News
The strategy behind the state selection of the Tesla Gigafactory
By now, everyone who has any interest at all in Tesla Motors has heard about their plans for a Gigafactory. Since the plan was introduced in February, the discussion groups and forums have been filled with thoughts on the implications of the huge battery making installation. Four potential sites were named: New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas.
Speculation about how this would change things became rampant. Nicolas Zart asked how it would affect Tesla’s long-standing relationship with Panasonic, who provides the batteries being used in the Model S and that will likely be used in the upcoming Model X. Yet a more persistent question in the peanut gallery has been why Tesla would choose the states it mentioned as candidates for the factory.
To be straightforward, there was a lot of strategic thinking that went behind the choice of the four states mentioned, and there’s a good reason that a couple of those states, deemed as “Tesla-unfriendly,” are on the list.
Logistics
The states chosen are all within a specific logistical area. They’re warm weather states, have little seismic activity, are within easily-accessed and well-established transportation corridors (trains, highways, etc.), have low-cost land available, and have a surplus of most energy types.
This means that transport of materials and finished products to and from each of these locations is relatively easy and requires minimal work to customize. All of them are in sunny locations (a primary requirement for a solar farm as large as Tesla proposes) and they all have access to low-cost energy at surplus should the wind and solar plans take longer to establish or not perform as expected.
-->Costs and Baskets of Eggs
Each of the four states named also have highly conducive political environments for business. California, love it or hate it, is one of the worst places in the nation to attempt to start a manufacturing business in terms of bureaucracy, costs, and red tape. Choosing California would also mean Tesla would be putting all of their eggs into one basket, as it were, geographically and politically. This would directly affect our next point. We’ll discuss that in a moment.
All four of the states listed have low or no corporate income tax, have relatively low property taxes (even for industrial use), and are about as business-friendly as a state’s government can be without giving away the farm. Nevada and Arizona also have corporate-friendly incorporation laws, should Tesla need to use them.
Leverage
Now for the real meat of it. Tesla has already leveraged California for about everything it can in terms of concessions and breaks. California would likely be willing to do a lot to help Musk get his Gigafactory built, but it’s just as likely that the other candidates would do just as much on top of their already-friendly atmosphere, industry-wise.
Further, two of these states (do we need to name them?) have been less than friendly to Tesla during the dealership vs direct sales battles. Dangle the “create a green factory and employ a lot of your citizens” carrot, though, and suddenly the discussion might begin to change a little.
You don’t have to be Richard Nixon to see that the prospect of one of the world’s largest automotive battery factories being located in your state will have a hundred benefits to every loss you might politically incur for turning your back on your friends at the auto dealer’s association. Especially if you’re a governor with hopes of getting into the White House (ahemRickPerryahem). It’s things like the Gigafactory that can build legacies for those with the savvy to utilize the PR potential.
-->Strategically Speaking
Putting it together, the strategy behind the Gigafactory’s geographic location is very astute. Musk and Co gain more by naming enemies in their list of potentials than they would going the relatively safe route of staying in their west coast comfort zone.
News
Tesla is improving Giga Berlin’s free “Giga Train” service for employees
With this initiative, Tesla aims to boost the number of Gigafactory Berlin employees commuting by rail while keeping the shuttle free for all riders.
Tesla will expand its factory shuttle service in Germany beginning January 4, adding direct rail trips from Berlin Ostbahnhof to Giga Berlin-Brandenburg in Grünheide.
With this initiative, Tesla aims to boost the number of Gigafactory Berlin employees commuting by rail while keeping the shuttle free for all riders.
New shuttle route
As noted in a report from rbb24, the updated service, which will start January 4, will run between the Berlin Ostbahnhof East Station and the Erkner Station at the Gigafactory Berlin complex. Tesla stated that the timetable mirrors shift changes for the facility’s employees, and similar to before, the service will be completely free. The train will offer six direct trips per day as well.
“The service includes six daily trips, which also cover our shift times. The trains will run between Berlin Ostbahnhof (with a stop at Ostkreuz) and Erkner station to the Gigafactory,” Tesla Germany stated.
Even with construction continuing at Fangschleuse and Köpenick stations, the company said the route has been optimized to maintain a predictable 35-minute travel time. The update follows earlier phases of Tesla’s “Giga Train” program, which initially connected Erkner to the factory grounds before expanding to Berlin-Lichtenberg.
-->Tesla pushes for majority rail commuting
Tesla began production at Grünheide in March 2022, and the factory’s workforce has since grown to around 11,500 employees, with an estimated 60% commuting from Berlin. The facility produces the Model Y, Tesla’s best-selling vehicle, for both Germany and other territories.
The company has repeatedly emphasized its goal of having more than half its staff use public transportation rather than cars, positioning the shuttle as a key part of that initiative. In keeping with the factory’s sustainability focus, Tesla continues to allow even non-employees to ride the shuttle free of charge, making it a broader mobility option for the area.
News
Tesla Model 3 and Model Y dominate China’s real-world efficiency tests
The Tesla Model 3 posted 20.8 kWh/100 km while the Model Y followed closely at 21.8 kWh/100 km.
Tesla’s Model 3 and Model Y once again led the field in a new real-world energy-consumption test conducted by China’s Autohome, outperforming numerous rival electric vehicles in controlled conditions.
The results, which placed both Teslas in the top two spots, prompted Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun to acknowledge Tesla’s efficiency advantage while noting that his company’s vehicles will continue refining its own models to close the gap.
Tesla secures top efficiency results
Autohome’s evaluation placed all vehicles under identical conditions, such as a full 375-kg load, cabin temperature fixed at 24°C on automatic climate control, and a steady cruising speed of 120 km/h. In this environment, the Tesla Model 3 posted 20.8 kWh/100 km while the Model Y followed closely at 21.8 kWh/100 km, as noted in a Sina News report.
These figures positioned Tesla’s vehicles firmly at the top of the ranking and highlighted their continued leadership in long-range efficiency. The test also highlighted how drivetrain optimization, software management, and aerodynamic profiles remain key differentiators in high-speed, cold-weather scenarios where many electric cars struggle to maintain low consumption.
Xiaomi’s Lei Jun pledges to continue learning from Tesla
Following the results, Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun noted that the Xiaomi SU7 actually performed well overall but naturally consumed more energy due to its larger C-segment footprint and higher specification. He reiterated that factors such as size and weight contributed to the difference in real-world consumption compared to Tesla. Still, the executive noted that Xiaomi will continue to learn from the veteran EV maker.
“The Xiaomi SU7’s energy consumption performance is also very good; you can take a closer look. The fact that its test results are weaker than Tesla’s is partly due to objective reasons: the Xiaomi SU7 is a C-segment car, larger and with higher specifications, making it heavier and naturally increasing energy consumption. Of course, we will continue to learn from Tesla and further optimize its energy consumption performance!” Lei Jun wrote in a post on Weibo.
-->Lei Jun has repeatedly described Tesla as the global benchmark for EV efficiency, previously stating that Xiaomi may require three to five years to match its leadership. He has also been very supportive of FSD, even testing the system in the United States.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk reveals what will make Optimus’ ridiculous production targets feasible
Musk recent post suggests that Tesla has a plan to attain Optimus’ production goals.
Elon Musk subtly teased Tesla’s strategy to achieve Optimus’ insane production volume targets. The CEO has shared his predictions about Optimus’ volume, and they are so ambitious that one would mistake them for science fiction.
Musk’s recent post on X, however, suggests that Tesla has a plan to attain Optimus’ production goals.
The highest volume product
Elon Musk has been pretty clear about the idea of Optimus being Tesla’s highest-volume product. During the Tesla 2025 Annual Shareholder Meeting, Musk stated that the humanoid robot will see “the fastest production ramp of any product of any large complex manufactured product ever,” starting with a one-million-per-year line at the Fremont Factory.
Following this, Musk stated that Giga Texas will receive a 10 million-per-year unit Optimus line. But even at this level, the Optimus ramp is just beginning, as the production of the humanoid robot will only accelerate from there. At some point, the CEO stated that a Mars location could even have a 100 million-unit-per-year production line, resulting in up to a billion Optimus robots being produced per year.
Self-replication is key
During the weekend, Musk posted a short message that hinted at Tesla’s Optimus strategy. “Optimus will be the Von Neumann probe,” the CEO wrote in his post. This short comment suggests that Tesla will not be relying on traditional production systems to make Optimus. The company probably won’t even hire humans to produce the humanoid robot at one point. Instead, Optimus robots could simply produce other Optimus robots, allowing them to self-replicate.
-->The Von Neumann is a hypothetical self-replicating spacecraft proposed by the mathematician and physicist John von Neumann in the 1940s–1950s. The hypothetical machine in the concept would be able to travel to a new star system or location, land, mine, and extract raw materials from planets, asteroids, and moons as needed, use those materials to manufacture copies of itself, and launch the new copies toward other star systems.
If Optimus could pull off this ambitious target, the humanoid robot would indeed be the highest volume product ever created. It could, as Musk predicted, really change the world.
Tesla is improving Giga Berlin’s free “Giga Train” service for employees
Tesla Model 3 and Model Y dominate China’s real-world efficiency tests
