Connect with us

News

Tesla’s Nickel Problem: The quest for sustainable sourcing

Credit: (Photo: Andres GE) | GoContractor

Published

on

Tesla CEO Elon Musk promised a “giant contract” to a nickel supplier during the Q2 2020 Earnings Call. The problem is that the company will have trouble finding an efficient and environmentally-friendly nickel mine, and it could prove to be Tesla’s biggest challenge yet.

Nickel is a crucial metal in electric vehicle batteries because it can increase energy density and provide cars with more range. Musk stated during the Earnings Call that nickel-based cells are essential for the development of larger vehicles, like the Tesla Semi, for example. “Where every unit of mass that you add in battery pack, you have to subtract in cargo,” he said. “So it’s very important to have a mass efficient and long-range pack.”

Nickel-based cells would give Tesla an advantage in electric vehicle range, a category where the company already leads by a sizeable margin. However, with new vehicles on the way, cells have to be adjusted to work with specific workloads. The Semi is an excellent example of this.

Nickel could replace cobalt in Tesla’s current battery cells. Cobalt, a controversial element on its own, is responsible for stabilizing the cell and has been effective in increasing the safety of the high-energy batteries that Tesla has used. However, the mining process of cobalt is questionable, and mines which can obtain it likely are using child labor, which is highly illegal. It also is not environmentally-friendly to mine.

A nickel mine. (Credit: GoContractor)

Tesla has taken extra steps to ensure that its cobalt suppliers are treating their workers humanely through a series of due diligence checks. Third-party companies complete random visits to these mines a few times a year to ensure that the cobalt Tesla is using in its batteries is humanely obtained.

The problem is: Nickel mining isn’t much different. Although it would be advantageous, safer, and provide more range for Tesla’s vehicles, it is tough to find nickel that is environmentally-friendly and responsibly mines. The largest nickel sources are in Indonesia, where millions of tonnes of waste are dumped into the sea, polluting coral reefs and damaging the homes of turtles.

Advertisement

Analysts believe that Indonesian miners will provide nearly all of the growth of nickel supplies over the next decade. With electric cars becoming more popular, batteries will be a large part of the surge in demand for the metal. Still, it is also used in everyday products, like stainless steel appliances, Financial Times says.

Other countries, like Canada and Australia, have nickel mines, but Indonesia is highly concentrated with it.

Steven Brown, a consultant and former employee at nickel mining company Vale, says that it could be challenging for customers who are environmentally-conscious to want products that contain the metal after hearing how some entities dispose of it.

“It could undermine the entire proposition of trying to sell a consumer a product that is environmentally friendly, if you have this back story,” he said.

Even though other countries have nickel available, the increased demand for EVs will require large automakers, like Tesla, to eventually have to source some of the metal from Indonesia. “At some point, it will happen where they can’t avoid Indonesian nickel,” Brown added.

Advertisement

Luckily, Tesla requires its sources to go through due diligence processes, and it is unlikely the company will steer away from them to obtain nickel. Of course, Tesla will benefit from having more nickel, but it has to be sourced responsibly for the company even to consider using it.

On top of that, nickel is the second most expensive metal in EV batteries. It only trails cobalt, which Tesla has worked intensively to get away from because of its environmental and humanitarian impact.

“We use very little cobalt in our system already, and that’s — that may to zero along, so it’s basically about nickel,” Musk said.

There is a delicate balance between positive environmental impact after EVs hit the road and the harmful impact sourcing some of the metals have. However, the automakers do not assume any of the responsibility for the mining companies’ process of getting rid of waste. But it is their responsibility to choose a company that decides to handle the ridding of environmentally-harming materials responsibly.

Tesla has made it a point to choose companies that share their mission for sustainability because the automaker realizes that building an electric car starts with sourcing the materials. If the materials are not responsibly obtained, then the EV isn’t as Earth-friendly as it could be.

Advertisement

Pius Ginting, an environmental activist, summed it up perfectly: “The net result is we have clean air in our cities — but then we destroy a rich biodiversity area.”

Joey has been a journalist covering electric mobility at TESLARATI since August 2019. In his spare time, Joey is playing golf, watching MMA, or cheering on any of his favorite sports teams, including the Baltimore Ravens and Orioles, Miami Heat, Washington Capitals, and Penn State Nittany Lions. You can get in touch with joey at joey@teslarati.com. He is also on X @KlenderJoey. If you're looking for great Tesla accessories, check out shop.teslarati.com

Advertisement
Comments

News

SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies

SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.

Published

on

By

SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”

This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.

Elon Musk debunks $52 billion SpaceX-NVIDIA GPU deal

 

Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.

Advertisement

Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.

Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.

If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.

The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.

Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue

Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.

The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.

Advertisement

Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.

The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.

Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.

Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk is not happy about this Tesla Full Self-Driving approval delay

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Elon Musk clapped back at France’s decision to withhold the approval for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system, projecting a clear and blunt message to French Transport Minister Phillippe Tabarot, after he publicly rejected the technology in its current form.

Tabarot outlines several concerns with Tesla Full Self-Driving in a detailed video statement, where he said, “The safety trade-offs are not yet sufficient to authorize it as it currently stands,” he said. He emphasized that FSD is not a true self-driving system and that the driver remains fully responsible.

Key issues Tabarot also brought up included allowing speeding when surrounding traffic exceeds limits and what he believes are insufficient guarantees of driver attention during complex urban maneuvers such as lane changes, intersections, and roundabouts.

Advertisement

While acknowledging technological progress and France’s support for autonomous innovation, Tabarot stressed that deployment must prioritize road safety. He noted ongoing technical discussions with Tesla, the Netherlands, and other European partners, with further ecosystem meetings planned for the fall.

Musk’s rebuke highlights the human cost of regulatory caution. Tesla’s latest safety reports provide compelling data supporting accelerated adoption. In the most recent 12-month period, vehicles using FSD (Supervised) recorded one major collision per approximately 5.1 million miles driven, dramatically better than the U.S. national average of one crash per 698,000 miles.

Even Tesla vehicles driven manually with active safety features outperform the average by a wide margin. These figures come from billions of real-world miles of telemetry, showing FSD vehicles involved in far fewer incidents than both manual Teslas and the broader U.S. fleet.

Critics argue Tesla’s comparisons require careful scrutiny regarding reporting thresholds and fleet demographics, yet the data consistently positions FSD as a potential lifesaver. With road fatalities remaining a leading cause of death worldwide, Musk contends that proven safer technology should not face prolonged bureaucratic hurdles.

France’s measured approach reflects the broader European regulatory caution, which many, especially Musk, have been critical of in the past. However, as autonomous systems from Tesla and competitors like Waymo demonstrate superior safety in independent studies, pressure is mounting for harmonized approvals.

Advertisement

Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.

Continue Reading