News
Tesla Semi gets ‘peppy and quiet’ hydrogen fuel cell competitor from Kenworth-Toyota
With support from the California Air Resources Board, Japanese auto giant Toyota and truck maker are collaborating to develop and build a limited run of hydrogen fuel trucks. The vehicles, which are Kenworth T680 trucks modified with Toyota’s hydrogen fuel cell powertrains, are expected to drive on routes around Los Angeles and further inland to San Bernardino. The actual specs of the vehicles have not been announced by either company, but the range of the hydrogen fuel cell T680 trucks are said to be 300 miles in “normal drayage operating conditions.”
Toyota and Paccar, the parent company behind Kenworth, took the wraps off the first hydrogen fuel cell long-hauler at this month’s Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. The vehicle, which is classified as a Class 8 truck, stands to be a possible competitor for upcoming all-electric trucks like the Tesla Semi in the future. In a statement to CNBC, Brian Lindgren, Kenworth’s director of research and development, noted that utilizing hydrogen as a source of propulsion makes more sense for Class 8 vehicles than batteries, which power vehicles like Tesla’s all-electric long-hauler.
“We believe that carrying energy in the form of hydrogen for heavy-duty Class 8 trucks makes more sense than carrying it in batteries because the trucks can be refilled faster and offer longer range,” he said.
Lindgren’s point about faster refilling times for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is quite justified, considering that a passenger car such as a Toyota Mirai could refill its tank with around 300 miles of range in roughly five minutes. That’s significantly faster than Tesla’s Superchargers, which are capable of charging roughly 200 miles of range in 30 minutes. Larger vehicles such as the hydrogen-electric Kenworth T680 trucks would likely take longer to refill than a passenger car such as the Mirai, but there’s a good chance that the long-hauler could still refill its tank faster than the Tesla Semi could charge its batteries, even if it is plugged into the upcoming Megacharger Network.
Toyota-Paccar’s Kenworth T680 hybrid fuel cell trucks caught the attention of some CES attendees due to the vehicle’s silent operation, which is nearly comparable to an all-electric truck. Lindgren, for his part, noted that drivers who have operated the truck actually appreciated the silence of the vehicle. “Drivers like these trucks because they are peppy and quiet,” he said.
Andy Lund, the Toyota chief engineer on the project, further stated that the hydrogen-electric trucks would have the same payload capacity as a diesel rig. Unlike its fossil fuel-powered counterparts, the hydrogen fuel cell Kenworth T680 long-haulers would only require a four-speed transmission, which is far simpler than the 18-gear transmissions usually fitted on Class 8 diesel trucks.
If there is one thing that would probably go against Toyota and Paccar’s hydrogen trucks, though, it would be their fuel efficiency. Kenworth’s director of research and development noted that the prototype trucks currently consume hydrogen at roughly the same rate as present diesel trucks, at around 5-7 mpg. The only advantage of the vehicles, of course, is that the trucks would only produce water vapor from their exhausts. This is a substantial advantage, considering that the trucking industry accounts for about 23% of carbon emissions from transportation in 2016, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
That said, this would be something that Tesla could capitalize on. During the electric long-hauler’s unveiling, Musk noted that the Semi would cost operators $1.26 per mile to run, less than the standard $1.51 per mile that diesel-powered vehicles cost. Musk’s estimate has been met by skepticism by veterans of the trucking industry, but if the Tesla Semi’s operating costs stay true to the CEO’s estimate, then the vehicle would most certainly give itself a notable advantage over diesel and hydrogen-powered rivals when it starts operating on America’s roads.
Hydrogen fuel cells remain a polarizing solution for sustainable transportation. Elon Musk, for one, has openly discussed his dislike for hydrogen-electric transportation. In a statement to Autocar in 2014, for one, Musk went so far as to describe hydrogen fuel cell systems as “mind-bogglingly stupid.”
“They’re mind-bogglingly stupid. You can’t even have a sensible debate. Consider the whole fuel cell system against a Model S. It’s far worse in volume and mass terms, and far, far, worse in cost. And I haven’t even talked about hydrogen being so hard to handle. Success is simply not possible. Manufacturers do it [FCEVs] because they’re under pressure to show they’re doing something ‘constructive’ about sustainability. They feel it’s better to be working on a solution a generation away rather than something just around the corner. Hydrogen is always labeled the fuel of the future – and always will be,” Musk said.
Elon Musk initially announced that the Tesla Semi would start production sometime in 2019. That said, later statements from Tesla’s head of investor relations Martin Viecha suggested that the electric car maker would “earnestly” start producing the Semi by 2020.
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
