News
How EV adoption is soaring in unlikely circumstances, and what could make it better
The adoption of electric vehicles has continued to skyrocket over the past several years despite challenging supply chain conditions, less-than-ideal geopolitical scenarios, lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the soaring cost of EV materials. How this optimism remains was examined in a recent white paper from Cox Automotive, which outlined how EVs continue to defy all odds and gain market share, despite monumental challenges standing in the sector’s way.
EV Adoption grows despite rough conditions
The state of EV adoption is relatively healthy, with more Americans buying EVs than ever despite increased costs and extended wait times for delivery. Automakers across the EV manufacturing industry have been forced to adjust prices and vehicle lineups due to the increased cost of materials and supply chain deals. Tesla, for example, axed the $35,000 Standard Range+ Model 3, and its most affordable vehicle now starts at well over $40,000. Rivian was forced to push prices upward due to materials costs soaring after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and these examples are just two of many.
Supply chain bottlenecks have also forced consumers to push back wait times for EVs considerably. Some configurations of EVs are not available until next year due to extensive order logs; take the Long Range Tesla Model 3, for example, which won’t be available until 2023 because of its heavy demand.
Despite this, EV adoption has increased every year since 2019. “Americans are buying EVs at a record pace despite rising prices and long waits for delivery. The fleet industry is also taking note with fleet operators highly motivated to replace their gas-powered fleets with EVs to achieve sustainability goals, drive efficiency and reduce total cost of ownership,” Cox Automotive wrote in the summation of its white paper.
Price Parity and the EV Tax Credit
Price parity has always been talked about when it comes to EVs. It does not take a genius to figure out that the average person will choose an affordable car over an expensive one, even if the expensive one will not require weekly stops at the pump. However, one of the biggest things keeping EVs from extremely rapid adoption is the prices of the cars themselves, which have increased considerably over the past year due to materials costs soaring.
Luckily, consumers can take advantage of the Inflation Reduction Act, which will provide EV buyers with tax credits based on where their vehicle was manufactured and whether the car equips a U.S.-manufactured battery. “Tax incentives available as part of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 will be critical to consumer adoption, helping offset the cost of pricey EVs.” This is a key point in the mass adoption in EVs, and consumers will likely stick to gas-powered cars as long as they are able to if they are more affordable than a quality EV.
Supply Chain Disruptions have slowed EV adoption considerably
Related to other points already made, supply chain disruptions and constraints are slowing EV adoption. U.S.-based EV manufacturers are too reliant on foreign companies for parts, Cox said. Automakers are pushing to produce battery packs and other parts in the U.S., which will eventually help combat slow logistics times.
“Global computer chip and material shortages are impacting production, raising the price of new and used vehicles, and contributing to long waits to buy new EV models.” Consumers want affordable and they want it now. Costs will continue to remain high, and wait times will stay long if U.S. automakers do not adopt domestic supply chain strategies.
Superior EV tech is keeping the U.S. competitive
Domestic supply chain bottlenecks may have some consumers willing to spend a little extra opting for other vehicle options. If someone is willing to spend $160,000 on a car and they can buy a 2022 Porsche 911 GT3 and get it in two weeks, they’re more likely to buy that instead of waiting months for a Tesla Model S Plaid if environmental reasons and fuel savings are not being considered. Tech and the innovations of battery chemistries and recycling are keeping the U.S. automakers in focus. If battery makers can develop various battery chemistries comprised of materials that can be sourced in the U.S., wait times will reduce and cars will have more availability.
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
Elon Musk
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
