News
Electric car battery production causes less CO2 emissions than once thought: study
The classic anti-Tesla argument alleging that CO2 emissions from battery production negates the positive environmental impact of electric vehicles may have been disproven for good. This comes after the IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, one of the firms responsible for the original anti-EV claim, completed a new study that showed a much different result.
The IVL conducted a study in 2017 which revealed that the emissions from the production of lithium-ion batteries was responsible for a large amount of CO2, making the purchase of an electric car practically pointless in an environmental sense. The 2017 study claimed that the production of EV batteries emits around 150 and 200 kg of CO2 per kWh. However, a new study, summarized in a recent press release from IVL, showed the amount of CO2 emissions from battery production has been reduced to between 61 and 106 kg of CO2 equivalent per kWh.
Erik Emilsson, a researcher for the IVL stated that “emissions are lower now is mainly due to the fact that battery factories have been scaled up and are running at full capacity, which makes them more efficient per unit produced. We have also taken into account the possibility of using electricity that is virtually fossil-free in several of the production stages.”
The IVL believes this reduced number can get even lower with the development of more sustainable techniques during the different states of the electric car life cycle. For example, some Tesla Superchargers and other EV chargers are still powered by a CO2-emitting resource. Tesla CEO Elon Musk stated in October 2019 that the company’s objective is to move away from this “as fast as possible” by adding solar panels to Supercharger stations.
Also adding Tesla Solar to our Supercharger stations as fast as possible. Goal is 24/7 clean power with no blackouts.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 10, 2019
Musk is not the only automotive executive looking to move away from coal-powered electric vehicle charging stations. Volkswagen Auto Group CEO Herbert Diess, who thinks highly of Musk’s vision of a sustainable future, has also stated that it is imperative for manufacturers of charging stations to make their products CO2-free.
“Coal and CO2-free electricity is a must for electric cars,” he said at a Volkswagen event in March 2019. We call on industry, politics, and society to jointly set all levers in motion to help electric-mobility achieve a breakthrough.”
The development of cleaner manufacturing doesn’t stop at the factory, however. Mining the materials for vehicle batteries is also a contributor to the negative environmental impact of electric cars. Mining can have a significant environmental and social impact. Batteries contain metals such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, and manganese.
More information is needed on the environmental impact of metal supply chains as well as better traceability processes if we are to ensure sustainable production across the entire chain,” Emilsson said. The development of new batteries is moving away from the most damaging metals, especially cobalt, an element that will be replaced in batteries by utilizing more nickel. Among those leading the pack in these efforts is Tesla as well.
The advancement in the production of batteries and electric vehicles as a whole assists in the fight against global climate issues. Technology continues to improve and the use of environmentally detrimental materials will likely be phased out as knowledge of battery systems increases. Many forget that the electric car industry is very new, especially compared to its petrol-based counterpart that has been around since the late 1800s.
Electric cars will only continue to advance in every stage, from mining to production, to driving, to recycling. The news from IVL that emissions during the production of these sustainable vehicles have decreased significantly shows the industry continues to grow and do what it was created to accomplish: save our planet from environmental catastrophe from the use of gas-powered vehicles that contribute to the steady increase in CO2 into our atmosphere.
The results of the IVL’s recent study could be accessed below.
IVL – Lithium-Ion Vehicle Battery Production by Simon Alvarez on Scribd
Tesla short sellers won big following the company’s massive fall on Wall Street after it reported subpar Earnings on Wednesday.
Tesla short sellers collected about $4.12 billion in single-day profits on Thursday, according to Bloomberg. Shares fell as much as 15 percent during Thursday’s session. It closed as one of the worst days for Tesla on Wall Street in the past three years.
Investors sold off the stock after Tesla said it would aggressively direct its spending toward AI and its Optimus robot project. The company had record revenues, which were driven by one of the strongest quarters in terms of vehicle deliveries in company history.
However, it missed EPS estimates by reporting just $0.33, a far cry from the $0.53 analysts expected.
S3 Partners reported that about 3 percent of Tesla’s outstanding stock is sold short. Managing Director at S3, Ihor Dusaniwsky, provided the short seller’s potential profit, as well as another figure: shorts have likely had paper gains of $8.92 billion this year, as Tesla shares are down 30 percent in 2026.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla has burned short sellers many times in the past, but the company’s latest Earnings Call was a chance for those skeptics to taste some payback. Although the company gave some very transparent information regarding future projects, the rollout of Robotaxi, Optimus, and Semi, many investors took their profits on Thursday.
Notable short sellers like Michael Burry have been transparent about their skepticism around Tesla shares. Burry just revealed three weeks ago that he had opened up a new short on the stock, stating he shorted Tesla shares at $416.22. “Happy it jumped back to this level,” he said in a blog post.
At the time of publication, Tesla shares were down about 3 percent and the stock was trading at $309.92.
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla short sellers win big after shares fall after earnings
Tesla door handle saga gets its latest chapter and a big change is coming
