News
Why Tesla’s lead acid 12V battery needs to be lithium-ion based
It’s a prominent issue surrounding the electric vehicle market that the old-school lead acid battery just isn’t appropriate for new technology vehicles. Many users of electric vehicles, especially Tesla owners, have cited concerns with the poor performance of their 12V or low-voltage battery, oftentimes requiring annual replacement.
In contrast, a lead acid battery in a traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle generally has a 4 year life-cycle, but why?
RELATED: Tesla Model S 12V Lithium-Ion battery replacement (up to 70% lighter, 4x life)
First off, some of the most important factors to consider in longevity of a battery are “cycle-life”, environmental conditions, discharge/charge rates and calendar-life; cycle-life is how many times the battery can be drained and recharged in its life. Environmental conditions include temperature and humidity. Discharge/charge rates are the amperages going out of and into the battery respectively.
There are two major differences between the way an ICE vehicle uses its 12V battery and the way an EV uses its 12V battery:
“OFF” state discharge and cycling frequency
ICE Vehicle: generally has a very low 12V load while the vehicle is in the “off” state, often this load doesn’t exceed a few watts and doesn’t present a major challenge for the 12V battery to maintain.
Electric Vehicle: The 12V load while in the off-state is often much higher due to advanced computer systems that are running to maintain the high-voltage battery, keep vehicle “connected” (all EV have some remote access features), maintain charging and BMS (Battery Management System) communications, etc. In fact a Tesla Model S/X puts about 50 Watts of load on the 12V system when the vehicle is in the “off” state. 50 Watts equals about 4.5 Amps of discharge on the 12V battery, this drains the battery down relatively rapidly and requires the 12V battery be “recharged” by the high-voltage battery regularly, this usage pattern results in many cycles being placed on the battery.
“ON” state utilization and purpose
ICE Vehicle: The 12V battery is used to initiate the ICE (start the car) and is designed for putting out large amounts of current to accommodate this process. Once an ICE vehicle is in the “on” state, it relies on an alternator to power all of the 12V sub-systems and also maintain the voltage of the 12V battery.
Electric Vehicle: The 12V is subjected to (practically) no additional load while the vehicle is being turned “on”, and although most vehicles are designed with DC/DC converters (which act as alternators) it is often an engineering design choice to reduce load on the DC/DC converter by minimizing the frequency with which it is utilized. This also extends the driving range of the vehicle because none of the precious high-voltage battery capacity is being shunted to non-driving tasks. Due to this usage profile the 12V battery is subjected to relatively low discharge and recharge currents.
When you combine the high number of cycles and the low current requirements of the electric vehicle 12V battery system you arrive at a completely different battery need than that of an ICE vehicle. Lead Acid batteries are very good at high discharge and low cycle count life-styles, this is their bread and butter and this is where they last a long time and provide the most bang for the buck (cheap cost and decent product life-cycle), but they aren’t lasting in electric vehicles.
The electric vehicle 12V battery system is one that is best suited by a battery capable of tremendous cycle-life as the main design goal. The battery chemistry that suits this usage scenario best? Lithium! Lithium battery technology is specifically very good at being cycled many times and continuing to provide minimal capacity loss and degradation. This, along with reduced weight, is why these batteries are used for the high-voltage battery packs, cell-phones, laptops, medical equipment and cars where batteries are being cycled frequently and longevity is important.
Editor’s note: This post was submitted into our network by Tesla Model S owner Sean Scherer. Having suffered an unfortunate incident in his Model S that left him stranded because of a faulty 12V battery, Sherer began on a mission to create a lithium-ion based 12V battery solution that was not only more reliable than the traditional lead acid battery, but better suited for the demands of a Tesla Model S, Model X, and electric vehicles in general. He began BattMobile Batteries, who have made it their mission to improve adoption of electric vehicles by solving some of the small details that has been missed by EV manufacturers.
We’ve also included a video tutorial on how to replace the Model S 12V battery.
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
