News
Elon Musk is redefining the ‘ICE age,’ turning combustion engine cars into museum relics
Tesla might be bringing in a new definition for the term “Ice Age.” Instead of “a long period of reduction in the temperature of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers,” Tesla’s Ice Age has to do with the disappearance of ICE, meaning Internal Combustion Engines. A relatively small percentage of the world’s vehicles are powered by battery cells, with the overwhelming majority of passenger modes of transportation being fueled by gasoline or diesel. However, Tesla is turning the tide by offering enhanced battery cell technology and making their cars more appealing than their gas counterparts.
Simply put, the development of Tesla’s battery-powered cars are bringing in a new era of transportation. Soon enough, gas cars will be the minority, and Teslas, along with other electric vehicles, will be the most popular cars on the road. How this will happen for the next twenty to thirty years comes down to the development of electric vehicles and the process of making them better than their adversary. Without a doubt, Tesla and Elon Musk are leading the charge.
Interestingly, Musk’s development of affordable electric transport is strikingly similar to Henry Ford’s development of the Model T. In 1908, Ford produced the first Model T, a step toward making cars a more mainstream and widely-affordable type of transportation for everyday people. While the rich and wealthy had been riding around in cars since the 1880s, Ford knew that the way cars were made had to be streamlined and that people would eventually need something affordable.
One hundred years after Ford produced the first Model T, Tesla was releasing the first Roadster. An expensive, but functional and revolutionary machine, the Roadster was really the first electric car that could be taken seriously. It had performance, range, and a car company that was only focusing on EVs had built it, so consumers knew it was the specialty of the company, not just some interesting side project.
The similarities between the two situations are resemblant to each other because both Musk and Ford knew that: 1) Transportation had to be revolutionized, and 2) Cars needed to be affordable.
Before the first cars were being built, people were primarily traveling by horse and buggy, by water, or by passenger trains. A combustion engine was the next best thing at the time because Ford knew how to make it affordable for the average person. It also gave people the freedom to travel where they wanted, and the time they desired instead of being packed into train cabins like a pack of sardines.
This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
Musk’s situation is that, while cars were already functional and nearly everybody had one, the industry needed to be revolutionized once again. Gas cars dominated the market because there was really no other option, but Musk saw a better way.
While the 2008 Roadster certainly wasn’t a perfect fit into everyone’s financial plan, it gave Tesla a headstart in the EV sector. Tesla was forced to work out the kinks that other car companies are experiencing now early on in its existence. The car’s hefty price tag definitely wasn’t for everyone. Still, it allowed Tesla to round up additional cash for its future projects, which included more affordable models and ramped production lines.
It is pretty rare that anyone sees a Model T on the road. Apart from if you’re in Los Angeles and you happen to see Jay Leno strolling around in his, or if you’re at Hershey Park riding on the Sunoco “Fast Lane” ride, you’re more than likely not going to see one puttering around. The fact that many people have never seen a Model T in real life is a sneak preview of what is to come in the automotive industry over the next 50 to 100 years: a disappearance of gas-powered cars. In their place, electric vehicles will roam the streets, free of noise and fossil fuel-driven pollution.
While the combustion engine was improved over time to increase efficiency and performance, the same thing needed to be done with batteries. Tesla’s Battery Day event on Tuesday brought to light how the electric automaker plans to deal with this roadblock. The company’s cars need to continue to improve. Efficiency needs to get better, longevity, performance, you name it. Tesla unveiled a new battery cell during the event that will effectively usher in the beginning of the new ICE Age.
Tesla debuts new 4680 battery cell: 500% more energy, 6X power, range increase
With the developments, gas-powered engines are beginning to appear pointless. When the cost of battery cell manufacturing goes down, people will be forced to reconsider what they’re driving now, especially if it is a gas-powered vehicle. While EVs are already appealing because of their low maintenance requirements, they will also be the same price as gas cars within the next 3-5 years, which is really the biggest factor in why consumers buy cars, to begin with.
Just like a tube television, in a few decades, the young children will point at cars with tailpipes and say, “Mommy, what’s that Tesla with a pipe coming out of the back of it?” The Mother will answer, “Oh honey, that’s a gas car. They’ve been extinct for nearly 20 years.” This conversation will happen while both begin to breathe significantly cleaner air, and the average global temperature will be reduced. Not to mention, the quick back and forth will also occur at an Automotive History Museum, because gas cars will be so rare, that will be the only place most will see them.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
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
