The European Organization for Nuclear Research, more commonly known as CERN, recently published an ambitious proposal to build what could only be described as a mammoth accelerator that’s nearly four times as long and up to six times more powerful as its 27-km Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which studies the tiniest particles that make up all matter, dark matter, and infamously, black holes. The project is yet to be greenlit, but if a recent tweet from SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk is any indication, The Boring Company could play a part in the construction of the ambitious project.
In a tweet on Monday, Musk noted that the director of CERN had been quite interested in the tunneling technologies of The Boring Company, which could play a part in saving costs for the construction of the agency’s next-generation particle collider. Musk noted that by using The Boring Company’s tunnels, the project would likely save “several billion Euros.”
Director of CERN asked me about Boring Co building the new LHC tunnel when we were at the @royalsociety. Would probably save several billon Euros.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 21, 2019
The particle physics laboratory, which operates in a site near Geneva, Switzerland, outlined its plans for the 100-km LHC successor, dubbed as the “Future Circular Collider” (FCC), last Tuesday. The FCC is expected to replace the LHC, whose most notable success so far has been the discovery of the Higgs boson, a previously-theoretical particle that gives mass to all matter. Since the discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012, though, CERN’s Large Hadron Collider has not been able to discover any new particles of the same significance. This, according to Gian Francesco Giudice, CERN’s theory department head, highlights a need to push collider technologies forward.
“Today, exploring the highest possible energies with bold projects is our best hope to crack some of the mysteries of nature at the most fundamental level,” he said, according to Nature.
The possibilities that could be unlocked by a project as ambitious as the Future Circular Collider could easily come from a sci-fi tale. It would not be an exaggeration to state that the FCC would enable physicists to open the door to as-yet-unknown physics, while helping answer a number of notable questions about the universe. First off, the FCC would help CERN scientists study the Higgs boson more extensively — something that is not possible with the LHD. The project is also expected to allow scientists to explore topics such as dark matter and antimatter.
-
- The size of the FCC compared to the LHD. (Photo: CERN)
-
- An artist’s image depicting particles colliding. (Photo: CERN)
CERN’s Future Circular Collider is expected to be four times as large and up to six times more powerful than its predecessor. (Photos: CERN)
While the possibilities presented by CERN’s proposed 100-km particle collider are vast, the Future Circular Collider does have its fair share of drawbacks — the most notable of which is the cost of the entire project. CERN’s report on the FCC estimates that the project’s tunnels alone would cost €5 billion ($5.7 billion) to build. Another €4 billion ($4.6 billion) is expected to be required for the first collider (which will collide leptons), while €4 billion ($4.6 billion) would likely be needed for the final collider (which is designed to collide protons). Provided that the ambitious project does not meet any substantial difficulties in its construction, the FCC could be operational by 2040.
This is where The Boring Company’s technologies could come in. The tunneling startup, after all, aims to reduce the costs of tunneling through optimizations in the digging process. So far, The Boring Company is only involved in projects involving transportation, such as the construction of the high-profile downtown Chicago-O’Hare high-speed transport line. The cost savings presented by The Boring Company’s tunnels were particularly evident when Elon Musk revealed the cost of the startup’s mile-long test tunnel in Hawthorne, CA last December. During his presentation, Musk noted that the Hawthorne tunnel cost $10 million to construct. This is far more affordable than traditional tunneling costs, which cost most U.S. local and state governments an average of $200-$500 million dollars per mile.
Granted, the requirements for CERN’s 100-km tunnel would be far more than demanding than the otherwise straightforward tunnels that The Boring Company will construct in the immediate future. That said, the rather generous timeframe for the Future Circular Collider would also give The Boring Company some time to further refine and optimize its tunneling technologies. For now, though, the prospect of CERN’s next-generation LHD’s tunnels being dug by The Boring Company would remain an idea that would only get more plausible over time.
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
