News
Rivian patent application hints at 900V fast charging capabilities
A recently published Rivian patent application titled “Configurable Battery Pack for Fast Charge” describes a method of switching between battery pack connection types to allow for both 450V and 900V fast charging without the need for specialized components. The invention was filed in both the US and internationally, and both applications just published today as US Patent Publication No. 2019/0126761 A1 and International Publication No. WO/2019/084507 A1.
Rivian’s application sets out to solve three specific issues with electric vehicle battery charging. First, increases in charging rates typically require more expensive parts that are rated for the higher current requirements. Second, electronic devices operated while a battery is charging may be impacted via increased voltage when a battery’s charging rate is increased. Finally, when a fault occurs in a battery module, a battery system often needs to be completely disconnected from any loads or the charging voltage must be changed.
The basic concept of the application purports to solve the above-referenced problems. As described, the invention claims that battery modules connected in parallel achieve a targeted maximum high voltage for an electric load (such as 450V), but when connected in series that voltage can be doubled (900V). Details of why this is advantageous are explained in the application as follows:
“A configurable battery system allows the techniques of [this invention] to be applied to an electric vehicle…to more fully utilize a battery charger’s potential [where] it is desirable to achieve a particular charging target. For example, a charging target of 150 kW at 450 V may require a current of 334 A…[and] components may need to be sourced to handle up to 400 A continuously to handle the charging….If a battery system were able to take advantage of charging at 900 V, the charging target of 150 kW could be achieved at just 167 A, which may allow for more numerous, better quality, or cheaper options for charging components. For example, a current of 167 A may allow different hardware to be used than if the current were nearer to 400 A.“
-
- Figure from Rivian’s battery connection switching patent application. | Image: Rivian/USPTO
-
- Figure from Rivian’s battery connection switching patent application. | Image: Rivian/USPTO
-
- Figure from Rivian’s battery connection switching patent application. | Image: Rivian/USPTO
The application also includes a battery management system to determine which connection should be used at a given point and switch the connection type accordingly. This same management system is also used to detect faults in the system while charging and use the switching capability to handle them accordingly rather than disconnecting any battery loads.
The US application for this invention was filed June 8, 2018 and thus has not yet been examined. However, in the international version, an examiner has already searched for related inventions based on the first 10 claims of Rivian’s application. These claims only describe “a configurable battery system in which connection of two batteries can be switched between a series and a parallel connection”, which is not considered novel on its own.
This kind of finding is not uncommon for applications undergoing the international filing process and will be further addressed once filed in specific countries. Three other inventions were determined to be present in the application which will likely be incorporated with the first ten as the invention’s proceedings continue.
Rivian aims to be the leading expert on battery technology, and patent applications such as this one are a nod towards that innovation goal. The Michigan-based all-electric car maker runs a battery lab in Irvine, California where it has picked up several engineers from renowned supercar brand McLaren. This talent pool includes hypercar engineer Richard Farquhar who is their VP of Propulsion, leading Rivian’s battery and powertrain development.
Currently, each Rivian battery module holds 864 cells, stacked evenly on top of one another, with a thin 7mm aluminum plate with liquid coolant in between. In addition to connection testing, the company uses machine learning to adjust battery cell settings to build predictive models and tune the cells based on situations that may be encountered, such as weather conditions.
Altogether, Rivian’s aim to achieve a level of battery technology that’s reliable and optimal for the electric outdoor adventure branding it has embraced looks to be moving in a promising direction.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
