News
Tesla Energy’s true potential shines as study shows Gen Z prefers renewables, not coal
During the second quarter earnings call, Elon Musk highlighted that the potential of Tesla Energy exceeds that of the company’s automotive business simply because the utility sector is much larger than the car industry. Fortunately for Tesla, it appears that the upcoming ramp of its energy business is coming just at the right time, as a recent study has determined that members of Gen Z are far more interested in careers relating to renewable energy.
Morning Consult, a US-based data intelligence firm, recently conducted a climate change study on members of Generation Z aged between 13 and 23. The study was conducted on August 21-23 and it involved about 1,000 participants, with a margin of error of 3 percentage points. In a post about its survey, the data intelligence firm noted that overall, the study revealed that Gen Z accepts climate change as a fact, and a significant number of them are willing to do something about it.
As could be seen in the graphic below, 26% of the respondents in the study believe that humans have the capability to stop climate change. A larger number, 49%, believe that while climate change could not really be stopped, it could be slowed down. Encouragingly, only 2% of the study’s respondents stated that they do not believe climate change is happening, and only 8% stated that climate change is beyond humans’ control.
What is particularly notable in the study’s results was the fact that 73% of the survey’s respondents stated that they are “very” or “somewhat” concerned about the impact of climate change on the environment. The data intelligence firm noted that these values would likely have an effect on policies in the near future. “While many of the poll’s respondents are not yet able to vote, as the generation that has given the world activists such as Greta Thunberg and Xiye Bastida comes of age, its values will be of increasing relevance to policymakers,” the firm noted.
Amidst the data gathered by the intelligence firm, one particular point stood out. Gen Z-ers, most of whom have lived through a time when the effects of climate change have been more prominent, are focused on careers relating to sustainability. When asked about their career prospects, the vast majority of the study’s respondents stated that they are interested in sectors that contribute to the fight against climate change, like solar and wind. Sectors whose emissions harm the environment such as coal, on the other hand, hold very little appeal.
Based on the results of Morning Consult’s study, 50% of the respondents noted that they were interested in pursuing a career in the solar industry. Careers in wind and hydropower are a close second and third, with 43% and 41%, respectively. Interestingly enough, the coal industry, a key driver of the industrial age, only holds appeal to 15% of the study’s respondents, making it the least popular career option for Gen Z members. Alternatives to renewables like solar and wind, such as nuclear power, also seem to hold little appeal for the survey’s respondents.
“Fifteen percent of Gen Z-ers, meanwhile, expressed interest in a career in coal, with 65% saying they were not interested. The natural gas sector — which proponents have long touted as facilitating the economy’s transition to more renewable energy — was also unpopular, with 29% interested and 52% not interested. This is consistent with the industry’s own polling in 2017, which has prompted concern from energy executives about how to recruit new talent in the coming decades. And while nuclear energy has similarly been championed as playing a crucial role in the transition, the sector proved statistically as unpopular as natural gas,” the intelligence firm noted.
With this shift in mind, companies like Tesla are perfectly positioned as the preferred places of work for the next generation. As Gen Z steps away from fossil fuel-based jobs, the opportunities for businesses such as Tesla Energy become larger. Companies that actively address the effects of climate change, after all, are far better alternatives to workplaces whose practices actively destroy the planet. Perhaps this is already starting in the automotive sector, as companies like Tesla are becoming increasingly popular among engineering graduates. Beyond the appeal of working for a rockstar CEO like Elon Musk, Tesla’s disruptive approach and its open, ambitious mission could very well be considered attractive by prospective employees.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
