News
Stop worrying about Tesla Supercharger congestion, it will be alright
If you’ve ever heard the phrase “a solution looking for a problem” then you’ll completely understand what I’m about to say. While I’m at it with catchphrases, Tesla seems to be a living, breathing double-edged sword. When it comes to giving us details, they are “damned if they do, damned if they don’t.”
By now, we all know the Model 3 is going to be huge. We also know that Model S and X vehicles with Supercharging enabled can enjoy “free long distance travel,” which we understand to mean “free for life.” The not so subtle elephant in the room is that free could lead to abuse, which could lead to lines and waiting for Supercharger use. I’ve already discussed what I think is step 1, which is educating folks on some Supercharging best practices they can do to be mindful of our shared asset. I’ve also discussed things Tesla themselves could do to alleviate potential congestion at Supercharger locations.
Here’s my disclaimer: This is a solution looking for a problem! Model 3 is more than a year away and despite what you may hear, MOST superchargers have one or more stalls available MOST of the time. Long waits and lines only plague select locations, and even then, only occur on very few occasions. While I’m no record-holding Supercharger pro I’ve only ever seen an 8-stall location full once. It was Hamilton, NJ and it was before the addition of two Superchargers on the nearby New Jersey Turnpike. I’ve also only ever known of one location to be constantly busy. It was the Newark, DE location, which has recently been upgraded from 4 to 12 stalls. So again, I don’t think this is a problem right now. I don’t even think it will be much a problem when Model 3 hits the streets. Tesla builds new chargers all the time and has committed to both distance and density. They know, more than anyone, which locations are busy and which aren’t. I trust they will plan accordingly.
You will be OK
But since folks love to debate every word – or lack thereof – that Tesla says, let’s have at it. Let’s pretend that the big bad wolf will come to the charger and blow it down just because it’s free and unrestricted once you incur an up-front cost. Let’s further pretend that Tesla considers the idea of a pay per use model of charging. I’ll repeat this later but for the record, I don’t think they’ll do anything like this. Not now, not ever.
- Pay Per Use – kWh. This is a common and seemingly simple idea. You don’t need $2,000 worth of electricity, you only need a few bucks worth a few times a year. You don’t want to pay up front for all the phantom local moochers that you suspect will abuse an unrestricted system. The cars are smart, they can tell how much you’ve used per charging session so it appears they can charge you for it on the basis of that. Maybe you don’t even care if there is a huge markup on the electricity. It’s a win for everyone in that case, because it’s still cheaper than gas. Even if it wasn’t, it’s worth it to take a car as great as a Tesla on a road trip. Plus almost all of your charging is done at home where it’s way cheaper than gas. Fine, points taken. Except, there’s a “but.” But selling electricity is complicated. The United States is complicated! Here, we have 50 states and plenty of lines between them. They get to set their own laws and rules and tax rates. Cities and towns do too. If you thought that gaining approval to build a supercharger was a challenge, imagine trying to become an energy supplier in every municipality as well. This alone is enough to rule out the idea of charging per kWh. Add that in with having to handle point of sale transactions and you’ve completely changed how Tesla must operate. It already takes quite a bit of effort to build out this network, and there is no reason to make it harder. (Let’s pretend that’s why no other automakers have done it.)
Tesla builds new chargers all the time and has committed to both distance and density
- Pay Per Use – Time. There’s a pretty clear precedent for selling time at almost any major municipality on earth: paid parking. In theory, it would result in very few people charging past 90%; that point where your electrons slow drastically and you’d get a lot less bang for your buck. This speaks perfectly to the concept of battling lines with quick turnover. Except, nope. Tesla, in my opinion, won’t be willing or interested in the hassle of point of sale purchases. They’d have to figure out an appropriate price, which I imagine would vary by location. They’d have to employ people to figure out the tax rules and rates for each country, state and city. They’ve have to work with various credit card companies and be able to accept multiple forms of payment. They may even need to carry certain types of liability insurance for providing paid parking. Tesla is in the business of advancing sustainable transport by, primarily, making compelling electric vehicles. Anything else is just noise and takes away brainpower from doing other great things.
- Pay Per Use – Day. Tesla is amazing and has done plenty of things no other company has done before. They continue to surprise us and have stayed alive despite many assumptions that they’d never make it this far. So I’ll humor you, dear reader, and assume they are willing and able to take on the challenges of point of sales purchases. Game on! Rather than selling time or electricity, Tesla can simply sell access to software. Most Teslas on the road, and all that will soon be on the road, will have the hardware required for supercharging. They can undoubtedly figure out how to program an option in your touchscreen (or simpler still, an automated telephone line) that allows you to opt into supercharging access for a day, at a price. They’ve already given away free trials of Autopilot, so we already know opening up software for a limited time is possible. Shoot, maybe they can even get some PR out of it. “Free supercharging on your birthday!” or “Merry Christmas, here’s a free day!” These things sound great, but I still have an objection. Tesla needs money to build more chargers. End of story.
This isn’t about paying for what you use, this is about paying for the building of a network. There will always be owners who use far less electricity from Superchargers than their initial cost would have bought in kilowatt hours. There will also always be some owners who use more. Where I live, property taxes are required whether you send kids to public school or not. We’re all paying for a system.
Which is why – and here’s my promised repeat – I don’t think Tesla will ever adopt a pay per use model for Supercharging. They’ll continue their commitment to density and distance, they’ll continue to monitor busy locations and they’ll continue to keep their eye on the prize. Because remember, the hopefully inevitable adoption of sustainable transport means someone, somewhere, will start building a whole lot more electric car charging stations.
Feature photo of the Tesla Supercharger in Antwerp-Aartselaar, Belgium courtesy of ldubois_BE
Tesla has started to perform earthworks engineering on the roughly 3,000-acre site in Fort Bend County, Texas, advancing the massive $10 billion Project Crystal Sun plan to build a vertically integrated solar manufacturing complex.
Flyover drone footage from S.E. Robinson, Jr. released this morning shows the location under development. Tesla has crews on site performing large clearings, but you can also see equipment staging areas, the use of an existing homestead, and active leveling across a substantial portion of the property.
Tesla has started construction on Project Crystal Sun, its $10B vertically integrated solar factory near Houston, Texas.
The plant will make everything from silicon ingots and wafers to finished cells and panels, with operations targeted for Q1 2029.
@SERobinsonJr with a great flyover of the facility:
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 9, 2026
Public filings first submitted in July under Texas’s Jobs, Energy, Technology and Innovation Act describe a plant that would manufacture the full solar chain: everything from silicon ingots, wafers, coated cells, and finished modules.
Tesla projects 9,712 permanent jobs by 2033, ramping from roughly 1,900 positions in the first year of operations, plus a peak of about 1,147 construction jobs. Construction is targeted for 2026–2028, with commercial production beginning in the first quarter of 2029. An accompanying economic analysis estimates the project could add roughly $107 billion to Texas GDP over several decades.
Local incentives have cleared major hurdles. Lamar Consolidated Independent School District unanimously approved school-tax limitations in September, and Fort Bend County commissioners approved a package of abatements and related agreements in late October that could extend equipment tax breaks for as long as 35 years.
Tesla had previously indicated it was evaluating a competing out-of-state location.
The effort fits broader statements by Musk that Tesla and SpaceX are each working toward 100 gigawatts of annual U.S. solar manufacturing capacity. If built as described, Project Crystal Sun would stand as one of the largest domestic attempts to create a fully integrated solar supply chain on American soil.
While Tesla has not issued a formal groundbreaking announcement, the visible site preparation and high-profile social media activity represent a concrete step forward for a project that has moved from confidential filings to active earthworks in a matter of months.
Elon Musk continues to shed more reasons that justify the cancelation of the Tesla Cybertruck, but some of the reasons for the sunset, as well as the process the company is choosing, do not make a lot of sense.
Musk announced last week on X that Tesla would wind down Cybertruck production in mid-2027, a decision that aims to prioritize Cybercab and its importance to the company’s future and passenger transportation as a whole.
But some of what Tesla and Musk are saying does not seem to make much sense. From the process the company is taking with orders to some of the reasoning for the cancelation, the whole situation seems strange.
With that being said: I totally see the merit in prioritizing Cybercab, but I also believe there is room for Cybertruck, a vehicle that has traditionally had low volumes, especially now at its current price point. If it were not for the cancelation, Cybertruck would sell very few units with the recent price adjustments.
Musk Talks Order Rate vs. Production Rate
The first thing that does not make a lot of sense here is the fact that this morning, Musk said that “The Cybertruck order rate far exceeds our production rate. We will try to make as any as possible before shutting down the line in about 8 months, but will have to return deposits for a lot of people.”
The Cybertruck order rate far exceeds our production rate. We will try to make as many as possible before shutting down the line in about 8 months, but will have to return deposits for a lot of people.
This is not a case of Cybertruck being unprofitable, as has been misreported by legacy media, but rather that the opportunity cost of the complexity of Cybertruck is vastly outweighed by the value of incremental Cybercab production.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 9, 2026
Then why is Tesla STILL accepting orders for the Cybertruck if it already cannot fulfill its order log by mid-2027?
There are so many people ordering Cybertruck that will not receive it. If Tesla already is having trouble seeing how it will build its current orders, why would it allow additional ones?
There are going to be a lot of people who are very upset next June or July, all because they placed an order for a truck that Tesla knew it would not have the time to build. At this point, it seems like a better idea from a customer service standpoint to simply stop accepting orders on a certain date, build those trucks, fulfill those orders, and then close production.
Continuing to accept orders at this point seems wildly strange. If anything, it feels like the $59k Cybertruck orderers will be the ones who get the short end of the stick here, but that’s speculation and just a hunch on my end.
If not Cybertruck, then what?
With only the Model 3 and Model Y available for consumers, meaning the general public, to buy, there is now no utility vehicle in the Tesla lineup, and that is definitely a disappointment.
Ford already washed its hands of the Lightning, which means the Rivian R1T will likely be the best-selling EV pickup on the market, dueling with the GMC Hummer Pickup, Chevy Silverado EV, and the GMC Sierra EV. There are several pickups that are set to hit the market soon, like the Slate EV Truck, and Ford’s new EV pickup, the Fathom.
Tesla could provide some some transparency on what it is planning to do with a future pickup or utility design. Musk said in the past that something much cooler than a minivan will be built. Cries for a full-size SUV have been heard by Tesla, but the company seems to adamant on prioritizing ridesharing vehicles instead of vehicles people want for work, climate, or hobbies.
Some clarity here, past the point of “Tesla is still going to build cars” would be nice. Even a simple, “Yes” response from all the people asking if Tesla will build something larger would be more than enough. We don’t need all the details now, but something would be nice.
Closing Thoughts
More than anything, it is important to note that I do believe Tesla is making a tough decision and one that, from a business standpoint, does make sense. However, I also believe that there is room for the Cybertruck in Tesla’s lineup.
One thing I think it’s worth mentioning is Tesla is not that much different from many companies. They do things that are better for the business that will surely upset consumers. The difference is very few companies have a following like Tesla, so when these things happen, they feel very personal.
Add in the fact that Cybertruck has truly become a symbol of Tesla, and people are even more upset about it.
It will all get figured out, but it’s still very confusing when we step back and take a look at the bigger picture.
Elon Musk
SpaceX’s Anthropic deal has a catch, and Elon Musk just addressed it
Elon Musk says SpaceX’s Anthropic compute deal cuts both ways after Chamath floats higher prices.
Elon Musk pushed back on Sunday against the idea that SpaceX’s compute contract with Anthropic is a one way bet, after venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya argued the company could use a termination clause to charge the AI lab far more.
“It works both ways, of course. If compute becomes plentiful and cheap, SpaceX revenue will drop. No crying in the casino for either party,” Musk wrote on X Sunday evening, replying to a clip of Palihapitiya’s comments shared by AI commentator Rohan Paul.
On the All-In podcast released Sunday, Palihapitiya said either side can walk away from the agreement on 90 days’ notice. If data center supply tightens, he argued, SpaceX could exercise that option and bring the contract back at two to three times the current price, and Anthropic would have little choice but to accept. He called it “the kingmaking move,” according to BigGo Finance.
The clause itself is not new. SpaceX disclosed in its IPO filings in May that Anthropic would pay $1.25 billion per month for dedicated capacity at its Colossus clusters through May 2029, nearly $45 billion in total, with both companies able to terminate on 90 days’ notice, as Teslarati reported at the time. SpaceX’s later compute deals with Google and Reflection AI carry similar exit terms.
What has changed is the political backdrop. Palihapitiya’s thesis rests on incoming Democratic governors pulling tax incentives for data centers and slowing new construction. In Texas, Gov.-elect Gina Hinojosa campaigned on a moratorium on new data center approvals, and Deutsche Bank analysts warned last week that SpaceX’s Texas compute capacity could face delays. SpaceX and Tesla shares both fell after the midterm results.
A slowdown would favor companies that already own capacity. SpaceX acquired xAI in February and has been renting data centers to outside AI labs before the space is needed for Grok. At the Baron Investment Conference on Friday, Musk said SpaceX was “getting 50 billion a year for 35 billion dollar investments” and that it can bring a data center online in eight or nine months, compared to two and a half years for competitors. He also said SpaceX is tracking toward an annualized revenue rate above $100 billion in December, with a “best guess” of $500 billion by December 2027.
Musk’s reply points to the other side of the clause. Anthropic has signed large compute agreements with Amazon, Google and Microsoft, and if that capacity comes online faster than new construction slows, the AI lab would have its own leverage to renegotiate or leave. Musk has called Anthropic “obviously currently the leader in AI,” and it remains one of SpaceX’s largest compute customers.
SpaceX shares rose more than 2 percent in overnight trading late Sunday after closing Friday at $134.27, according to Stocktwits.
Tesla begins groundworks on $10B ‘Project Crystal Sun’ in Texas
Elon Musk keeps justifying Tesla Cybertruck’s cancelation, but it’s confusing
