manufacturers, this means asking better questions at the beginning of each project. What electrical performance do we really need? Which substrate will we use? What curing conditions can the product tolerate? How long must it work, and in what environment? Most importantly, can we manufacture it repeatedly at an acceptable cost?
Silver is expensive. Copper is cheaper. Carbon offers different properties. New materials promise even more possibilities.
But printed electronics is not a competition to find the cheapest kilogram of conductive ink. It is a competition to find the most reliable and economical way to manufacture a functional product.
And sometimes, surprisingly, the most expensive ink makes the cheapest product
Written by Paweł Czabak, CEO of LC Elektronik.