Transitioning to renewable energy requires a multi-faceted approach, and power storage from sources such as solar and wind energy will play an increasingly important role in that playbook in the future. To tackle this problem, former Northvolt and Tesla workers have joined forces to focus on the scalability of battery production with the new company Peak Energy.
Peak Energy aims to mass-produce giant battery storage systems for renewable sources such as wind and solar (via CNBC). CEO and Founder Landon Mossburg formerly worked at Tesla and went on to work as an executive at Northvolt before founding Peak Energy earlier this year.
The company plans to scale a more affordable battery chemistry than the lithium-ion batteries used in Tesla’s Megapacks, instead hoping to produce large-scale battery systems with lower-density, lower-cost sodium-ion technology.
Since the company plans to mass-scale an existing product, Peak Energy President and COO Cameron Dales notes that they don’t consider the company a startup, although it only started in June. Interestingly, Peak Energy is looking to partner with a technology company specializing in battery tech, but specifically one that doesn’t yet have the ability to scale its products.
“A normal Silicon Valley startup is 10 years in the lab, come up with a better mousetrap and go to market. We’re completely the opposite,” Dales told CNBC in an interview.
The company plans to make individual sodium-ion battery cells, roughly the size of a loaf of bread, according to Dales. These cells will then be used together to make larger modules about the size of a filing cabinet. These filing cabinet modules could be deployed at solar or wind farms at volumes of 50-100 per order.
Credit: Peak Energy
With 100 blocks, Mossburg explains, the battery system is expected to be able to power as many as 62,500 homes for up to four hours.
He also thinks that the company’s battery systems could cost around half the cost of a Tesla Megapack’s $1.3 million before installation, though it’s still too early for the company to have a price on its products.
“In the battery market it turns out the rarest commodity is not the technology — there are many excellent ideas out there at academic labs and startups — but rather the ability to scale to manufacturing,” Mossburg said. “The difficulty of manufacturing scale up is one of the reasons you see so many ‘breakthrough battery technology’ announcements but very very few companies who actually reach market.”
The company has also announced a $10 million funding round led by Eclipse Ventures’ Greg Reichow, a former Tesla executive who was in charge of battery, motor and electronics manufacturing before going on to lead global manufacturing. Crucially, Dales points out to CNBC that Reichow also led the development of Tesla’s Giga Nevada battery factory with partner Panasonic, which he considers the first mass-scale battery factory in the world.
TDK Ventures, owned by Japanese multinational electronics manufacturer TDK, will also join the funding round.
“The number one issue we face as it relates to expanding renewable energy sources is storage,” Reichow said. “This problem must be solved, but the existing approaches using lithium-ion and other technologies are not yet at a price point that enables the kind of scaling that society needs across sectors.”
The U.S. Energy Information Administration forecasts battery storage capacity to increase from just 9 gigawatts last year to as much as 49 GW by 2030 before jumping to 247 GW in 2050. This projection shows demand for mass-scale battery storage will continue to grow, especially as transportation and other sectors shift toward renewable energy sources.
Peak Energy currently hopes to produce “double digit gigawatt” amounts of battery cells by 2030, set to be used for its own battery systems and other applications. According to Mossburg, building a battery factory will take between $50 million and $100 million per GW. He also says a 30 GW factory would have between 2,000 and 3,000 workers, requiring a 1-2 million square-foot space.
Mossburg has experience scaling battery production at Northvolt, founded by former Tesla Global Head of Sourcing and Supply Chain Peter Carlsson, who worked for the automaker from 2011-2015. By the time Mossburg left Northvolt, the company had grown to employ 4,000 people from just 300 only 18 months prior.
″We’re running a playbook which I and the rest of the executive team initially demonstrated and deployed at Northvolt,” Mossburg said.
Tesla Megapack powers new 196 MWh battery storage system in Europe
What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send your tips to us at tips@teslarati.com.
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
