A newly published patent from Tesla aims to bring the company’s idea for a one-million mile battery to life by using numerous electrolyte additives to increase the longevity and performance of its lithium-ion cells.
Tesla submitted the patent for “Dioxazolones and Nitrile Sulfites as Electrolyte Additives for Lithium-Ion Batteries” in August 2018. The patent is focused on improving the company’s rechargeable battery systems by adjusting the cells’ chemistry.
The patent claims that the addition of electrolyte additives, like lithium salt, can drastically improve the longevity and performance of battery systems when combined with a nonaqueous solution. A nonaqueous solution does not include water as the solvent, but rather another liquid.
The patent states:
Electrolyte additives have been shown to be operative and increase the lifetime and performance of Li-ion-based batteries… To further progress the adoption of electric vehicles and grid energy storage applications, it is desirable to develop lithium-ion cell chemistries that offer longer lifetimes at high temperatures and high cell voltages, without significantly increasing cost. The introduction of sacrificial electrolyte additives on the order of a few weight percent is a practical method to form protective solid-electrolyte interphase (SEI) layers that limit electrolyte decomposition during cell storage and operation. In recent years, significant efforts have yielded a large number of such additives that may be used to improve cell performance for various applications. Examples are vinylene carbonate (VC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), prop-l-ene-l,3-sultone (PES), ethylene sulfate (1, 3, 2-dioxathiolane-2, 2-dioxide, DTD), and lithium difluorophosphate (LFO)
Tesla recognizes that increased temperatures are detrimental to the lifespan of a battery system. In a previous patent, Tesla outlined a cooling system that could lead to longer-lasting energy storage systems. While heat is unavoidable as it is a key player in the use of lithium-ion batteries, especially when owners of Tesla vehicles are operating in performance modes, engineers realize the solvents and solutions could be a way to improve performance and lifespan without significantly increasing cost.
In a way, a good part of Tesla’s lead in the electric car industry lies in the company’s batteries, or more specifically, its cell chemistry. It is these factors that allow Tesla to maximize its vehicles’ battery packs, and a key reason why the Model S Long Range is able to travel 373 miles on one charge with a 100 kWh battery, and why the Porsche Taycan can only go 201 miles per charge on a pack that’s nearly as large. This patent confirms that Tesla continues to work on improving its batteries, allowing the company to maintain or even increase its lead in the EV segment.
At Tesla’s Autonomy Day in April 2019, Elon Musk promised owners that the company would soon power its vehicles for upwards of one million miles over the span of the vehicle’s life. While the claim seemed enthusiastic and somewhat unrealistic, critics soon realized Tesla may be closer to this than many think. In September, a team of researchers led by Jeff Dahn at Dalhousie University published a research paper that claimed they had developed a lithium-ion battery capable of one million miles of driving, or 20 years of use in an energy-storage system.
Tesla’s battery technology continues to advance thanks to developments from its engineers. It appears Tesla is aiming to create a line of products that will last decades. In terms of automobiles, it would be groundbreaking to have a car that could run for 20 or 30 years with relatively no annual maintenance. Convenience, performance, and longevity are three things Tesla’s products are aimed toward, and the patent for an advanced and more affordable battery system thanks to an electrolyte solvent could alleviate any concerns some owners may have.
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
