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 35Â 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.
In a major development that will inevitably strengthen Tesla’s dominant position in the American EV market, Polestar has been effectively banned from selling new vehicles in the United States, starting with the 2027 model year.
The U.S. Department of Commerce denied Polestar authorization under the Connected Vehicle Rule, which prohibits vehicles containing certain connected technologies (Cellular, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc.) linked to China or Russia due to national security risks, including potential data collection on American drivers.
🚨 A Tesla competitor goes down
Polestar will no longer sell new vehicles in the United States starting with the 2027 model year.
The U.S. Department of Commerce denied the brand authorization under the Connected Vehicle Rule, which restricts the sale of cars with software and… pic.twitter.com/TrwnQeoiES
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
Polestar, which is majority-owned by China’s Geely Holding, could not obtain the required exemption despite producing some models domestically.
Polestar confirmed it will sell off any remaining inventory of the Polestar 3 and Polestar 4 models, while continuing service and warranty support for existing customers. No new models or major refreshes will reach U.S. buyers, and the company is pivoting its growth strategy to Europe, where it already generates the vast majority of its sales.
The outcome removes a direct premium EV competitor that had positioned itself as a stylish, performance-oriented alternative to Tesla’s lineup. The Polestar 2 challenged the Model 3, while the Polestar 3 and 4 targeted segments overlapping with the Model Y and upcoming Tesla offerings. Polestar’s U.S. sales had already been sluggish amid intense competition and slower demand, representing just 6 percent of its global volume in the first quarter of 2026.
While Polestar was not on Tesla’s level in the U.S., it still places a dent in the evergrowing field of Tesla competitors in the country, where it has long dominated EV sales.
Tesla faces none of these hurdles. As a U.S.-founded and U.S.-headquartered company with major manufacturing in Fremont, Austin, and Nevada, Tesla’s vehicles are built with compliant domestic and allied supply chains. Its Full Self-Driving technology, over-the-air software updates, and vertically integrated ecosystem were developed entirely in-house without foreign ownership entanglements that trigger national security reviews, at least in the U.S.
Of course, it did face a similar threat in China a few years back:
Elon Musk responds to reports of Tesla ban among China’s military over security concerns
The Connected Vehicle Rule, first advanced under the prior administration and upheld under the current one, is part of a broader U.S. effort to protect the domestic auto industry and critical technology from Chinese influence. High tariffs on Chinese-made EVs and related restrictions have already reshaped the market. Tesla benefits directly: it avoids these barriers while continuing to lead in U.S. EV sales volume, Supercharger network expansion, and energy storage integration.
By clearing Polestar from the new-vehicle playing field, the policy reduces competitive pressure in the premium and performance EV segments where Tesla has invested billions. American consumers seeking cutting-edge electric vehicles now have one fewer option tied to foreign adversaries — and one clearer path to the market leader that has driven the EV transition from the start.
For Tesla, this is more than regulatory relief. It is a strategic tailwind that reinforces its position as America’s premier EV innovator at a time when domestic manufacturing and technological independence matter most.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new rules that the Trump Administration is aiming to enforce on autonomous vehicles. On Thursday, NHTSA, under the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Transportation, commenced rulemaking on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
This effort aims to eliminate the mandate for manual brake pedals in vehicles that are designed to be driven exclusively by automated driving systems. This would impact the Tesla Cybercab, which the company has stated would operate without a steering wheel or pedals.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
The Trump Administration is looking to revise FMVSS No. 135, which requires standard braking systems on light-duty vehicles.
Currently, the regulation requires light-duty cars to use traditional manual braking systems that allow operators to slow the vehicle. With the advent of self-driving in the U.S., these regulations need updating, and these are the changes that could come to FMVSS No. 135:
- Removes requirements for hand- or foot-operated brake controls for vehicles designed never to be operated by a human. Existing rules still apply to AVs that retain manual controls.
- All subject vehicles must still meet the same stopping distance performance criteria via alternative testing procedures.
- While this update ensures AVs can physically stop when commanded, NHTSA is separately developing safety performance requirements for AVs in real-world driving scenarios.
- NHTSA will continue to use its broad defect enforcement authority to investigate unsafe ADS behavior and oversee recalls.
As autonomy becomes a greater part of passenger travel, these types of rule adjustments will be more than reasonable. It will give manufacturers the ability to self-certify their vehicles and avoid any red tape that could ultimately delay the deployment of these vehicles.
Administrators are also incredibly excited about the opportunity to play a role in the advancement of self-driving vehicles.
“We are at the cusp of the greatest technological revolution in vehicle technology since the innovation of the Model T,” NHTSA Administrator Jonathan Morrison said. “If we want America to lead the way, we have to reimagine our regulatory framework. That’s why under Secretary Sean Duffy’s AV Framework, NHTSA is tearing down pointless barriers to innovative designs while strengthening the fundamental safety requirements that matter and holding AV developers accountable for safe performance.”
The Cybercab entered mass production at Gigafactory Texas in April. Tesla ultimately plans to push the vehicle into its Robotaxi fleet, potentially when frameworks like these are established.
Tesla plans to boost production at its Gigafactory Berlin plant in Germany following a sharp rebound in sales and demand in Europe after a softer 2025.
The plans put Tesla in a better position to compete with strengthening companies in Europe and potentially other markets; demand indicators show Tesla is much better off than in 2025.
Last year was a tough year for Tesla in terms of overall demand in Europe. The company produced over 200,000 vehicles at the German plant last year, a soft figure compared to the 375,000 vehicles Tesla lists as its current capacity at the factory.
🚨 Tesla said this morning it will ramp up production at Gigafactory Berlin to a volume of 7,500 vehicles per week.
This is a 20 percent boost in production. Tesla will hire 1,000 new employees to help with the increase.$TSLA pic.twitter.com/kravKfRO5n
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
Tesla’s overall European sales dropped significantly last year due to a variety of factors. However, sales are rebounding, and demand is strong once again, and only getting stronger. Tesla is now planning to bump production of Model Y vehicles at Giga Berlin upward by about 20 percent. It will also bring 1,000 new jobs to the plant.
Tesla confirmed the details of its planned production expansion in Germany this morning. It is a strategy to keep up with strengthening demand.
In Q1, Tesla saw a record 61,000 vehicles produced at Giga Berlin. European registrations rebounded sharply, with Model Y seeing 117 percent increases in March 2026 compared to last year. Germany alone saw stark increases, with a quadrupling in registrations to 9,252 units.
This trend continued in other key European markets, including France, Denmark and Sweden. Tesla registrations were up over 46 percent in some of these markets, and Model Y continued its trend as a top BEV in the market.
Demand has been recovering strongly in 2026, giving Tesla a reason to expand production efforts at the factory. These increases signal management’s confidence in sustained or growing European pull for Berlin-built vehicles.
One of Tesla’s biggest threats just got banned in the U.S.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new Trump autonomy rules
