News
Tesla Giga Berlin’s 4680 supply won’t start in Germany, and it was never supposed to
Tesla’s plans for the initial battery needs and efforts at Giga Berlin were answered in late 2020 by the automaker during the Q3 Earnings Call. While things tend to change on a somewhat regular basis as far as plans for something as large as a vehicle manufacturing plant, Tesla knew that its initial battery fulfillment plans likely wouldn’t come from the planned Giga Berlin 4680 cell production lines. Instead, Tesla will rely on its Kato Road facility in Northern California, where the development and manufacturing of a new, revolutionary electric vehicle battery is taking place. Tesla also plans to utilize strong relationships with its battery cell manufacturers to solve supply concerns during Giga Berlin’s early production dates.
Concerns regarding Tesla’s planned timeline for Giga Berlin have arisen over the past several days, especially after a German media outlet said that CEO Elon Musk was extending the beginning of the German plant’s EV production efforts to January 2022. While the Giga Berlin timeline remains uncertain as far as the exact starting date, those close to the situation, including Brandenburg Economic Minister Jörg Steinbach, told Teslarati yesterday that production should begin in late Summer or early Fall 2021.
EXCLUSIVE: Tesla Giga Berlin isn’t facing a 6-month delay: German Minister
The concerns about Tesla Giga Berlin’s initial production date started to appear around the same time that reports began to surface about Tesla adding the 4680 battery manufacturing unit plans to its application. German regulators take a deliberate and somewhat extended time for large projects, as so many different factors are considered before anything is given ultimate approval. Some indicated that this extensive regulatory process would delay the production efforts altogether. Still, local sources in Germany have clarified that this only prolongs the project altogether and doesn’t have much of an effect on the start of production. The project will just take longer to complete considering Tesla added another element to the Giga Berlin offensive.
As previously mentioned, the addition of the 4680 line to the application likely caused confusion over whether the Tesla Giga Berlin production lines would activate on time. 4680 production at Berlin will not begin before or at the same time as Tesla’s vehicle production at the German plant. However, Tesla’s plans were never to have the Berlin 4680 lines handle the initial vehicle production at the plant. Tesla originally planned for the Kato Road 4680 lines to supply Giga Berlin with cells when they are available.
Drew Baglino, Tesla’s Senior Vice President of Powertrain and Energy Engineering, said during the Q3 2020 Earnings Call:
“We will incorporate 4680 design solutions into many applications in time across both energy and vehicle, and we can use our pilot production facility in Fremont to support the new factory in Berlin as it ramps.”
Additionally, Tesla’s battery suppliers are being called upon to assist in the initial efforts at Giga Berlin.
Musk announced during the most recent Q1 2021 Earnings Call that Tesla is about 12-18 months away from volume production of 4680 cells. While Tesla may be slightly behind schedule regarding the production of the new 4680 battery, there is no indication that it will delay Giga Berlin’s production altogether. In fact, Musk also acknowledged that its suppliers, who Tesla shares “very strong partnerships” with would be called upon to supply cells “as much as they possibly can.”
Musk said:
“…It appears as though we’re about 12 — probably not more than 18 months away from volume production of the 4680. Now at the same time, we are actually trying to have our cell supply of partners ramp up their supply as much as possible. So this is not something that is to the exclusion of suppliers. It is in conjunction with suppliers. So we want to be super clear about that. This is not about replacing suppliers. It is about supplementing the suppliers. So…and we have a very strong partnership with CATL, with Panasonic and LG. And we would…our request to our strategic partners for cell supply is, please make us…please supply us with as much as you possibly can. Provided the price is affordable, we will buy everything that they can make.”
This includes CATL, a Chinese battery producer who manufactures LFP cells for the Standard Range+ Model 3 at Giga Shanghai. CATL began the construction of a cell manufacturing facility in Germany in 2019. LG Chem also started the construction of an EV battery cell manufacturing facility in Poland in 2017, which could be used to supplement Tesla’s battery efforts in Germany. These suppliers have both assisted Tesla with cells in the past, and these companies will likely supplement Tesla’s needs at Giga Berlin, as Musk requested during the Q1 2021 Earnings Call.
Tesla has been aware that the 4680 lines in Berlin will not take care of the initial production phases at the factory. Instead, it will rely on suppliers and its Kato Road 4680 lines in the United States to take care of the first months of production at Giga Berlin.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
