News
Tesla battery researchers open path to all-electric range extender concept
Tesla has solidified itself as an industry leader when it comes to electric vehicles and their range. However, an EV’s range could always be improved, and the company has taken great efforts to make this possible. One of these was outlined by Tesla’s battery researchers, who recently published the results of a test that cycles lithium metal on graphite to form hybrid lithium-ion/lithium metal cells. This particular innovation could open the door to an all-electric range extender.
Other automakers have used range extenders in the past, but they’ve been comprised of small petrol-powered engines that are used as a generator to recharge the vehicle’s battery pack when it is low on range. The process of cycling lithium metal on graphite, on the other hand, could lead to a 20% higher energy density than the traditional lithium-ion cells that power the Tesla’s vehicles.
Tesla’s battery research team, led by Jeff Dahn of Dalhousie University, has found a way to create a range extender of sorts without having to keep a small gas engine in the vehicle. Tesla detailed its findings in a research paper that was published to ScienceDirect on April 30. Titled “Cycling Lithium Metal on Graphite to Form Hybrid Lithium-Ion/Lithium Metal Cells,” Dahn and his researchers outlined the testing process.
The findings proved a possible 20% increase in range when using the range extender, which is comprised of “hybrid cells” that use Lithium-Ion and Lithium Metal. The cells also used an optimized electrolyte, and pressure enabled reversible plating on graphite.
The paper states:
“A hybrid anode cell design is proposed involving lithium metal plating on top of graphite that provides a 20% increase in energy density over conventional lithium-ion cells. Pouch cells with hybrid graphite-lithium metal anodes cycled with conventional electrolytes fell below 80% capacity in under 15 cycles. However, with a dual-salt electrolyte and applied mechanical pressure optimized for lithium metal cycling, hybrid cells achieved over 150 full (100% utilization) cycles before falling below 80% capacity with a CE of 99.6% for lithium metal plating on graphite.
“We also found that intermittent high energy (100% utilization) cycles utilizing lithium metal can be dispersed among hundreds of conventional lithium-ion cycles where only the graphite is utilized. Operating the cell with this intermittent protocol shows minimal impact to the underlying graphite capacity. Therefore, these hybrid cells can operate well in “lithium-ion mode” with periodic high energy full cycles accessing the lithium metal capacity.”
Tesla’s new findings show that increased energy density is made possible with the hybrid concept. When combining lithium-ion cells with lithium metal, energy density improves as the graphite anode utilized in traditional lithium-ion cells is not capable of handling the increased energy. The utilization of a dual-salt electrolyte also increases density and decreases battery cell degradation.
Tesla’s battery researchers described the advantages of the hybrid lithium-ion/lithium metal cells in the discussion below.
“If an electric vehicle with a conventional lithium-ion battery can deliver a range of 400 km, then hybrid cells could enable a range of 480 km. By capping the upper cut-off voltage of hybrid cells to operate in lithium-ion mode, the average cell voltage and delivered capacity will decrease. As a result, operating a hybrid cell in lithium-ion mode delivers an energy density of 530Wh/L, about 25% less than a conventional lithium-ion cell.
“This would result in a range of 300 km. In a study of driving behavior for EVs, Smart et al.34 showed that only 1% of daily trips are longer than 325 km on average. Therefore, operating hybrid cells most of the time in lithium-ion mode enabling a range of 300 km, while periodically using the lithium metal portion for long > 400 km trips, as mimicked by this testing protocol, should be viable for most drivers.”
It should be noted that the Tesla battery researchers’ study is only in their initial stages. Thus, it may take some time before the technology gets rolled out to Tesla’s fleet. The wait would likely be worth it though, as the hybrid cells could open the door to all-electric vehicles with range extender features. This would be incredibly useful for electric vehicle owners who take long road trips with family, and it could also be a notable step towards EVs gaining range parity with their petrol-powered counterparts.
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
