News
Tesla’s years of battery tech investments are becoming a buffer against nickel’s rising costs
For years, Tesla has invested heavily in its supply chain and battery strategy. So focused was the company in these endeavors that it even decided to design and produce its own batteries, the 4680 cells. The next-generation cells are a crucial component of Tesla’s long-term plan to make electric vehicles more affordable.
Elon Musk has been very open about Tesla’s need for nickel. Being a key component of its high-performance batteries, Musk stated back in 2020 that any company that can provide Tesla with environmentally-friendly nickel would be granted with a massive contract. During Battery Day, the CEO also highlighted that Tesla’s nickel-based 4680 batteries would be the heart of the company’s flagship products, like the Cybertruck.
But while nickel is a critical ingredient of lithium-ion batteries, experts have predicted an upcoming shortage for some time. Norway-based energy analytics firm Rystad Energy estimated that demand would surpass nickel supply around 2024, and by 2026, there might be a shortage of the material. This timeframe seems to have been accelerated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
It should be noted that Russia controls 20% of the supply of the industry’s highest-grade nickel. The country also holds 10% of the world’s overall nickel supply. Thus, when Russia was hit by sanctions due to its invasion of Ukraine, the markets reacted. Nickel prices rose so much that the London Metal Exchange canceled trading for the material for more than a week. In a statement to Insider, auto industry analyst Lauren Fix noted that Russia’s control of nickel could have adverse effects for electric vehicle makers.
“Relying on your enemies to supply you with critical materials is never to your benefit. They have the ability to control the price you pay and can make it more difficult for you to gain supply to meet your goals,” Fix said.
Tesla is the market’s dominant electric vehicle maker, and for good reason. For years, the company has initiated plans to be as immune as possible from market shifts. Tesla built up a nickel supply practically independent of many market shifts by tapping into partnerships with nickel-mining companies and nickel production entities. The company even bought into a nickel mine in early 2021, providing itself with direct access to the material.
Tesla has also worked heavily in its battery technology, from the 2170 cells currently being made in Gigafactory Nevada with Panasonic to the 4680 cells that are currently being ramped in the company’s Kato Road facility. Tesla’s 4680 batteries were announced as nickel-based cells, though they feature a number of efficiencies that make their production more cost-effective and their life cycle longer compared to traditional batteries.
Interestingly enough, Tesla is not keeping its 4680 battery technology all for itself. In a previous announcement, Panasonic has confirmed that it would also be producing 4680 batteries, and they have already been validated by the electric vehicle maker. Panasonic has noted that mass production of the next-generation cells would begin around 2024.
Tesla also managed to handle the rising cost of nickel by using batteries that do not use the material at all. As per CEO Elon Musk, Tesla has started focusing on using iron-based batteries for its entry-level vehicles like the Model 3 RWD and the Model Y RWD, both of which are produced in Gigafactory Shanghai. The company has also mentioned that it had begun using manganese for some of its batteries to help reduce its reliance on nickel. Lastly, Tesla also launched a recycling program for its nickel-based batteries, which should help the company’s supply chain further in the future.
Tesla is still affected by shifts in the market. The fact that the company has raised its vehicle prices twice in recent weeks is proof of that. However, a number of experts have stated that Tesla’s forward-looking strategy still makes the company well-positioned to continue in its role as the undisputed leader in the electric vehicle industry. Tien Wong, a tech investor and the founder of Connectpreneur, shared his thoughts on the matter.
“Prewar, nickel prices, and potential shortages were a huge concern of Elon’s and the EV industry as a whole. The war will exacerbate these dynamics, which will result in higher prices and slower deliveries for EVs. As for Tesla, they are the market leader right now, so the nickel situation may actually help them versus competitors in the short run,” Wong said.
*Quotes courtesy of Insider.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
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
