News
Lithium mine near Tesla Gigafactory plans to break ground as global shortage rears head
Just 150 miles north of Tesla’s Gigafactory, a plan is brewing to a build a massive mine capable of growing the world’s lithium carbonate supply by a full 15% as early as 2022 and more than 20% by 2026, compared to 2018. Tesla could, in other words, find itself neighbors with one of the largest concentrated supplies of lithium carbonate in the world less than a decade from now.
Known as Lithium Americas, the company behind the study has conservatively estimated that it could break ground on its prospective Northern Nevada Li2CO3 mine as early as the end of 2020 and ramp up to an annual output of 30,000 metric tons of the basic Li-ion battery precursor just 21 months after that. The mine’s output would then double by 2026, coming to rest at a maximum annual lithium carbonate output of 60,000 tons.
Theoretical estimates conducted by a number of academic parties in the 2010s have shown that any given high-quality lithium-ion battery would be expected to require 2-3 kilograms of lithium carbonate per kWh of final capacity, although the absolute physical minimum is closer to 0.4 kg. To sustain Gigafactory 1’s 35 GWh 2018 production goal, that single factory alone could require between 60,000 and 85,000 tons of lithium carbonate annually to sustain its battery production operations alone.
-
- The Model 3 assembly line inside the Sprung Structure in Tesla’s Fremont factory. [Credit: The New York Times]
-
- Building giant factories like Gigafactory 2 demands major capital investments that often require private equity sales. (Tesla)
To put this requirement in context, the entire global supply of lithium carbonate is expected to peak at ~250,000 tons in 2018 after astounding YoY production growth of 21.5% from 2016 to 2017 – Tesla’s demands this year could thus easily swallow 25-30% of the entire global lithium carbonate supply.
Despite those staggering numbers, Gigafactory 1 production is still expected to ramp (albeit based on optimistic 2016 Elon Musk numbers) as high as 105 GWh of cells and 150 GWh of packs annually by the time it is fully completed, likely a few years after the original 2020 estimate. Roughly 7 times the volume of Tesla’s 2018 production goals for the massive factory, sustaining that final volume of production (255 GWh annually) would literally require the global supply of lithium carbonate to grow by a bare minimum of 250% in less than half a decade. To reiterate, that is for a single Gigafactory, of which Tesla plans to construct several more in China, Europe, and elsewhere.
-->-
- A peek inside a segment of a Tesla Model 3 battery pack.
-
- Gayle King tours the Tesla Model 3 production line with CEO Elon Musk at the Fremont factory [Source: CBS This Morning]
Put simply, Tesla is going to need every ounce of lithium supply they can get their hands on, and Lithium Americas’ prospective Nevada offering could theoretically supplement that total required supply by as much as 10% by the mid-2020s. Tesla, however, is already hard at work attempting to secure a strong and satisfactory supply of lithium and other rare earth metals and materials required to produce premium-grade Li-on batteries.
Tesla already has agreements to buy lithium from a somewhat smaller Nevadan effort from Pure Energy Minerals (phase 1 production NET 2020) and Bacanora’s Sonora Lithium prospect (NET 2020), lithium hydroxide (a product of lithium carbonate) from Australian upstart Kidman Resources (NET 2021), and also plans to invest directly in lithium heavyweight SQM to strengthen a foothold in Chile, the current owner of ~50% of the world’s lithium mining rights.
News
Tesla AI and Autopilot VP hints that Robovan will have RV conversions
Tesla’s vice president of AI and Autopilot software, Ashok Elluswamy, hinted at the linitiative in a reply to Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan.
It appears that Tesla is indeed considering an RV in its future pipeline, though the vehicle that would be converted for the purpose would be quite interesting. This is, at least, as per recent comments by a Tesla executive on social media platform X.
Robovan as an RV
Tesla’s vice president of AI and Autopilot software, Ashok Elluswamy, hinted at the linitiative in a reply to Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan, who called for a startup to build RVs with Full Self-Driving capabilities. In his reply, Elluswamy simply stated “On it,” while including a photo of Tesla’s autonomous 20-seat people mover.
Tesla unveiled the Robovan in October 2024 at the “We, Robot” event. The vehicle lacks a steering wheel and features a low floor for spacious interiors. The vehicle, while eclipsed by the Cybercab in news headlines, still captured the imagination of many, as hinted at by X users posting AI-generated images of Robovan RV conversions with beds, kitchens and panoramic windows on social media platforms. One such render by Tesla enthusiast Mark Anthony reached over 300,000 views on X.
Elon Musk on the Robovan
Elon Musk addressed the Robovan’s low profile in October 2024, stating the van uses automatic load-leveling suspension that raises or lowers based on road conditions. The system maintains the futuristic look while handling uneven pavement, Musk wrote on X. The CEO also stated that the Robovan is designed to be very airy inside, which would be great for an RV.
“The view from the inside is one of extreme openness, with visibility in all directions, although it may appear otherwise from the outside. The unusually low ground clearance is achieved by having an automatic load-leveling suspension that raises or lowers, based on smooth or bumpy road conditions,” Musk stated.
-->Elluswamy’s response on X suggests that Tesla is considering a Robovan RV conversion, though it would be interesting to see how the company will make the vehicle capable of reaching campsites. The Robovan has a very low ground clearance, after all, and campsites tend to be in unpaved areas.
Tesla recently released Full Self-Driving (FSD) v14.2.1, its latest version, but the tinkering with Speed Profiles has perhaps gone too far.
We try to keep it as real as possible with Full Self-Driving operation, and we are well aware that with the new versions, some things get better, but others get worse. It is all part of the process with FSD, and refinements are usually available within a week or so.
However, the latest v14.2.1 update has brought out some major complaints with Speed Profiles, at least on my end. It seems the adjustments have gone a tad too far, and there is a sizeable gap between Profiles that are next to one another.
Tesla FSD v14.2.1 first impressions:
✅ Smooth, stress-free highway operation
✅ Speed Profiles are refined — Hurry seems to be limited to 10 MPH over on highways. Switching from Mad Max to Hurry results in an abrupt braking pattern. Nothing of concern but do feel as if Speed…— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 29, 2025
The gap is so large that changing between them presents a bit of an unwelcome and drastic reduction in speed, which is perhaps a tad too fast for my liking. Additionally, Speed Profiles seem to have a set Speed Limit offset, which makes it less functional in live traffic situations.
Before I go any further, I’d like to remind everyone reading this that what I am about to write is purely my opinion; it is not right or wrong, or how everyone might feel. I am well aware that driving behaviors are widely subjective; what is acceptable to one might be unacceptable to another.
Speed Profiles are ‘Set’ to a Speed
From what I’ve experienced on v14.2.1, Tesla has chosen to go with somewhat of a preset max speed for each Speed Profile. With ‘Hurry,’ it appears to be 10 MPH over the speed limit, and it will not go even a single MPH faster than that. In a 55 MPH zone, it will only travel 65 MPH. Meanwhile, ‘Standard’ seems to be fixed at between 4-5 MPH over.
This is sort of a tough thing to have fixed, in my opinion. The speed at which the car travels should not be fixed; it should be more dependent on how traffic around it is traveling.
It almost seems as if the Speed Profile chosen should be more of a Behavior Profile. Standard should perform passes only to traffic that is slower than the traffic. If traffic is traveling at 75 MPH in a 65 MPH zone, the car should travel at 75 MPH. It should pass traffic that travels slower than this.
Hurry should be more willing to overtake cars, travel more than 10 MPH over the limit, and act as if someone is in a hurry to get somewhere, hence the name. Setting strict limits on how fast it will travel seems to be a real damper on its capabilities. It did much better in previous versions.
Some Speed Profiles are Too Distant from Others
This is specifically about Hurry and Mad Max, which are neighbors in the Speed Profiles menu. Hurry will only go 10 MPH over the limit, but Mad Max will travel similarly to traffic around it. I’ve seen some people say Mad Max is too slow, but I have not had that opinion when using it.
In a 55 MPH zone during Black Friday and Small Business Saturday, it is not unusual for traffic around me to travel in the low to mid-80s. Mad Max was very suitable for some traffic situations yesterday, especially as cars were traveling very fast. However, sometimes it required me to “gear down” into Hurry, especially as, at times, it would try to pass slower traffic in the right lane, a move I’m not super fond of.
We had some readers also mention this to us:
The abrupt speed reduction when switching to a slower speed profile is definitely an issue that should be improved upon.
— David Klem (@daklem) November 29, 2025
After switching from Mad Max to Hurry, there is a very abrupt drop in speed. It is not violent by any means, but it does shift your body forward, and it seems as if it is a tad drastic and could be refined further.
News
Tesla’s most affordable car is coming to the Netherlands
The trim is expected to launch at €36,990, making it the most affordable Model 3 the Dutch market has seen in years.
Tesla is preparing to introduce the Model 3 Standard to the Netherlands this December, as per information obtained by AutoWeek. The trim is expected to launch at €36,990, making it the most affordable Model 3 the Dutch market has seen in years.
While Tesla has not formally confirmed the vehicle’s arrival, pricing reportedly comes from a reliable source, the publication noted.
Model 3 Standard lands in NL
The U.S. version of the Model 3 Standard provides a clear preview of what Dutch buyers can expect, such as a no-frills configuration that maintains the recognizable Model 3 look without stripping the car down to a bare interior. The panoramic glass roof is still there, the exterior design is unchanged, and Tesla’s central touchscreen-driven cabin layout stays intact.
Cost reductions come from targeted equipment cuts. The American variant uses fewer speakers, lacks ventilated front seats and heated rear seats, and swaps premium materials for cloth and textile-heavy surfaces. Performance is modest compared with the Premium models, with a 0–100 km/h sprint of about six seconds and an estimated WLTP range near 550 kilometers.
Despite the smaller battery and simpler suspension, the Standard maintains the long-distance capability drivers have come to expect in a Tesla.
-->Pricing strategy aligns with Dutch EV demand and taxation shifts
At €36,990, the Model 3 Standard fits neatly into Tesla’s ongoing lineup reshuffle. The current Model 3 RWD has crept toward €42,000, creating space for a more competitive entry-level option, and positioning the new Model 3 Standard comfortably below the €39,990 Model Y Standard.
The timing aligns with rising Dutch demand for affordable EVs as subsidies like SEPP fade and tax advantages for electric cars continue to wind down, EVUpdate noted. Buyers seeking a no-frills EV with solid range are then likely to see the new trim as a compelling alternative.
With the U.S. variant long established and the Model Y Standard already available in the Netherlands, the appearance of an entry-level Model 3 in the Dutch configurator seems like a logical next step.
Tesla AI and Autopilot VP hints that Robovan will have RV conversions
Tesla tinkering with Speed Profiles on FSD v14.2.1 has gone too far
