Tesla shakes automotive world with announcement regarding major US facility: 'Nearing completion'
The company recently posted a video on X of the factory, located in Sparks, Nevada. In the caption, Tesla said it is "nearing completion" of the facility, which Not a Tesla App reported will manufacture battery cells for Tesla energy projects such as Megapack and Powerwall.
LFP batteries are growing in popularity, with manufacturing plants starting to pop up across the globe. Unlike other common batteries, LFPs don't use nickel or cobalt, which makes them lighter, less expensive, and less likely to catch fire. And because those metals don't need to be mined, producing LFP batteries is also a more eco-friendly process.
Previous incarnations of LFP batteries weren't powerful enough to replace other battery types, but recent improvements have made them viable alternatives.
Until now, Tesla has used Chinese suppliers for LFP battery cells. Plans for the Nevada factory were originally leaked in early 2024, and the company confirmed them during its first-quarter earnings call this year while also discussing the importance of energy storage to the company's future.
"The importance of this business … is pretty profound," Tesla CFO Vaibhav Taneja said during that call. "In order for grids to work properly with the demands from AI, you need some more stability."
Domestic production of LFP batteries has the potential to be a game-changer, not just for projects like Megapack and Powerwall, but also for electric vehicles.
If battery costs come down significantly, cars will also become more affordable, which could put more EVs on the road instead of polluting, gas-powered vehicles. That would be welcome news for Tesla, which has seen its sales numbers drop significantly this year.
The type of energy used to charge batteries can also have a huge impact on EV ownership costs. Using home-based solar energy, for example, is considerably cheaper than paying for energy from the grid or using public charging stations. To amplify those savings, EnergySage offers a free tool that enables consumers to compare quotes from local, verified solar panel installers while saving up to $10,000 on installation costs.
Would you buy an EV if it only took 5 minutes to charge?
Sign me up
No way
Depends on the cost
Depends how much range it has
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
7 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Looming over two cases threatening Musk's car company is a single question: Can he be trusted?
Elon Musk fought court cases on opposite coasts Monday, raising a question about the billionaire that could either speed his plan to put self-driving Teslas on U.S. roads or throw up a major roadblock: Can this wildly successful man who tends to exaggerate really be trusted? In Miami, a Tesla driver who has admitted he was wrong to reach for a dropped cell phone moments before a deadly accident, spoke of the danger of putting too much faith in Musk's technology — in this case his Autopilot program. 'I trusted the technology too much,' said George McGee, who ran off the road and killed a woman out stargazing with her boyfriend. 'I believed that if the car saw something in front of it, it would provide a warning and apply the brakes.' In unusual coincidence, regulators arguing an Oakland, California, case tried to pin exaggerated talk about the same Tesla technology at the center of a request to suspend the carmaker from being able to sell vehicles in the state. Musk's tendency to talk big — whether it's his cars, his rockets or his government costing-cutting efforts — have landed him in trouble with investors, regulators and courts before, but rarely at such a delicate moment. After his social media spat with President Donald Trump, Musk can no longer count on a light regulatory touch from Washington. Meanwhile, sales of his electric cars have plunged and so a hit to his safety reputation could threaten his next big project: rolling out driverless robotaxis — hundreds of thousands of them — in several U.S. cities by the end of next year. The Miami case holds other dangers, too. Lawyers for the family of the dead woman, Naibel Benavides Leon, recently convinced the judge overseeing the jury trial to allow them to argue for punitive damages. A car crash lawyer not involved in the case, but closely following it, said that could cost Tesla tens of millions of dollars, or possibly more. 'I've seen punitive damages go to the hundreds of millions, so that is the floor,' said Miguel Custodio of Los Angeles-based Custodio & Dubey. 'It is also a signal to other plaintiffs that they can also ask for punitive damages, and then the payments could start compounding.' That Tesla has allowed the Miami case to proceed to trial is surprising. It has settled at least four deadly accidents involving Autopilot, including payments just last week to a Florida family of a Tesla driver. That said, Tesla was victorious in two other jury cases, both in California, that also sought to lay blame on its technology for crashes. Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Miami case argue that Tesla's driver-assistance feature, called Autopilot, should have warned the driver and braked when his Model S sedan blew through flashing lights, a stop sign and a T-intersection at 62 miles-an-hour in an April 2019 crash. Tesla said that drivers are warned not to rely on Autopilot, or its more advanced Full Self-Driving system. It says the fault entirely lies with the 'distracted driver' just like so many other 'accidents since cellphones were invented.' Driver McGee settled a separate suit brought by the family of Benavides and her severely injured boyfriend, Dillon Angulo. McGee was clearly shaken when shown a dashcam video Monday of his car jumping a Key West, Florida, road and hitting a parked Chevrolet Tahoe which then slammed into Benavides and sent her 75 feet through the air to her death. Asked if he had seen those images before, McGee pinched his lips, shook his head, then squeaked out a response, 'No.' Tesla's attorney sought to show that McGee was fully to blame, asking if he had ever contacted Tesla for additional instructions about how Autopilot or any other safety features worked. McGee said he had not, though he was heavy user of the features. He said he had driven the same road home from work 30 or 40 times. Under questioning, he also acknowledged he alone was responsible for watching the road and hitting the brakes. Summarizing the testimony, Tesla said in a statement after the court adjourned that McGee had 'stated the simple truth that we all know: If he had just paid attention to the road instead of searching for his dropped cell phone and pressing the accelerator —which he was doing for over a minute before the crash — this tragic accident would never have happened.' But lawyers for the Benavides family had a chance in the courtroom at parrying that line of argument, asking McGee if he would have taken his eyes off the road and reached for his phone had he been driving any car other than a Tesla on Autopilot. McGee responded, 'I don't believe so.' The case is expected to continue for two more weeks. In the California case, the state's Department of Motor Vehicles is arguing before an administrative judge that Tesla has misled drivers by exaggerating the capabilities of its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving features. A court filing claims even those feature names are misleading because they offer just partial self-driving Musk has been warned by federal regulators to stop making public comments suggesting Full Self-Driving allows his cars to drive themselves because it could lead to overreliance on the system, resulting in possible crashes and deaths. He also has run into trouble with regulators for Autopilot. In 2023, the company had to recall 2.3 million vehicles for problems with the technology and is now under investigation for saying it fixed the issue though it's unclear it has, according to regulatory documents. The California case is expected to last another four days. Condon and Fischer write for the Associated Press.
Newsweek
8 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Tesla Sales Could Be Suspended In California
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has filed a lawsuit seeking to suspend Tesla's sales and manufacturing operations in California for at least 30 days. The lawsuit, first filed in 2022 and amended in 2023, accuses Tesla of misleading consumers about the self-driving capabilities of its 'Autopilot' and 'Full Self-Driving' features, both of which are highly-advertized selling points for Tesla vehicles. Newsweek contacted California's DMV and Tesla for comment on this story via email. Why It Matters California represents a critical market for Elon Musk's company, as the largest state by population. Tesla's success here is helped greatly by the San Francisco market, which leans heavily towards electric vehicles and new technology. A 30-day sales ban could significantly disrupt the company's revenue and reputation. The DMV's lawsuit highlights broader scrutiny on how automakers market semi-autonomous features, and its outcome may influence industry standards nationally. What To Know Representatives of Tesla and the DMV will meet this week in California to discuss the 30-day pause on sales. In the court filings, California attorneys have picked out four phrases or product descriptions from Tesla's website which the state believes are misleading to the point of being false advertising. Phrases like 'autopilot', 'full self-driving capability' and the claim that Tesla vehicles are "designed to be able to conduct short and long-distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver's seat" were all pointed out in court filings by California's Department of Justice representatives. The exterior of the Tesla automotive company manufacturing facility on September 18, 2023 in Fremont, California. The exterior of the Tesla automotive company manufacturing facility on September 18, 2023 in Fremont, California. Getty Images Attorney General Rob Bonta, writing on July 17 in a statement on the lawsuit, said: "These labels and descriptions represent specifically that respondent [Tesla]'s vehicles will operate as autonomous vehicles, which they could not and cannot do." Tesla's legal team has said the company "has always made clear" that the cars it makes are not technically fully autonomous, because they require "active driver supervision" from a human. What People Are Saying In statements that the DMV highlighted as legally questionable, Tesla advertising said: "The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long-distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver's seat. "From Home – All you will need to do is get in and tell your car where to go. If you don't say anything, your car will look at your calendar and take you there as the assumed destination. Your Tesla will figure out the optimal route, navigating urban streets, complex intersections and freeways. To your Destination -When you arrive at your destination, simply step out at the entrance and your car will enter park seek mode, automatically search for a spot and park itself. A tap on your phone summons it back to you." What Happens Next The outcome of the DMV's lawsuit could result in a 30-day suspension of Tesla's dealer and manufacturing licenses in California. Such a measure would affect Tesla's short-term sales and could lead to further regulations on how automakers promote advanced driver assistance systems.
New York Times
8 minutes ago
- New York Times
U.S. Is Missing the Century's ‘Greatest Economic Opportunity,' U.N. Chief Says
The United Nations secretary general's speech on Tuesday was billed as a rare, optimistic one on the future of climate change. Look at the cold, hard economic data, António Guterres, the U.N. chief, said, and you will see that the world's transition from polluting fossil fuels to cleaner renewable energy is 'unstoppable.' But then there was the matter of the world's largest economy, the United States. President Trump pulled the United States out of the main international agreement to limit climate change and has, with Congress, sought to cripple domestic wind and solar power industries, the growth of electric vehicles and climate science research. The United States and those that follow its lead are 'missing the greatest economic opportunity of the 21st century,' said Mr. Guterres. Their policies have imperiled global progress through the 'clear market distortion' of subsidizing fossil fuels at a nine-to-one ratio against renewables. And yet even against those odds, Mr. Guterres said, he was 'never more confident that they will fail, because we have passed the point of no return.' That is debatable. A country's energy choices are subject to change amid the shifting winds of technological innovation and geopolitics. But Mr. Guterres said he saw economics as destiny. 'Just follow the money,' he said. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
