News
Tesla’s approach to battery technology keeps it ahead in the EV industry
Tesla’s dominance in the growing electric vehicle (EV) industry is largely attributed to its unique approach to its battery technology. The engineering behind the all-electric car maker’s cylindrical cells speaks for itself in terms of the performance and range achieved, but in a recent interview with a battery technology researcher, a few things detailed about Tesla’s batteries stood out in particular.
Ravindra Kempaiah is a Ph.D. scholar at the University of Illinois Chicago focusing on advanced battery materials for his thesis. In his interview with Tesla owner and host of All Things EV, Sean Mitchell, Kempaiah explained lithium-ion technology in EVs and the primary issues faced in their development. Overall, the biggest challenge is balancing the three main components in battery production: energy density, cost, and cycle life. Increasing one area will significantly impact the other, and the ideal equation is always being sought after. For example, if you increase energy density for higher range and lower cost, the cycle life takes a major hit. If you increase density and life cycle, the battery alone can cost as much as $100k, as described by Kempaiah.
“We always want more range. We always want higher cycle life. We want our batteries to last 15-20 years and the car to go 500 miles, but this is a problem every battery scientist has faced for the last 30 years,” Kempaiah commented in the interview.
Tesla deals with the same balancing act as other battery-electric car makers; however, there are key factors which seem to have kept the company ahead in the industry.
First, Tesla’s choice of cylindrical cells sets it apart from every other electric vehicle on the market. This provides several advantages that drive performance, flexibility, and cost control. Notably, Rivian is also using cylindrical cells, although their vehicles are not yet under production.
Out of the three types of cells available (cylindrical, prismatic, and pouch cells), cylindrical is the most cost-effective to produce. Namely, the cost per kWh is lower in cylindrical cells versus other types. The metallic jacket around the 18650 and 2170 cylindrical cells used in the Tesla Model S/X and Model 3, respectively, acts as scaffolding and provides structural rigidity to the battery. Additionally, in high powered situations, current draw and distribution of power is over the entirety of the battery pack instead of concentrated in a certain section, according to Kempaiah.
Second, Tesla uses a liquid-cooled thermal management system to manage battery temperatures whereas other automakers take a more economical air cooling approach. By adjusting the temperature of the battery pack, Tesla is able to ensure that cells are operating in their most efficient and optimal states, thereby maximizing battery longevity as well as performance. While reducing cost is an important factor in accelerating the growth of the electric vehicle market, Tesla’s investment in thermal management technology provides an upside for owners who may be looking for longevity and long-term affordability of their cars.
Third, Tesla has actively sought to limit the amount of cobalt it uses in its batteries and already uses less of the element than other companies in the Model 3 batteries. The scarcity of cobalt and its mining sources have subjected it to socioeconomic situations that are more than problematic in the United States, i.e., child labor and similar abuses are widespread in its sourcing. With this in mind, Tesla has been working on the question, “Is cobalt really needed?”
Cobalt is used as a cathode in battery technology, and out of all cathode materials available, it has the highest cost both fiscally and politically. Current consensus on battery technology says that without cobalt, the structural integrity and cycle life in batteries is compromised, as described in the interview. However, some recent scientific literature was cited by Kempaiah that indicated higher nickel content limited the impact of cobalt on batteries, possibly removing the need to use it at all. Nickel is more widely available across the globe, which keeps its cost down and mitigates the socioeconomic impacts often associated with resource mining operations. Overall, the discussion between Mitchell and Kempaiah indicated that Tesla can probably go cobalt-free soon, making it less vulnerable to the cobalt industry.
Finally, Tesla takes great care to educate its customers about proper battery maintenance, especially with regard to the negative impact of bad charging habits. Specifically, keeping an electric car battery charged at 100% for long periods degrades the battery very quickly, while keeping charging states within an optimal range will give it a long life. Tesla makes it a point to communicate to customers the importance of battery health on their overall ownership experience and value of their purchase.
When asked for his opinion by Mitchell, Kempaiah attributed the lack of education by other brands as a disconnect between engineering teams and marketing teams. While battery “best practices” are provided to EV customers by all manufacturers, the importance of communicating the true impact of bad charging habits may not be emphasized enough to be included as prominently as it should.
In summary, Tesla is constantly developing the technology in its vehicles, and its particular attention to its batteries looks to have given the company a significant advantage over its competitors. Perhaps other automakers will take a few tips from Tesla in the future, even if it’s as limited as improving communications with customers.
Watch Sean Mitchell’s full interview with Ravindra Kempaiah below:
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Elon Musk clapped back at France’s decision to withhold the approval for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system, projecting a clear and blunt message to French Transport Minister Phillippe Tabarot, after he publicly rejected the technology in its current form.
Tabarot outlines several concerns with Tesla Full Self-Driving in a detailed video statement, where he said, “The safety trade-offs are not yet sufficient to authorize it as it currently stands,” he said. He emphasized that FSD is not a true self-driving system and that the driver remains fully responsible.
Key issues Tabarot also brought up included allowing speeding when surrounding traffic exceeds limits and what he believes are insufficient guarantees of driver attention during complex urban maneuvers such as lane changes, intersections, and roundabouts.
Delaying the approval of FSD in France will cost lives
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 22, 2026
While acknowledging technological progress and France’s support for autonomous innovation, Tabarot stressed that deployment must prioritize road safety. He noted ongoing technical discussions with Tesla, the Netherlands, and other European partners, with further ecosystem meetings planned for the fall.
Musk’s rebuke highlights the human cost of regulatory caution. Tesla’s latest safety reports provide compelling data supporting accelerated adoption. In the most recent 12-month period, vehicles using FSD (Supervised) recorded one major collision per approximately 5.1 million miles driven, dramatically better than the U.S. national average of one crash per 698,000 miles.
Even Tesla vehicles driven manually with active safety features outperform the average by a wide margin. These figures come from billions of real-world miles of telemetry, showing FSD vehicles involved in far fewer incidents than both manual Teslas and the broader U.S. fleet.
Critics argue Tesla’s comparisons require careful scrutiny regarding reporting thresholds and fleet demographics, yet the data consistently positions FSD as a potential lifesaver. With road fatalities remaining a leading cause of death worldwide, Musk contends that proven safer technology should not face prolonged bureaucratic hurdles.
France’s measured approach reflects the broader European regulatory caution, which many, especially Musk, have been critical of in the past. However, as autonomous systems from Tesla and competitors like Waymo demonstrate superior safety in independent studies, pressure is mounting for harmonized approvals.
Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
