News
Nickel expert calls on Musk, Farley, others to demand Nickel sourcing in North America
Surging prices of nickel, a potentially major influence in the future of the global electric vehicle market, have encouraged one mining expert in the field to call on automotive CEOs to demand more attention toward sourcing the metal in North America.
Nickel and its appeal to EVs
Nickel has been a significant talking point of many automotive CEOs for about two years as its wide availability could alleviate battery manufacturing bottlenecks for cells containing either controversial or hard-to-obtain rare earth metals. Tesla CEO Elon Musk first discussed nickel mining during an Earnings Call in mid-2020. Musk pledged a massive contract to any company that could supply nickel to Tesla, as long as it was sourced efficiently and sustainably.
“Well, I’d just like to reemphasize, any mining companies out there, please mine more nickel, OK?” Musk said on the call. “Wherever you are in the world, please mine more nickel, and don’t wait for nickel to go back to some long — some high point that you experienced some five years ago or whatever. Go for efficiency, as environmentally friendly, nickel mining at high volume. Tesla will give you a giant contract for a long period of time if you mine nickel efficiently and in an environmentally sensitive way. So hopefully, this message goes out to all mining companies.”
Tesla CEO Elon Musk called on companies to mine more nickel, promising a “massive contract” during the Q2 2020 Earnings Call.
Musk eventually landed a nickel supply deal with Minnesota-based Talon Metals in January. It was the first major nickel supply deal Tesla landed and could be a monumental development in the production of EV battery cells.
Nickel increases energy density and therefore driving range, which is an essential metric for EV owners. Despite Elon Musk’s recent claim that too much EV range is counterproductive because it takes away from the performance, a small poll I ran on Twitter seemed to show that people were more concerned about range than performance. Two-thirds of respondents claimed they would sacrifice performance for more range. Despite Tesla’s high-range cars, which are only eclipsed by the Lucid Air’s premier Dream Edition trim, cold weather climates have shown to be one of EV range’s biggest foes, consistently trimming range estimations due to inefficient battery heating.
Soaring prices: $30k to $100k in the blink of an eye
Following a short squeeze on Nickel on the London Metals Exchange, the cost of a metric ton of the metal surged $70,000. Trent Mell, critical mineral expert and CEO of Electra Battery Materials, spoke to Teslarati last week regarding the price surges, which have him ready to make a proposal to automotive CEOs. “I would encourage the big names: Musk, Farley, Barra, to start demanding Nickel sourcing in North America,” Mell said.
According to Statista, Canada is the sixth-biggest producer of nickel globally, with 130,000 metric tons of the element produced in 2021. The United States ranked tenth on the list, with 18,000 metric tons. Mell believes, while North America has a low contribution rate to the global primary nickel supply, there is potential for extreme growth.
“North America currently only contributes around 4% of global primary nickel,” Mell said. “There is no immediate North American solution to growing nickel demand, but we anticipate that the construction of processing capacity on the continent will act as a catalyst to bring more primary nickel, in the form of mining operations, online in coming years so that North America can become increasingly self-reliant on domestically sourced raw materials. There are ample, good-quality nickel projects in North America.”
Nickel is highly-available in Russia, which has had numerous sanctions set by the United States and other governments due to the invasion of Ukraine. According to Mell, nickel in Russia, the third-most available region in the world, is Class 1, which means it is of the highest quality, which is eventually used in EV batteries, among other products. Mell said Nornickel, the country’s leading miner of the metal, exports 96 percent of its product, with 45 percent of that going to Europe.
(Credit: Teslarati) Data provided by Statista
Nickel is going to be a major factor in EV batteries in the coming years. However, automakers have had to adopt different strategies to keep their vehicles flowing off production lines and into customers’ garages. For standard range vehicles, many companies have adopted lithium-iron-phosphate, or LFP, batteries, which are available in wide supply in other markets and offer less range but more affordability. Tesla started transitioning some U.S. Standard Range Model 3 vehicles to LFP cells late last year, as it would reduce wait times. Eventually, it revealed all Standard Range vehicles would equip the LFP chemistry.
However, Mell does not believe LFP is a solution in the long term.
“We used to refer to LFP cells as ‘golf cart batteries,’” he said. Referring to the cell as a “half-hearted solution,” Mell understands the use of LFP for entry-level vehicles but knows nickel is the real solution, which led him to consider proposing industry-leading CEOs to push President Joe Biden to discuss more options in either domestic or, at least, North American mining projects.
Nickel is also easier to recycle and can be easily refined into new cells. Swedish company Northvolt successfully built a cell from recycled nickel last year.
What can consumers expect from the Nickel price hikes?
Mell is adamant that the current levels of nickel on the LME are not sustainable. “I would encourage consumers to wait about six months. Then we’ll see prices drop back to normal levels,” he said. However, as some analysts pointed out, the spikes in price could add between $750 and $1,000 per vehicle in the short term.
Musk said earlier this week that “significant inflationary pressure” was affecting both Tesla and SpaceX, which hinted toward price increases on the company’s vehicles. Last night, Tesla applied price increases to all four of its all-electric vehicles, with the Model X Plaid variant receiving the most substantial surge: $12,500.
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.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
