News
Tesla supplier sheds light on graphite supply challenge for EV battery manufacturers [Editorial]
Graphite is an essential part of a lithium-ion battery. There are many challenges that EV battery manufacturers might face in the graphite market as electric vehicle demand continues to rise.
Graphite is often an overlooked essential mineral when people think of EV batteries. However, it is a crucial component in the anodes of lithium-ion batteries used in electric vehicles.
Graphite and Transparency
The chief executive of Syrah Resources, Shaun Verner, shared a bit about graphite pricing and funding for new projects. Syrah Resources is an Australian company that supplies Tesla from its mine in Mozambique, one of the largest graphite producers.
Verner commented that the graphite market lacks transparency when it comes to pricing, leading bankers to hesitate when it comes to funding new graphite-related projects.
Only a handful of countries mine graphite and even fewer refine the mineral enough to be used in batteries and other products. With few producers in the graphite industry, graphite consumers enter into long-term bilateral supply agreements with little transparency on prices. In addition, relatively few analysts follow the graphite industry, making it difficult to get any long-term forecasts on graphite prices.
“The single biggest impediment to new investment is the opaque nature of the market because to get the commercial debt in place is really challenging,” said Verner.
Graphite Supply
Graphite prices have declined in recent months compared to the highs in early 2022. Fastmarkets reported that traditional graphite applications have decreased this year, resulting in “sluggish” conditions in the market. However, graphite demand is expected to rise in the next few years due to growth in the electric vehicle sector.
“Graphite has kind of been the poor cousin of the battery minerals and doesn’t get the attention of the other commodities,” commented Gregory Bowes, executive chairman of the Northern Graphite Corporation. “But we’re getting very close to an inflection point where demand overtakes supply and this is going to be first page news.”
Experts observing the graphite market expect graphite supply to hit a deficit as EV battery makers increase production. Fastmarkets estimates that natural graphite consumption would rise 40% year on year, on par with the EV sector. Benchmark Mineral Intelligence had the same forecast and calculated that graphite supply would hit a deficit of 20,000 tons in 2022.
China’s dominance in the graphite industry factors into the forecasted deficit since it dominates the graphite market. In 2021, China produced 820,000 metric tons (MT) of graphite, a significant increase compared to the previous two years. The US Geological Survey reported that China accounted for 79% of the world’s graphite mining last year. The country’s quick recovery from COVID-19 shutdowns contributed to its dominance in 2021.
“Chinese producers quickly increased production after a few months of closures in 2020. This allowed China to gain a more dominant position in the market for 2021 and slowed down the diversification of the supply chain,” noted the US Geological Survey’s report.
After China, Brazil and Mozambique are the next largest graphite producers. Brazil produced 68,000 MT last year, while Mozambique’s output was 30,000 MT. Russia, Madagascar, Ukraine, Norway, Canada, India, and Sri Lanka make up the remaining Top 10 countries that produce graphite.
Graphite and the Inflation Reduction Act
The graphite industry might be a major challenge for automakers seeking to launch their products in the United States over the next few years. The recently passed Inflation Reduction Act included EV tax credits that could go as high as $7,500 for automakers that adhere to a few specific requirements.
One of the requirements to qualify for the EV tax credit is related to batteries and the minerals used to make them. According to the Inflation Reduction Act, at least 40% of the critical minerals used to make US-made EV batteries must also come from US miners or recycling plants. Automakers can also qualify for the tax credit if the minerals used in their US-made batteries come from countries with free trade deals with the United States.
In 2021, natural graphite was not produced in the United States, but it consumed 45,000 tons of the mineral, estimated to be worth $41 million. The United States imported about 53,000 tons of graphite last year, mainly from China. It also imported graphite from Mexico, Canada, India, and other sources.
US Geological Survey mentioned one US automaker in its report about graphite imports. It did not mention the automaker by name.
“A US automaker continued building a large plant to manufacture lithium-ion electric vehicle batteries. The completed portion of the plant was operational, and it produced battery cells, battery packs, drive units, and energy storage products. At full capacity, the plant was expected to require 35,200 tons per year of spherical graphite for use as anode material for lithium-ion batteries,” stated the report.
Eric Desaulniers, the chief executive of Nouveau Monde Graphite, stated that discussions with cell manufacturers have ramped up after the Inflation Reduction Act was passed. Nouveau Monde is currently developing a graphite mine and battery-grade anode plant in Canada.
Desaulniers noted that challenges are ahead when it comes to securing project financing since “cell makers are cash-constrained.” He also noted that automakers had their hands full from scaling up their respective battery manufacturing facilities.
Tesla, considered the lead electric vehicle manufacturer in the United States, is already producing its 4680 battery cells in California. Rivian, General Motors, and other automakers also plan to develop their own battery cells in their own battery manufacturing plants.
The Teslarati team would appreciate hearing from you. If you have any tips, contact me at maria@teslarati.com or via Twitter @Writer_01001101.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
