News
Lithium produced for Tesla’s batteries is less polluting than 31 cups of coffee: researcher
There are many criticisms of electric vehicles like Teslas, and one of them involves the notion that EVs require massive amounts of water to produce the lithium in their batteries. This idea, according to Dr. Maximilian Fichtner, who serves as the Director at the Helmholtz Institute for Electrochemical Energy Storage in Germany, is not accurate at all.
In a recent conversation with Tagesspiegel Background, the battery researcher stated that the production of electric car batteries is not as extreme as what EV critics would suggest. To produce the lithium needed for a 64 kWh battery pack, for example, Fichtner stated that about 3840 liters of water are evaporated according to usual calculation methods. This is roughly comparable to the production of 250 grams of beef, 30 cups of coffee, or half a pair of jeans, according to the researcher.
Explaining further, Fichtner stated that even before electric cars like Teslas became popular, lithium was already being used in large quantities in many industrial and chemical processes. Lithium-ion batteries are also widely used in mobile devices, which are universally accepted today. “I’m always surprised that the public never talks about lithium in laptops or mobile phones – but suddenly it’s a problem with the e-car,” the battery researcher said.
But the water consumption involved in the production of lithium for electric car batteries is just the tip of the iceberg. Fichtner estimates that a 64 kWh pack is likely in the middle of various variants of the Tesla Model 3 sedan, whose long-range versions can easily go beyond 450 km (280 miles) of range per charge. If one were to infer that an electric car battery pack can remain optimal with 2,000 full charging cycles, this could equate to a total distance of about 900,000 km. And that’s with estimates on existing battery technology.
With this in mind, it appears that Tesla’s lithium-ion batteries are actually less polluting than otherwise everyday items such as steak or the aforementioned 30 cups of coffee, since they have the potential to remain in service for a very long time. About 2,000 charging cycles, after all, would likely equate to years of average EV use.
Companies like Tesla are hard at work in improving their battery cells. This much is hinted at by Tesla executives such as CEO Elon Musk and President of Automotive Jerome Guillen, both of whom have noted that Tesla’s batteries are always evolving. Fichtner expects electric car batteries to have an average lifespan of 3,000 cycles by 2025, which would make EV batteries even more environmentally-friendly.
In his recent conversation with the publication, the researcher discussed one of the most sensitive topics surrounding battery production: cobalt. Cobalt has developed a very negative reputation due to the abhorrent conditions in cobalt mines in areas such as Congo. Fortunately, many automakers have since pledged to source the cobalt used in their EVs from areas that meet stringent standards. Tesla does this and more, with the electric car maker attempting to develop cobalt-free batteries in the near future.
For now, electric car makers are in a game of cobalt reduction, and in this sense, Tesla has a notable lead. The batteries used in Volkswagen’s well-received ID.3 hatchback, for example, contain about 12-14% cobalt. The Tesla Model 3, on the other hand, only contains about 2.9% cobalt as of 2018. Fichtner predicts that if things go well, cobalt-free batteries could enter the market as early as 2025.
Maximilian Fichtner received his Ph.D. in Chemistry/Surface Science with distinction and the Hermann Billing Award for his thesis in 1992. He currently serves as the professor for Solid State Chemistry at the Ulm University and Executive Director of the Helmholtz Institute Ulm for Electrochemical Energy Storage (HIU). He has also worked in collaboration with the German ministries of Economy and Research and Education, and has served as the Chair of the 1st International Symposium on Magnesium Batteries in 2016.
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
