News
Tesla and the EV sector’s growth is driving up lithium, cobalt, and nickel prices
The electric vehicle revolution is fully underway. Led by successful vehicles like the Tesla Model 3, which are compelling alternatives to comparable internal combustion cars, EV sales are taking off. The momentum of EVs as a whole may hit some challenges soon, however, partly due to the rising prices of raw materials that are critical to the production of batteries.
The prices of lithium-ion batteries have seen a 90% decline to just about $130 per kWh. That’s very close to the widely targeted $100 per kWh level, which is estimated to be the point where EVs could become fully competitive with ICE cars in terms of cost. Expectations were high that the battery industry would hit $100 per kWh in 2024, but recent trends in the market suggest that this may not necessarily be the case.
Increasing EV Demand
Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, a company that tracks the worldwide battery supply chain, noted that lower costs helped boost EV sales by 112% in 2021 to over 6.3 million units globally from the previous year. And sales are only poised to increase. EV leader Tesla, which sold nearly a million pure electric cars on its own in 2021, is looking to grow its deliveries by 50% this year — and estimates among TSLA bulls suggest that the company’s growth might be even more impressive.
Benchmark Mineral Intelligence notes that battery-grade cobalt prices are up 119% from January 1, 2020 through mid-January 2022. Nickel sulfate prices saw a 55% rise in price, and lithium carbonate saw a whopping 569% increase. Benchmark Mineral Intelligence chief data officer Caspar Rawles, in a statement to The Wall Street Journal, noted that some battery cell makers that typically offered long-term fixed-price contracts have ended up shifting to a variable price model instead. This allowed them to pass on some of the costs of rising material prices to consumers.
What is quite unfortunate is that battery materials may remain in short supply for some time. China, which dominates the battery supply chain, is also aggressively increasing its electric vehicle production. And considering that it generally takes about seven to ten years to deploy a new mine, a lot of key battery components may end up being supply-constrained in the coming years.
Addressing A Supply Shortage
The rising prices of battery raw materials do not mean that the EV revolution would likely be slowed down, however. The battery recycling industry is now gaining some momentum, with companies like Redwood Materials — which is led by Tesla co-founder and former CTO JB Straubel — already preparing to sell recycled battery components to Panasonic for the production of battery cells at Tesla’s Gigafactory Nevada later this year. This helps foster a closed-loop system since Redwood also receives Panasonic’s battery scrap from Tesla’s Nevada facility.
Other initiatives that may help the auto sector weather the rising costs of battery materials involve a focus on batteries that use less expensive, more abundant components. Tesla China is among the companies that are at the forefront of this movement, with Giga Shanghai utilizing lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries for the Model 3 and Model Y. LFP batteries utilize iron in their cathodes instead of nickel and cobalt, making them less controversial and far more affordable.
And while LFP batteries typically result in vehicles with shorter range than cars equipped with nickel-based cells, tests from veteran electric vehicle owners in countries such as Norway are starting to reveal that iron-based cells are nothing to scoff at. Longtime EV advocate Bjorn Nyland, for example, recently conducted one of his 1,000-km tests in a base Model 3 equipped with an LFP battery that was produced in Gigafactory Shanghai. The vehicle performed amazingly despite the cold conditions and its relatively small 60 kWh battery pack.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
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
