News
Panasonic finds itself in need of some Tesla-style boldness as it enters its next era
Tesla’s oldest battery partner, Panasonic, is finding itself at a crossroads once more. With Chief Executive Kazuhiro Tsuga poised to step down next June, the massive Japanese conglomerate is feeling some pressure to optimize and streamline itself. To accomplish this, Panasonic may need to channel one of its key battery partners, Tesla, and its CEO, Elon Musk, to make the bold decisions needed to thrive in a new era.
When Tsuga took Panasonic’s reins eight years ago, he stated that his first priority would be to return the massive conglomerate into a profitable “normal company.” He did not disappoint. Tsuga stemmed a record loss by pulling the company out of the plasma television market and repositioning the firm as an automotive-and-housing conglomerate. The veteran Japanese executive also did something unexpected: he initiated a $5 billion battery manufacturing tie-up with Tesla in 2014.
Tsuga’s strategy of partnering with Tesla, then an unproven electric car maker, and a CEO known for a Tony Stark-like persona, was considered a courageous move on the Japanese conglomerate’s part. The partnership of the experienced Japanese veteran and assertive US startup bore fruit, with Gigafactory Nevada becoming the world’s largest battery facility. Its operations with Tesla are even closing in on its first annual profit. But the journey to this point was not easy.
As noted in a Financial Times report, Panasonic and Tesla clashed over the years, and these tensions reportedly manifested themselves when the Japanese firm decided to not invest in Gigafactory Shanghai. This resulted in Tesla partnering with other suppliers like LG Chem and Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Limited (CATL). Tesla has also announced plans to start producing its own 4680 tabless cells for its vehicles and energy storage products.
As the outgoing Panasonic CEO prepares to step down in June, his promise of running a “normal company” is leaving a bitter aftertaste to the company he will leave behind. Over the years, rivals such as Sony and Hitachi have gone on massive divestment initiatives to streamline their businesses. And while Panasonic has followed a similar path, executives continue to struggle to define what kind of company it is. Newly-appointed chief executive Yuki Kusumi, who is poised to succeed Tsuga, referenced this when he stated that Panasonic could achieve growth if it could optimize businesses that excelled in its portfolio, which currently stretches across a whopping 520 subsidiaries.
The outgoing Panasonic CEO, as a final departing measure, is hoping to change the company into a holding company structure, which is similar to a move that rival Sony will make around April. According to Panasonic, the shift, which is expected to be completed in 2022, could help accelerate decision-making across the conglomerate by running its units independently. Yet even this strategy poses challenges for Panasonic since unlike Sony, which has found its “core” in the games, films, animation, and the music segment, Panasonic’s “core” still seems unclear. This difference is evident when one looks at the two Japanese firms’ performance in the market. Sony has increased 78% since February while Panasonic has dropped 30%.
But things may be looking up for Panasonic. When he announced Panasonic’s shift to a holding company, Tsuga resurrected car batteries as a “core” by branding it as an “energy business.” Thanks in part to this, as well as the ongoing expansion of profitable projects like Gigafactory Nevada, Panasonic’s next CEO, Yuki Kusumi, would be taking control of a company that is in a much better financial position as the one handed over to his predecessor. As highlighted by the Financial Times, if Kusumi would like to usher in a revival or a breakthrough of sorts for Panasonic in the coming years, he would have to channel less of his predecessor’s “normal company” strategy and more of the boldness characteristic of partners like Tesla.
Markets like the battery industry are only just heating up, after all. While Tesla has stated that it intends to keep and grow its partnership with suppliers like Panasonic despite its own battery production plans, competitors like LG Chem and CATL are not sitting out the next few years. LG has even posted a bold challenge of sorts to the Japanese conglomerate recently, with the South Korean firm stating that it has every intention to become Tesla’s main battery supplier in the near future, effectively taking Panasonic’s place. With some Elon Musk-style boldness, however, perhaps Panasonic could still keep its lead in the battery sector, and perhaps even increase its reach in the growing EV segment.
Elon Musk
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Musk disputes NASA estimate of 22 Starship launches for Moon landing, predicting 6 to 8.
Elon Musk is disputing a new NASA safety panel estimate of how many Starship launches it will take to put astronauts on the Moon, saying the real number will be less than half the panel’s figure.
On Thursday, NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel held its quarterly public meeting. Panel member Charlie Precourt, a former NASA astronaut, flagged the fueling process for SpaceX’s lunar lander as a major risk for Artemis IV, the mission planned to land a crew on the Moon in 2028. “We need to keep our eyes on numerous required fuelings for the lander,” Precourt said, according to Ars Technica. “I think the last estimate is around 22 flights.”
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger posted the comment on X, and Musk replied. “That’s way too high,” Musk wrote. “Actual number will be more like 6 to 8.”
The disagreement comes down to a basic problem with sending a ship as large as Starship to the Moon. Starship burns nearly all of its propellant just reaching Earth orbit, so it cannot continue on to the Moon without stopping for a refill. SpaceX’s answer is a gas station in space. First, a Starship that works as a storage tank, called a depot, is launched into orbit. Then a series of tanker Starships launch one at a time, dock with the depot and pump their leftover propellant into it. Once the depot is full, the lunar lander version of Starship launches, docks, fills up and heads for the Moon.
Every tanker trip is its own full rocket launch, which is why the count matters. More launches mean more time, more cost and more chances for something to go wrong before astronauts ever leave Earth. Berger estimated that even if SpaceX reaches twice weekly Starship launches by the end of 2027, filling a depot at the panel’s number would still take roughly three months.
How many tankers are needed depends mostly on how much propellant each one can carry to orbit and how much is lost along the way. Starship’s fuel and oxygen are stored at extremely cold temperatures, and some of it slowly boils off while waiting in orbit. More is lost in each transfer. NASA appears to be working from what Starship can lift today, while Musk’s range assumes a more capable rocket.
Musk has pushed back on higher counts before. In 2021, after a government document suggested 16 launches, he called that “extremely unlikely” and said eight tankers would be the most required.
Much of the answer depends on hardware SpaceX has not finished flying. As Teslarati noted earlier this year, the company plans to carry out the refueling process with its upgraded V3 Starship, and Precourt described Artemis IV as carrying “a large number of firsts.” He also praised NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman’s team for working to clear obstacles for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose Blue Moon lander does not rely on orbital refueling for its first mission.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
Fort Bend County approved four incentive agreements Thursday for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar factory.
Fort Bend County commissioners on Thursday approved a package of tax incentives for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar cell factory near Needville, Texas, giving the company one of the last local approvals it needs before it decides where to build. All four Tesla agreements passed 4 to 0.
The votes covered a property tax abatement inside Reinvestment Zone No. 34, a Chapter 381 economic development agreement, a foreign trade zone non-objection paired with payments in lieu of certain taxes, and a separate payment in lieu of taxes “true up” agreement, according to agenda notes from the Fort Bend Commissioners Court meeting.
The project, known internally as “Project Crystal Sun,” would make solar cells and finished modules on roughly 3,000 acres near FM 762 and FM 1994, south of the Brazos River. As Teslarati reported when the filing first surfaced in August, Tesla’s application under the state’s JETI Act splits the investment into $1.5 billion in real property and $8.6 billion in equipment, with 9,712 permanent jobs projected by 2033 and commercial operations targeted for the first quarter of 2029. The plant would handle the full chain from ingot and wafer production through cell testing.
Inside Tesla’s secretive $10 Billion “Project Crystal Sun” filing
Thursday’s approval does not lock in the site. Tesla has told the Texas Comptroller it is still weighing other locations, and site selection adviser David Dennison told Lamar Consolidated ISD trustees in September that the race had narrowed to Fort Bend and one out of state rival with a “very compelling package,” according to the Houston Chronicle. Tesla hopes to decide before the end of 2026, and the incentives still need sign off from the Comptroller and the Governor’s office.
Local officials have now done nearly everything within their control. Commissioners created the reinvestment zone in an August 24 special meeting, with Interim County Judge Daniel Wong formally withdrawing himself over his engineering firm’s past work with Tesla. Lamar CISD trustees voted 7 to 0 on September 15 to advance a JETI agreement that would tax Tesla’s qualifying property at 50 percent of its value for maintenance and operations from 2029 through 2038.
The plant lines up with a target Elon Musk set on Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call in January, when he said the company would “work toward getting 100 GW a year of solar cell production, integrating across the entire supply chain from raw materials all the way to finished solar panels.” In March, Tesla was reported to be negotiating a $2.9 billion purchase of Chinese solar manufacturing equipment bound for Texas. The Houston area already hosts Tesla’s Megafactory in Brookshire, where Megapack 3 production has started. Tesla said on its Q3 call that Megapack supply for 2027 is nearly sold out, and Musk wrote on X Thursday that the company is “increasing production of Megapacks as much as possible,” as demand from data centers climbs.
Tesla revealed plans to develop its own maps internally to fix Navigation issues and give owners more control over their routing.
On the company’s Q3 2026 Earnings Call, a question was asked about FSD Navigation issues, particularly speed limit recognition, parking, and routing. These are issues that surface from version to version and seem to be seriously challenging for Tesla’s AI team to resolve.
Tesla’s Head of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, said in response to the question:
“You’re totally right that we shouldn’t be depending on external people’s maps. So we are building our own maps, but not like the same way as OneMoreMap. We are building an entirely new architecture with essentially AI-based mapping and navigation.”
He continued:
“It’s going to be super awesome. It’s going to be integrated with voice. You can talk to it, ask for different routes. It’s going to learn your personalized preferences, plus the fleet preferences. The collective intelligence of all the cars is going to flow into making the maps and navigation super cool.”
Elluswamy said this issue should be confronted, and the mapping should be available for people by the time the v15 release starts deploying to customers.
“And over the next several months,” he added, “it’s just going to take over all of the navigation functions, parking, destination handling. And it will know you better than you know yourself in some regard for the driving task, and then handle it fully.”
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Navigation is perhaps the most notable complaint with FSD, and although it has gotten better, it is still flawed. Much of the time, FSD will take people on routes that are not preferred by the driver, but Tesla tried to combat this with a routing feature in the Summer 2026 Update.
Tesla currently relies on Google for map data, but it is sort of counterintuitive to believe the company would rely on a third party for this. These improvements will be welcome, as routing and navigation have been such a pain point for so many owners for so long.
Quotes via Motley Fool
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
