News
Solid State Battery Technology, a Tesla Gigafactory Killer?
With 2014 coming to an end, automotive battery news has been trickling out and solid state battery technology appears, again.
In early December, Volkswagen acquired a small equity stake in Stanford-based QuantumScape and Daimler recently announced that its lithium production output will be larger in 2015 due to a new battery plant in Kamenz, Germany, said to be ready by mid-2015.
The VW news keeps the the solid state battery thread for 2014 going as scientists point to its reported improved energy density over lithium-ion technology. A solid state battery does not use a liquid electrolyte like a lithium battery does and, in theory, a solid electrolyte can hold more energy. Yes, please.
Getting rid of an electrolyte—no liquid—can also improve battery safety and reduce costs due to less cooling electronics and micro-controllers needed for pack management, thus reducing weight too, according to Harvard Business Review.
What about downsides to this technology? A solid-state battery has electrical contacts or, electrodes, that are applied to a solid electrolyte—similar to a thin-film solar panel process—and if there’s a lack of uniformity in this process, it can cause short circuits. However, this type of manufacturing application has been done in the thin-film solar area and these obstacles should be easy to overcome.
The evolution of battery technology according to Satki3. Source: Satki3
Earlier this year, Scientific American did a profile on Ann Arbor, Michigan-based Sakti3 and their push with solid-state battery technology and move closer to the “god” battery.
Ann Marie Sastry, co-founder and CEO of the company, said, “that the company’s prototype solid-state lithium battery cells have reached a record energy density of 1,143 Watt-hours per liter—more than double the energy density of today’s best lithium-ion batteries.”
However, as Elon Musk said in the most recent Tesla earnings call,
-
“Talk is super cheap, the battery industry has to have more BS in it than any industry I’ve ever encountered. It’s insane.”
So is this technology an immediate challenger to Tesla Motors’ Gigafactory strategy? Will this battery technology get ahead of Tesla, due its battery equipment investment at the Gigafactory being close to complete and, thus, no turning back?
No and the reason is battery development takes a lot of time and these recent statements by Sakti3 in the Scientific American article bear this out.
Sakti3 says it’s close to the end of lab work—custom prototype manufacturing line—but then the next step is on to small scale production and this could take a another year or two of testing before you hit mass production.
That rules out GM going with this type of battery for their mass-produced battery electric vehicle for 2016 or 2017. Plus, Sakti3 mentioned its first aim is small-scale electronics and smartphones.
More importantly, JB Straubel and Tesla Motors aren’t looking for the God battery for 2017. Everyone seems to be looking for this right chemistry to scale with at this point. Granted, these are big automakers that could scale quickly as long their company culture is rowing in the same direction.
Tesla has their battery composition set and plan to cut 30 percent or more of costs out of their current battery price, which stands anywhere from $260 to maybe $220 kWh. Take the high end and with the cost savings, the battery pack is at $185 kWh, approximately.
That’s just over $10,000 for a battery pack for a 55kWh battery pack—assumption 30% battery cost reduction translates to battery pack. Also, my assumption above is that a Gen 3 car will be smaller and could get 220 miles with a smaller battery pack.
-
The rub for me is that the roadmap is in place for Tesla Motors battery chemistry and this should get them to a mass-market electric vehicle, first. Maybe other automakers are close to a new chemistry, but automotive testing and applications take time.
In the end, I’m all for the god battery sooner rather than later but Tesla Motors just isn’t waiting for it.
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
-
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
-
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
-
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
-
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
