News
Tesla’s 4680 Kato Rd. facility has a top 10 capacity, and it’s not even close to finished
Tesla CEO Elon Musk disclosed some details about the electric automaker’s 4680 cell plant last week. After stating that the facility is “probably in the top 10 battery cell factories on Earth despite being a pilot plant,” speculation began about how massive Tesla’s new facility that sits just across the street from the Fremont production facility is. Although it is in the top 10, it’s not even close to finished.
Tesla’s introduction of the 4680 battery cell came in September 2020 at the Battery Day event. Musk and others outlined the company’s roadmap for global EV dominance through the most important part of an electric car: the cell. The new cell has 500% more energy, six times the power of the old 2170 cells, and also offers dramatic range increases for more drive time between charges. It was truly revolutionary because Tesla is already the most notable company in electric cars.
With a considerable lead in the EV sector, Tesla was effectively announcing, “eat our (sustainable) dust” after showing the new 4680 cells. Some were skeptical, believing that the new cell wouldn’t be available for some time. Musk immediately silenced those doubts, indicating that the new cells had been deployed in working vehicles for months.
Credit: Tesla
The point is, the Kato Road facility, as it is widely known as, is one of the largest facilities in the world. While we are not sure what the current capacity is, if it is a top 10 facility in terms of capacity, we can speculate how big it may be.
According to Argus Media, the 10 largest battery cell plants range from 24 GWh per year to 70 GWh per year. The largest, an LG Chem facility in Wroclaw, Poland, has the 70 GWh capacity, leading BYD’s Qinghai, China plant by 10 GWh. Tesla and Panasonic’s joint venture at Gigafactory 1 in Nevada is a 35 GWh per year facility, making it the fifth-largest plant globally.
Credit: Argus Research
Because Tesla’s Kato Road facility is a pilot plant, we can likely assume that it is within the bottom half of this list. Especially with Gigafactory 1 being the fifth-largest, it is very likely that Kato Road is simply not producing as many cells or as much battery capacity as Giga 1, but it’s not to say that this won’t happen. The issue is that Tesla is still battery constrained, even with a large-scale facility in Nevada and with several third-party manufacturers pumping cells to the automaker at a massive rate. Kato Road will contribute to the solution to the constrained problem, and the facility will likely be significantly larger than Giga 1, considering the projects that Tesla plans to fulfill with the 4680 cells, the largest being the Tesla Semi.
The Semi is still not ready for production, Musk said on the Q4 Earnings Call last week. “We will have cells group in ourselves for Semi when we were producing the 4680 volume. But for example, Semi would use typically five times the number of cells that a car would use, but it would not sell for five times what a car would sell for. So it kind of doesn’t make…it would not make sense for us to do the Semi right now,” Musk said. The issue is cell availability, and since the Semi is going to equip Tesla’s newest 4680 project, it is safe to assume that Kato Road still has some expanding to do. If it is already a top 10 facility, yet it is still not ready to take on the massive Semi task, along with all of the other vehicles it will eventually fulfill, Kato Road may become a top 3 facility.
Ultimately, Tesla requires more cells. With no plans to eliminate purchases from third-party suppliers in the near-term, Tesla wants to increase purchases from those suppliers. CATL, Panasonic, and LG Chem could supply Tesla with more batteries moving forward, even with the Kato Road facility’s expansion and ramping up. The fact is, Tesla isn’t done solving the battery constraint issue, and it could battle with it for years to come. However, it won’t stop production from increasing because more cells are becoming available almost every day through supplier deals, increased outputs, and in-house manufacturing advancements, all of which make Tesla the company to beat for the foreseeable future.
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
