Tesla’s online configurator for its electric cars primarily shows a price that’s adjusted for incentives and estimated fuel savings. These savings vary depending on the vehicle being ordered, with the company listing estimated gas savings of $4,300 for the Model 3 and Model Y, $5,300 for the Model X, and $5,500 for the Model S. These may seem like optimistic estimates, but as it turns out, these figures are actually conservative, at least for the majority of the United States.
Tesla’s fuel savings estimate is based on the premise that charging an all-electric vehicle is a lot more affordable than filling up the tank of a petrol-powered car. Looking at the company’s estimates, it appears that the listed fuel savings for the Model S, 3, X, and Y are based on the assumption that drivers would drive their Tesla for 10,000 miles annually for a period of six years. The costs of charging a Tesla over this period is then compared to the estimated costs of refueling a comparable vehicle, such as a BMW, with premium gasoline.
This strategy actually makes sense, considering that the all-electric construction of a Tesla will likely allow the vehicle to be used for at least six years. The comparison with BMW’s vehicles is quite sound as well, seeing as both companies offer premium cars that perform and compete in the same segment. That being said, EV charging rate monitoring service Optiwatt noted in a recent report that Tesla’s estimated gas savings are a lot more nuanced than what the company’s online configurator would suggest.
If there is one area where Tesla could be faulted, it is in the way that its estimated fuel savings for the US are the same regardless of the state where the car is being purchased. Different states have different electricity and average fuel prices, which means that there are some places where Tesla drivers could save more than the company’s own estimates, and areas where the opposite will be accurate. Take Hawaii, for example. The state pays 32 cents per kWh of electricity, which is over three times higher than the 9 cents per kWh that are paid by residents in Oklahoma.
Fuel consumption varies across states as well, with drivers in rural areas consuming more petrol and drivers in high-density states like New York consuming less. Wyoming drivers buy the most gas per capita at 609 gallons per person per year, while New York purchases less than half at 292 gallons per person per year. Considering that Tesla’s fuel savings rely on the price discrepancy between electricity and gas, owners who drive more are more likely to meet the company’s fuel savings estimates compared to owners who drive less.
Optiwatt’s analysis notes that ultimately, there are some areas in the United States where owning a Tesla will save drivers far more than what the company’s estimates would suggest, and there are some areas where fuel savings will be underwhelming. Driving a Model Y in Rhode Island for 10,000 miles every year for six years will save owners about $4,235 in fuel costs, which is a bit less than the company’s $4,300 estimate. Driving the all-electric crossover in Wyoming for six years, on the other hand, will give owners fuel savings of $11,122, over two times the company’s estimates.
A look at Optiwatt’s data shows that Tesla’s newer vehicles like the Model 3 and Model Y are more likely to meet the company’s fuel savings estimates, despite the Model S and Model X’s free Supercharging capabilities. Yet on average, across Tesla’s vehicle lineup, it appears that Americans can expect to save about $2,500 more than the company’s estimated savings over a six-year period. This bodes well for electric cars and their economic appeal as a whole. After all, a Tesla is not just designed to run for 6 years. With the company’s million-mile batteries poised to be released soon, Tesla drivers over the years will likely see even more fuel savings for every electric car purchase.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
