News
Advancement in nuclear fusion tech continues transition to clean energy future
The development of unlimited, carbon-neutral, and safe energy through nuclear fusion is expanding around the world, and scientists at the Atomic Energy Authority in the United Kingdom (AEA) have recently cleared one more key hurdle to making it a commercial reality: exhausting gas that’s hotter than the Sun. The hot plasma created during fusion power generation needs to cool down as it’s being used, but at its extreme temperatures, there aren’t any materials available to withstand the heat. Now, that problem appears to have been solved.
The AEA team’s answer to the heat issue is a “sacrificial wall” design which will require replacement every few years. Plasma will be moved down a path within its fusion generator’s holding device to cool it slightly before coming into contact with a specially designed wall for the remainder of the cooling process. However, even at a lower temperature, the heat will degrade the wall’s integrity over time and need to be changed. With the first nuclear fusion reactor set to turn on in seven years, AEA’s fusion exhaust system may be one of the developments that keeps it on schedule.
It’s said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and recent fusion energy developments show that sentiment’s considerations don’t remain within the bounds of Earth. At about 90 million miles away, our Sun is essentially a fusion reactor in the sky, its large size creating enough gravity to force atoms together at its core and release massive amounts of energy. Artificially reproducing the conditions needed for this kind of generation is tough, but the attempt has been going on since the 1960s. The AEA is representative of one agency in a global endeavor.
The most advanced nuclear fusion project today is ITER, the International Nuclear Fusion Research experimental reactor in southern France, which hosts scientists from 35 countries dedicated to achieving the first ever positive fusion energy production. Their device is called a “tokamak”, and its structure is something like a flattened donut (torus) encapsulated by rings of powerful magnetic coils. The magnetic fields generated by the coils both suspend the plasma created by extreme heat and squeeze the plasma into a small space to create the fusion reactions. ITER is scheduled to turn its reactor on in 2025.
-
- A visualization of the ITER tokamak in operation.| Credit: ITER.org/Jamison Daniel, Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility
-
- A computer-animated visualization of the ITER tokamak in operation. | Credit: ITER.org
Creating fusion in a laboratory involves two primary parts: 1) creating plasma, a soup of electrons and nuclei released from their atomic structures due to extremely high temperatures; and 2) merging the nuclei of two different types of atoms, generally different forms of hydrogen. The heat in a tokamak is generated from both the magnetic field movement and external heating devices, and the nuclei merge is achieved by squeezing the plasma using those same magnetic fields into a constricted area to encourage collisions. Essentially, the high heat excites the atomic particles, speeding their motion, and their energetic movements within the magnetically confined area significantly increases the likelihood the nuclei will crash and fuse together. When this fusion occurs, a massive amount of energy is released, the object of desire for all involved in this field of research.
The amount of heat needed to convince atoms to release their electrons and form plasma is in the range of millions of degrees Celsius, the core of the Sun itself being 15 million degrees. Without high gravity to aid with squeezing plasma, as in the Sun’s case at 27 times the gravity of Earth, reactors on our planet need to heat well beyond the Sun’s temperature to ensure the atomic particles in the plasma collide and fuse. ITER’s tokamak heats to 100 million degrees Celsius.
All of this heating and magnetic control requires its own energy input, and this is where the current state of fusion energy development is focused. The ratio of energy used and energy produced is called “Q”, the desired amount aimed for by scientists in the field being 10:1. When ten times the energy is produced by nuclear fusion than used to produce it, it will have advanced to a level ready for further development as an alternative power source, or so goes the thinking. ITER’s specific goal is to produce 500 MW of fusion power from 50 MW of heating power.
Once energy is released from the fusion process, it can then be captured to create steam to power generators currently using other power sources such as coal and natural gas. This is another benefit purported benefit of fusion power; it can plug directly into existing power grids, minimizing any disruptions or requirements for new equipment. Combined with the abundant availability of hydrogen and the lack of greenhouses gases or radioactive waste, there are high hopes for fusion’s future as an all-in-one energy solution.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
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.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
