News
Tesla’s liquid-cooled charging connector patent paves way for the Semi’s Megachargers
A recently published patent application from Tesla suggests that the electric car maker is continuing in its efforts to improve its already-stellar Supercharger Network. The design outlined in the document, which features a liquid-cooled charging connector, can potentially pave the way for a more ambitious charging infrastructure, perhaps one that can specifically cater to the all-electric Semi’s Megacharger Network.
During the all-electric truck’s unveiling, CEO Elon Musk mentioned that the Semi will be able to replenish as much as 400 miles of range in as little as 30 minutes thanks to a network of Megachargers. Neither Musk nor Tesla provided the specs of the Megacharger during the vehicle’s unveiling, though speculations were high that network might provide a power output that is several times more powerful than the company’s Supercharger V2 Network, which had an output of around 120 kW then (Supercharger V2 stations have since been improved to 150 kW).
Being a large vehicle, the Semi requires a lot of power for its charging needs, involving the rapid transfer of mass amounts of electricity in a very short period of time without encountering any heating issues. This is a key concept outlined by Tesla in its recently published patent, titled “Liquid-Cooled Charging Connector,” which involves the use of a liquid cooling system on a charging connector itself. Tesla describes its concept in the discussion below.
“To transfer energy faster and decrease charging times, the cable and charging connector must be capable of withstanding high current loads. Current charging connectors are limited in the current loads that they can support as their ability to dissipate heat is limited. Thus, there is a need for a new charging connector to solve the aforementioned problems.
“The present disclosure related to a new charging connector. The charging connector has a first electrical socket and a second electrical socket. A first sleeve is concentrically coupled to the first electrical socket and a second sleeve is concentrically coupled to the second electrical socket. A manifold assembly encloses the first and second electrical sockets and the first and second sleeves, such that the first and second sleeves and manifold assembly create a hollow interior space there between. The manifold assembly has an inlet conduit and an outlet conduit such that inlet conduit, interior space, and outlet conduit together create a fluid flow path.
“Cooling fluid flows through the fluid flow path and cools the charging connector. During operation, the cooling fluid bifurcates into a first fluid stream which flows around the first sleeve, and a second fluid stream which flows around the second sleeve. The first and second fluid streams combine upstream of the outlet conduit. The first sleeve encloses the first electrical socket, and the second sleeve encloses the second electrical socket. The cooling sleeves are made from a thermally conducting material such that heat generated by electrical sockets can be removed by the cooling fluid. In embodiments, this thermally conducting material is a thermally conductive plastic material.”
Tesla notes that its liquid-cooled supercharger connector does not only allow faster charging; it also makes the routing of wires in a charging connector much more efficient. This means that Tesla’s Supercharger connectors could eventually be smaller and more compact despite being capable of greater output. An example of this appears to be hinted at by Supercharger V3’s liquid-cooled cables, which are smaller and more compact than those used in Tesla’s V2 Network.
“Cooling fluid absorbs thermal energy from heat in the electrical sockets 404, 406. Sleeves 410, 412 are made of a thermally conducting, electrically insulating material. Heat from the electrical sockets 404, 406 is transferred to cooling fluid through sleeves 410, 412. After flowing around hollow interior space 416, the first fluid stream 804 and the second fluid stream 806 combine together upstream of outlet conduit 514 and flow outside of manifold assembly 414 through outlet conduit 514. Cooling fluid flowing out of manifold assembly 414 through outlet conduit 514 may be received by a reservoir (not shown) which may provide for heat exchanging arrangements. A heat exchanger may be provided to take away heat absorbed by cooling fluid. After rejecting absorbed heat, the cooling fluid may be recirculated back to inlet conduit 512 for further cooling of charging connector 210.
“FIG. 9 shows another component included by charging connector 210. A Printed Circuit Board Assembly (PCBA) 902 is thermally coupled to charging connector 210. In embodiments, PCBA 902 is a two-part structure. A first part of PCBA 904 is coupled to charging connector 210 such that the first part of PCBA 904 sits on top of electrical sockets 404, 406. A second part of PCBA 908 is connected to the first part of PCBA 904 through a rigid-flex PCB construction, or other similar interconnects. The two-part structure of PCB A 902 allows for a more efficient routing of electrical wires of charging connector 210, and overall size of charging connector 210 may be conveniently reduced.”
Tesla’s Superchargers are among the fastest and most expansive electric vehicle charging infrastructures in the auto industry. In keeping with its spirit, the company has made it a point to never stop innovating, as exhibited by the company’s debut and ongoing ramp of its Supercharger V3 Network. This could ultimately pay off for Tesla, whose lead in the electric vehicle race might potentially increase even more.
Such innovations appear to be required of the company, especially with the rollout of ambitious EVs such as the Semi, a vehicle with a different charging infrastructure compared to Tesla’s existing lineup of electric cars. That being said, Tesla nevertheless deserves credit for pushing the envelope and staying on top of its innovations. In the electric vehicle race, after all, a liquid-cooled charging connector could end up making the difference between the fast-charging capabilities of the Tesla Semi and rivals from Daimler and Nikola.
A link to the full text of Tesla’s liquid-cooled charger connector patent could be accessed here.
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
