Connect with us

News

Tesla’s $5B giga battery factory will disrupt more than carmakers and utilities

Published

on

Making sense of Tesla Motors’ giga battery factory means taking a few steps back to see the bigger picture. We invite you to come along this electric ride as we put the pieces together and see just how disruptive Tesla really is.

Tesla is disrupting more than carmakers.

First things first, Tesla Motors isn’t a carmaker. Sorry to break it to you, but Tesla is a statement, an energy company, a lifestyle enabler and much more, wrapping it altogether into sexy computers on wheels. This is the biggest flaw carmakers made, seeing Tesla Motors as competition. Don’t believe us?

 

Tesla Motors, the energy management company.

Tesla Motors answered all of your electric vehicle (EV) needs, even those you didn’t know you had. What other carmaker offers you free supercharger? What other carmaker gives you soon the possibility to zip from Los Angeles to San Francisco swapping two or three battery packs? And even better, who gives you the option to pick up your original pack or keep the new one for a fee? Tesla is an EV enabler and much more.

Advertisement

 

Tesla Motors, the energy producing company.

Spending $5 billion on a battery manufacturing plant means serious business. It also means serious competition for a few unsuspecting industries, such as utilities and battery makers. Carmakers can’t make that kind of investment in battery technology, and won’t. It is too far out their business model.

Utilities is the industry segment Tesla is going after. This investment means Tesla will recycle lithium batteries and use them as storage with the solar energy it harvests. Connecting the plant to the grid means deadly competition for utilities, still trying to understand how to use EVs to their advantage. Tesla will force them to buy their energy or create their own micro-grid.

 

Advertisement

Tesla Motors, the battery company.

Tesla knows the price of lithium batteries has to continue to come down. Traditional companies struck strategic alliances to outlets, but not Tesla. After buying off the shelf, commodity lithium-ion batteries, it now will forgo the middleman to build its own batteries. This is yet another threat to battery makers worldwide. To think of the application this battery manufacturing plant has is staggering.

 

Tesla Motors, the lifestyle enabler challenges marketing.

More than anything, Tesla is beyond a performance cool car that runs on electrons. Tesla revolutionized the world of marketing and advertising by… not advertising. It’s not only brilliant, it saved the company millions of dollars better spent in R&D. Let’s face it, these advertising campaigns are not efficient. Why would you trust a manufacturer’s claim to be the best? It’s so impartial; everyone knows it and it just doesn’t work. Tesla is shaking the marketing world who is left to figure out what the “next big thing” is.

Tesla simply lets you drive your Model S for others to see that lifestyle statement. Remember that the Model S outsells any other car in its price range. If you think it bothers GM and Ford, imagine how Mercedes, BMW and Audi feel.

Advertisement

 

Can Tesla do no wrong?

We would be remiss not to point that the company is on a fast track to complete and absolute success in more than one industry. Still, as with such potential success, the opposite is equally valid. Investors are the Achilles heel, as the company’s stock price inflates to ridiculous levels. They could soon make unrealistic demands that could force the company down murky waters. Even Elon Musk agrees Tesla’s stocks are over-inflated.

It’s going to hurt when mainstream carmakers fully understand the wide-reaching scope of the Tesla Motors’ effect. They cannot compete with it, as much as they cannot compete with Apple or IBM. They will desperately try to catch up with a company that isn’t a carmaker. This year, utilities will wake up to the Tesla threat, after they barely get a grasp on what EVs mean for them. They will try to benefit using outdated models, but Tesla will throw a monkey wrench. Remember that if you stand in the way of Tesla, they will remove you by manufacturing it.

As we move away from a national grid to a smart grid system, with localized smart grids, utilities will have to switch from energy producers to energy managers. These are business model changes none of these industries are not equipped to make. Tesla Motors has played a fine chess game, not too many industries fully understand.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments

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.

Published

on

By

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.

SpaceX comes with a slew of changes for Starship Flight 13

 

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future

Published

on

Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

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.

Advertisement

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.

Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says

Published

on

tesla model 3 first generation headlight
Credit: Tesla Asia/Twitter

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.

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.”

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement
Continue Reading