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:
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.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
