News
Musk outlines cost-cutting plan for Boring Co: cheaper, faster tunnel digging
One of the large reveals made by Tesla and SpaceX Chief Elon Musk at TED2017 was his plan to create a multi-layer high-speed tunnel infrastructure to support mobility by way of electric skates and Hyperloop tubes.
A key point that he drove home for the underground tunnel network was the integration of the system into cities.
“You have to be able to integrate the entrance and exit of the tunnel seamlessly into the fabric of the city. So, by having an elevator, sort of a car skate that is on an elevator, you can integrate the entrance and exits to the tunnel network just by using 2 parking spaces.”
Musk shared a video demonstrating how skate elevators would be integrated into city streets where they await vehicles looking to be transported through the underground labyrinth of tunnels. The serial tech entrepreneur envisions loading docks wherein vehicles would simply pull into the skate, get lowered into the tunnel network, and be sent along a slot car-like track at speeds of 200 km/h ( 124 mph). The Boring Company’s tunnel network won’t simply alleviate surface congestion, it will completely transform the way we move cars, people and freight, says Musk.
It is worth noting that The Boring Company and Tesla are under control of Musk, while the Hyperloop project has been open sourced, but with support from SpaceX.
Eliminating human drivers allows the skates to move at much faster speeds than human-controlled vehicles. Fixed routes within the tunnel network further improve safety beyond the dynamic nature of human-determined driving routes. The tunnel network is also infinitely scalable. “You can alleviate any arbitrary level of open congestion with a 3D tunnel network.” and that “There’s no real limit to how many levels of tunnels you can have.”, says Musk from TED2017.
The key barrier to creating tunnels today is the exorbitant cost. The recent 2.5 mile expansion to the Los Angeles subway system came at a cost of nearly $1 billion per mile. Musk and team at the Boring Company hope to cut the cost of tunneling by a significant amount by streamlining the tunneling process and reinventing the machines that help facilitate the digging.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5V_VzRrSBI
Building Tunnels For Less
First, the team is looking to cut the diameter of the tunnels they dig, moving from the traditional tunnel diameter for passenger vehicles of 26 to 28-feet to a 12-foot standard diameter which would be sufficient for the Tesla skate. On the surface, this might not seem like a lot, but cutting the diameter by 50% cuts the cross sectional area by a factor of four. This is significant as the speed and cost of tunneling is largely driven by the amount of cross sectional area to dig. Being able to cut out 75% of the time associated with digging comes with enormous cost savings.
Second, the team plans to attack head-on the way tunneling machines currently dig. Traditional machines dig, slowly and incrementally, then stop to install reinforcements to support the newly exposed earthen walls. Musk and team are working to install the reinforcements continuously thus eliminating the need to pause operations. This integration is expected to increase the speed of the overall process by as much as 50%.
The Boring Company tunneling machine spotted in front of SpaceX in April, 2017
Finally, the team believes that current digging machines are nowhere near their power and thermal limits, and is looking to ‘jack up the power’ to the digging machines. Doing this, the team hopes to increase the speed by a factor of 4 or 5 on top of the other improvements being suggested by Musk.
Musk also revealed that The Boring Company has a pet snail named Gary who can currently travel at 14 times the speed of existing tunneling machines. While this is more a testament about how slow the boring process is than the amazing speed of Gary, it is a fun target for the team, to be able to build tunnels quicker than Gary can crawl, and continues the comedic spin on the new company.
These tunnels could be kept at or near a vacuum to reduce or eliminate air resistance for all the moving objects within it. Curiously, Musk shared that,
“To withstand the water table, you have to design a wall to be able to withstand 5 or 6 atmospheres. To go to vacuum, you only need to be able to withstand 1 atmosphere.”
It is clear that Musk is very excited about this new Boring Company. He indicated during his sit down at TED2017 that he spends 2-3% of his time on the project, noting that it’s essentially being run as not much more than an intern project with a used boring machine and a few people dedicating partial effort to it.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
