Robotaxi Rollout Slowed - Musk Informs Wall St.

On July 23rd of this year, Tesla held their Q2'26 financial call. In that discussion, Elon Musk reported that Tesla Robotaxi services would be available to half of the US population by the end of 2025. Based on this, we calculated that Tesla would need to have Robotaxis operational in 37 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) including the Austin and Bay Area regions where they already Robotaxis rolling around.

Yesterday, Musk announced that those plans have changed. On October 22nd, Musk scaled back from half of the US population to "8 to 10" MSAs by the end of 2025. Here's Musk's complete quote: 

"We do expect to be operating robotaxi in, I think, about eight to ten metro areas by the end of the year. It depends on various regulatory approvals. You can actually think most of our regulatory applications are online. You can kind of see them because they're public information. We expect to be operating in Nevada, Florida, and Arizona by the end of the year."

Given this scaled back ambition, we did exactly as Musk suggested and took a look at Tesla's permit requests to try to determine which regions Tesla is likely to cover with robotaxis by yearend?

Tesla Robotaxi Permit Applications by Region (as of October 22, 2025)

Tesla has applied for (or obtained) permits in the following states:

State	Status	Details
TX	Obtained (August 2025)	Secured statewide rideshare license for unsupervised operations; launched pilot in Austin with fleet expansion.
NV	Obtained testing permit (September 2025)	Approved for public road testing; targeting Las Vegas launch by year-end.
AZ	Applied (July 2025)	Submitted for robotaxi certification; expected operations by end of year.
CA	Applied for partial permits (September 2025)	Seeking ride-hail approvals at San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland airports; Bay Area expansion in 1-2 months pending full driverless permit.
FL	In application process (ongoing)	Regulatory approvals sought for Miami/Tampa; operations expected by end of 2025.

At the time of writing, I could not find confirmed applications for New York, Illinois, or Colorado.

So, let's look at these confirmed states and see which locations are candidate for these new service areas.

MSAs with Population Over 1,000,000 in States with Confirmed Tesla Robotaxi Permit Applications

Below is the further filtered (list from our July post) of MSAs from Texas, Nevada, Arizona, California, and Florida. This results in 12 MSAs expansion candidates.

Texas (Top 3 MSAs)

MSA Name	Population (2023 est.)
Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX	8,100,037
Houston–The Woodlands–Sugar Land, TX	7,510,253
San Antonio–New Braunfels, TX	2,703,999

Nevada (Primary MSA)

MSA Name	Population (2023 est.)
Las Vegas–Henderson–North Las Vegas, NV	2,336,573

Arizona (2 Largest MSAs)

MSA Name	Population (2023 est.)
Phoenix–Mesa–Chandler, AZ	5,070,110
Tucson, AZ	1,063,162

California (Top 3 MSAs)

MSA Name	Population (2023 est.)
Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, CA	12,799,100
Riverside–San Bernardino–Ontario, CA	4,688,053
San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont, CA (Bay Area)	4,566,961

Florida (Top 3 MSAs)

MSA Name	Population (2023 est.)
Miami–Fort Lauderdale–West Palm Beach, FL	6,183,199
Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater, FL	3,342,963
Orlando–Kissimmee–Sanford, FL	2,817,933

From 50% to Less Than 18% for 2025

In conclusion, Tesla's Robotaxi rollout has shifted from an ambitious nationwide push covering 50% of the US population to a more measured expansion into 6 to 8 new regions for a total of 8 to 10 service areas by year's end. These 12 candidate MSAs encompass roughly 61 million people, or about 18% of the US population. While challenges like regulatory hurdles and safety validations persist, this targeted approach allows Tesla to refine its Full Self-Driving tech at scale with safety monitors as needed. 

Ultimately, Robotaxi promises personal mobility at affordable prices. This will empowering the elderly, disabled, or low-income individuals while reducing vehicle crashes and emissions. But you might have to wait until 2026 to try it out for yourself.

Batteries Slay the Duck Curve: A 37% Gas Reduction Thanks to Massive Storage

Introduction

The energy landscape is shifting, one quirky phenomenon called the duck curve is stirring up some challenges for our power grids, especially in sunny spots like California. This curve, named for its distinctive shape, highlights a mismatch between solar power generation and demand, is creating headaches for grid operators. As we push toward cleaner energy solutions, understanding this issue and how batteries are stepping up to address it is key. Let’s explore what the duck curve is, why it’s a problem, how it’s nudging energy costs upward, and the role batteries are playing in smoothing things out, all while tracking the impressive battery capacity installed in California since 2010.

The Duck Curve Increasing Energy Costs

The duck curve is a graphical representation of net electricity demand over a day, where solar power generation dips in the evening as the sun sets, causing a sharp rise in demand that resembles a duck’s belly and neck. In California, where solar dominates renewable energy, this curve emerges because midday solar output often exceeds demand, only for that surplus to vanish by late afternoon when people crank up air conditioners and appliances. This creates a steep ramping need, forcing grid operators to rely on backup sources.

The problem lies in the grid’s struggle to balance this variability. Operators must ramp up fossil fuel plants, like natural gas, quickly to meet evening peaks, which is inefficient and costly. The trending summary notes a 37% reduction in natural gas use in 2025 thanks to batteries, hinting at the previous reliance. This inefficiency drives up energy costs because gas plants, often idle during the day, burn fuel at premium rates during spikes, sometimes exceeding $1,000/MWh compared to $50/MWh for solar. Additionally, the need for rapid adjustments wears down equipment, adding maintenance expenses. The NPR article from October 6, 2025, points out rising electricity bills due to grid strain, with distribution costs climbing as old infrastructure struggles with these swings. So, the duck curve not only challenges reliability but also inflates costs for consumers and utilities alike.

How Are Batteries Mitigating the Duck Curve

Batteries are becoming the unsung heroes in tackling the duck curve, storing excess solar energy during the day and releasing it when demand spikes. In California, the trending data shows batteries supplied over 25% of peak demand in spring and summer 2025, a game-changer for evening ramps. They charge when solar production peaks, soaking up that midday surplus, and discharge in the late afternoon to early evening, flattening the curve’s steep rise. The Financial Times chart from Jigar Shah’s post, covering June 2025, illustrates this perfectly, with batteries kicking in around 6 PM as solar fades.

This mitigation reduces reliance on gas plants, cutting fuel costs and emissions. The 37% drop in natural gas generation since 2023, per the trend summary, underscores this shift. Batteries also enhance grid stability, avoiding the wear-and-tear costs of frequent plant startups. The Economist article suggests pairing this with demand response, but batteries alone are proving effective, with California avoiding Flex Alerts since 2022, as noted in the LA Times. Globally, with capacity up 67% to 617 GWh this year, this approach is scaling, driven by cost drops over 90% since 2010. It’s a smart, sustainable move to keep our grids humming while leaning on renewables.

Battery Capacity Installed in California

Since 2010, California has built an impressive battery infrastructure to support its clean energy goals. Based on the LA Times figure of 15,700 MW by October 2025, plus an estimated 1,500 MW from 2010 to 2019, the total power capacity reaches 17,200 MW, or 17.2 GW. To convert this to energy capacity in watt-hours, we need the discharge duration. Most grid-scale lithium-ion batteries offer 4 to 6 hours, with a 4.5-hour average being reasonable based on CAISO data and project specs like Moss Landing. Thus, energy capacity is calculated as 17.2 GW x 4.5 hours = 77.4 GWh.

Breaking it down, 1.5 GW from 2010-2019 yields 6.75 GWh, while 15.7 GW from 2020-2025 contributes 70.65 GWh. This 77.4 GWh reflects a robust build-out, aligning with California’s 55% share of US storage capacity per Reuters. Variations in duration (e.g., 4 vs. 6 hours) or ongoing projects might adjust this slightly, but it’s a solid estimate for 2025.

Table: Battery Capacity in California Since 2010

Period	Power Capacity (GW)	Duration (Hours)	Energy Capacity (GWh)
2010-2019	1.5	4.5	6.75
2020-2025	15.7	4.5	70.65
Total	17.2	4.5	77.4

As you can see in this table, in just the first 5 years of the 2020's, California has installed more than 10 times the battery energy capacity than they had in all of the previous decade.

Fossil Fuel Reduction

In California, methane use for electricity generation has dropped significantly due to renewable energy and batteries. There's been a 37% reduction in natural gas electricity generation during peak periods in 2025 compared to 2023, driven primarily by grid-scale batteries. These batteries store excess solar energy during the day and release it at night, mitigating the duck curve. This reduces reliance on gas-fired peaker plants, which burn methane, the primary component of natural gas (about 80%), ethane, propane, and butane. Solar power, dominating renewables, provides the surplus energy batteries utilize, cutting the need for fossil fuels. The LA Times notes a 3,000% battery capacity growth since 2020. This is a significant cut in fossil fuel use in the electricity sector. This shift lowers costs and emissions.

Conclusion

The duck curve is a fascinating challenge that highlights the growing pains of our shift to renewable energy, pushing up costs with its demand spikes and reliance on gas. Batteries are stepping up, storing solar power and easing evening peaks, as seen in California’s 37% gas reduction. With 77.4 GWh of capacity installed since 2010, we’re on a promising path. With continued innovation, we can keep costs down while powering our future sustainably.

How Even Small Batteries Make a Big Difference for Solar Homes

If you have solar on your home, you may be considering the addition of a residential energy storage system (or more simply, batteries). But how much battery capacity do you need? A few hours worth, a few days, or something in between. Certainly, more capacity will last longer, but the cost adds up quickly. If money is no object for you, go nuts and include a Megapack if you'd like. For the rest of us, finding the right balance of cost and effectiveness is important. 

While the idea of storing multiple days' worth of energy might seem appealing, a few hours of storage delivers surprising value at a fraction of the cost. Systems like the Tesla Powerwall, with a capacity of 13.5 kWh, demonstrate how compact storage solutions can optimize energy use, reduce costs, and enhance reliability. The key takeaway? Bigger is not always better when it comes to energy storage.

Conventional Wisdom

An industry rule-of-thumb is that for each 1 kW of solar PV you have, you should have 5 kWh of battery capacity. This guideline provides a useful starting point. It seeks to balance capturing excess daytime solar production with meeting evening demands or managing short outages. It often aligns well with the household's daily energy use. However, it is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Factors such as local electricity rates, net metering rules, solar output, AC/heat pumps, EV charging, and individual consumption patterns may necessitate adjustments. It's essential to choose a size that's tailored to your home's specific needs.

Time-Shifting Energy for Cost Savings

One of the primary benefits of limited storage is the ability to time-shift solar energy. Solar panels generate the most electricity during midday when sunlight is abundant, but household energy demand often peaks in the late afternoon or early evening. Utility companies frequently implement time-of-use (TOU) or time-of-day (TOD) pricing, where electricity rates during peak hours can be two to three times higher than off-peak periods. With just 4 to 8 hours of storage, homeowners can store excess solar energy produced during the day and use it to shave off these costly peak periods. For a typical household consuming 30 kWh daily, a battery storing just 10 kWh can generally cover evening demand, slashing expensive peak rates. This approach maximizes savings without the need for an oversized, costly battery system.

Enhanced Reliability During Outages

Short-term energy storage shines during power outages, which are often brief. According to US utility data, approximately 70 to 80% of outages last less than two hours, and many are resolved within minutes. A battery with a few hours of capacity ensures critical appliances like lights, refrigerators, and communications remain operational. This uninterrupted power prevents inconvenience, such as stumbling in the dark to find flashlights or candles. It also provides a buffer to safely power down sensitive electronics, protecting them from potential damage when grid power returns. For households in areas prone to short outages, this level of backup is often sufficient, making larger systems unnecessary.

Safety and Convenience in Emergencies

Even a brief loss of power can disrupt daily life. A few hours of battery storage keeps the lights on, reducing the risk of accidents like tripping over furniture or banging a shin while navigating a dark home. In the event of an evacuation, such as a wildfire, having power ensures you can pack up and load the car quickly, even if the grid has failed. This reliability transforms a potentially chaotic situation into a manageable one, highlighting the practical benefits of modest storage capacity.

Cost-Effectiveness of Compact Systems

While multi-day storage might seem ideal, the costs escalate quickly. A single battery unit providing 4 to 8 hours of storage for critical loads typically costs between $7,000 and $15,000 installed. Scaling up to multiple days of storage could double or triple this expense, with diminishing returns for most households. Short outages and peak pricing periods are the primary concerns for most, and a smaller battery addresses these effectively. Investing in excessive capacity often yields minimal additional benefits, reinforcing that bigger is not always better; sometimes it just costs more.

Conclusion

A few hours of energy storage paired with solar offers a compelling balance of cost, convenience, and reliability. By enabling time-shifting, ensuring power during brief outages, and enhancing safety, compact systems deliver outsized value. Homeowners can achieve significant savings and peace of mind without the expense of oversized batteries, proving that modest, strategic storage is often the smartest choice. 10 - 15 kWh adds a lot of value, without a huge price tag. However, if you're looking to time-shift or need longer blackout protection, you may need 30kWh+.

Soon after our Powerwalls were installed, our power went out in the dead of winter.

If you'd like a Powerwall or two, you can use my referral code: ts.la/patrick7819

How Much Can The Tesla Semi Truck Haul?

Tesla Semi: Payload, Range, and Efficiency Breakdown

Introduction

The Tesla Semi is an all-electric Class 8 truck. It is redefining freight transport with zero-emission power. In this post, we'll be diving into the specs that matter to fleet operators: payload capacity, range impact, battery size, and cost. Whether hauling light loads like potato chips or heavy cargo like soda, let's see what the Tesla Semi offers. Let’s explore its real-world capabilities.

Payload Capacity: How Much Can It Carry?

The Tesla Semi handles Class 8 demands with a gross combination weight (GCW) of 82,000 pounds. This includes the tractor (approximately 27,000 pounds) and a standard 53-foot trailer (around 15,000 pounds empty). That leaves a maximum payload of about 40,000 pounds, matching industry standards for heavy-duty trucks. For volume, a typical 53-foot dry van trailer provides roughly 4,000 cubic feet of cargo space (53 feet long, 8.5 feet wide, 9 feet high), though refrigerated trailers may offer less due to insulation.

For context, low-density loads like potato chips (e.g., Fritos) weigh about 3-4 pounds per cubic foot, maxing out at 10,000-14,000 pounds for a full trailer. High-density loads like canned soda (e.g., Pepsi Cola) can hit the 40,000-pound limit, filling the trailer with around 1,920 cases of 24-packs at 21 pounds each. This Semi can haul loads, light or heavy.

Range and Efficiency: Load Weight Matters

The Tesla Semi’s range varies with payload weight, mainly due to increased rolling resistance. At highway speeds, aerodynamic drag accounts for 53% of energy use, rolling resistance 33%, and drivetrain losses 14%. Lighter loads boost efficiency, extending range, while heavier loads demand more battery power. The Semi’s battery pack, estimated at 850-900 kWh for the 500-mile version.

• Unloaded Range: With just the tractor and an empty trailer (40,000-42,000 pounds total), the Semi achieves 600-650 miles at 1.3-1.5 kWh per mile. Real-world tests with light loads have hit efficiencies as low as 1.55 kWh per mile.
• Fully Loaded Range: At 82,000 pounds GCW, the range drops to 420-500 miles, with energy consumption of 1.7-2 kWh per mile. PepsiCo’s tests with heavy loads confirm ranges around 450 miles, though Tesla’s official fully loaded spec is “less than 2 kWh per mile.”

Condition	Weight (pounds)	Range (miles)	Efficiency (kWh/mile)
Unloaded (Tractor + Empty Trailer)	40,000-42,000	600-650	1.3-1.5
Fully Loaded (Max GCW)	82,000	420-500	1.7-2.0
Potato Chips (Light Load)	50,000-54,000	550-600	1.4-1.5
Soda (Heavy Load)	80,000-82,000	420-450	1.7-2.0

Hauling Fritos and Pepsi: Real-World Scenarios

For a light load like Fritos, a full trailer (10,000-14,000 pounds) keeps the Semi’s weight around 50,000 pounds. This yields a range of 550-600 miles at 1.4-1.5 kWh per mile, as the low weight reduces rolling resistance. PepsiCo, which uses the Semi for Frito-Lay products, has reported over 450 miles in real-world operations, with initial plans citing 400 miles for conservative routes.

For a heavy load like Pepsi Cola, a full trailer hits the 40,000-pound payload cap, pushing the total weight near 82,000 pounds. This reduces the range to 420-450 miles at 1.7-2 kWh per mile. PepsiCo’s early tests focused on shorter 100-mile trips for safety, but recent data shows 450-mile ranges with beverage loads.

Battery Size and Cost

The Tesla Semi’s battery pack is massive, rated at 850-900 kWh for the 500-mile model, with a smaller 500 kWh pack for the 300-mile version. Pricing ranges from $150,000 to $200,000, depending on the range variant and options. Early production units have been reported as high as $415,000 in specific deals. Reservations require a deposit, and costs can vary based on configuration.

Conclusion

The Tesla Semi is transforming trucking, combining huge payload capacity with electric efficiency. Its 40,000-pound payload and 4,000-cubic-foot trailer handle everything from Fritos to Pepsi Cola. Light loads stretch the range to 600 miles, while heavy loads deliver a solid 420 miles, powered by an 850-900 kWh battery. At $150,000-$200,000, it’s a strong choice for fleets aiming to cut emissions and fuel costs. As Tesla scales production and deliveries, more real-world data come out, and more goods will be delivered while keeping the planet cleaner. Stay charged with CarsWithCords.net for more EV updates!

Towing with the Tesla Cybertruck: Capabilities, Limitations, and Tips

The all-electric Tesla Cybertruck boasts impressive towing capabilities for its class. Today, we explore its towing specifications, limitations, preparation tips, Full Self-Driving (FSD) availability, range impacts, and Supercharging considerations.

Towing Specifications

The Cybertruck's towing capacity varies by model:

• Dual-Motor and Tri-Motor AWD (including Cyberbeast): Up to 11,000 pounds
• Single-Motor RWD: Up to 7,500 pounds

These specs rival those of competitors like the Rivian R1T (11,000 pounds) and Ford F-150 Lightning (10,000 pounds), although earlier claims of 14,000 pounds for the tri-motor model were not met. All Cybertruck models feature a 2,500-pound payload capacity in the 6-by-4-foot cargo bed.

Limitations

Towing with the Cybertruck significantly impacts its range. Real-world tests show:

• 6,000-pound trailer: Range drops to about 115 miles
• 11,000-pound trailer: Range reduces to around 90 to 100 miles

Compared to the EPA-estimated 320-350 miles without towing, this represents a 50-70% range reduction, typical for electric trucks due to increased energy demands from weight and aero drag. 

Preparations Needed

To tow effectively with the Cybertruck, consider these preparations:

• Weight Distribution: Adhere to the 500-pound tongue weight limit and balance trailer loads to avoid frame stress.
• Equipment: Use compatible weight distribution hitches and verify trailer brake controller functionality.
• Optimize Efficiency: Check trailer tire pressure and use aerodynamic trailers to reduce range loss.
• Vehicle Features: Leverage the adjustable air suspension, trailer stability assist, and 360-degree towing camera for enhanced control and safety.

Full Self-Driving (FSD) Availability

Tesla’s optional FSD system is currently not available when towing. FSD is not optimized for complex trailer dynamics, so drivers must remain vigilant and in control of the vehicle. Tesla is constantly iterating their FSD software, and towing is a feature that many owners have requested, so it may be coming in a future version. 

Range Impact

As noted, towing heavy, non-aerodynamic loads can halve the Cybertruck’s range. Cold weather and high speeds exacerbate this, so plan routes with ample charging stops.

Supercharging with a Trailer

Supercharging while towing can be tricky due to the rear-mounted charge port, often requiring unhitching to access stalls. Ensure that you are aware of which Supercharging locations on your route have pull-through stalls. 

Conclusion

The Tesla Cybertruck is a capable electric tow vehicle for short to medium distances, with robust towing specs and helpful features. However, its significant range reduction requires careful planning and realistic expectations for heavy-duty towing tasks.

Powerwall vs. V2G: Why Your Home Battery Beats Your EV’s Side Hustle

image by ChatGPT

Battery tech is advancing, costs are falling, and these little powerhouses are finding more applications. One of the many things you can do with batteries now is provide backup power to your home. There are two primary ways that you can do this: one, with dedicated home energy storage batteries, or two, with an electric vehicle (EV) that supports vehicle-to-home (V2H). Both home batteries and V2H keep the lights on when the grid goes kaput, but not exactly in the same way; each method has pros and cons.

In this post, we're going to compare home batteries and V2H EVs. Two examples of a home battery system are the Tesla Powerwall and the FranklinWH aPower 2 battery. Two examples of a vehicle-to-home (V2H) EV are the Tesla Cybertruck with Powershare and the Ford F150 Lightning with its V2H gear.

Home energy storage battery systems are stationary (usually mounted in your garage or the shady side of the house). They store energy for use during an outage or for electricity cost optimization. They’re the dependable, stay-at-home parent of energy solutions. These batteries can be charged up by solar, the grid, or a combination of both.

V2H systems, like the Cybertruck’s Powershare or the Ford F-150 Lightning Intelligent Backup Power system, let your electric vehicle (EV) power your home during outages. The Cybertruck has a 123 kWh battery pack (equivalent to ~nine Powerwalls) and can power a home for three to four days. However, it requires a $595 Universal Wall Connector, $1,800 Gateway, and a transfer switch. Similarly, the Ford F-150 Lightning extended-range comes in with an impressive 131 kWh pack and V2H gear will run you $3,895.

Degradation

The Achilles’ heel of V2H is battery degradation. Extra charge-discharge cycles from daily load shifting wear down your truck’s battery faster than Netflix cancels shows after the second season. When we have million-mile battery technology, this won't be an issue, but today it's a reality.

Home batteries are designed for frequent cycling and shrug off this wear like a marathon runner. This makes them ideal for grid shifting with time-of-use (TOU) pricing; charging during cheap off-peak hours and discharging during pricey peaks saves you money faster than a coupon-clipping grandparent. And if home batteries do degrade, it doesn't mean that you'll come up a couple of miles short of your next charging stop like it would in an EV.

Your EV battery is made to help you get from A to B. If it's also a 5-day-a-week workhorse for the grid, that comes at a cost of additional degradation. Battery tech may soon advance to the point where we have million-mile battery packs, allowing them to be cycled as often as needed. Until then, degradation is a real concern. This makes home batteries the practical choice today, offering reliability and savings while letting your electric truck stick to hauling and dazzling onlookers with its stainless steel swagger.

Cost

Home batteries, like a Powerwall, are not cheap (~$12,000+ installed), but they offer daily utility and savings through TOU peak-shaving and virtual power plant (VPP) programs, where utilities pay to tap your battery during peak demand. V2H systems, including Ford's and Tesla's, currently miss out on VPPs participation because your vehicle might be cruising down the road or parked at work when the grid needs it. Notably, EVs today can support vehicle-to-load (V2L) or vehicle-to-home (V2H), but none of today's EVs in the US support vehicle-to-grid (V2G) capability, further limiting their role in VPP events.

Wrapping Up

Feature	Home Energy Storage (e.g., Powerwall)	V2H (e.g., Powershare)
Primary Use	Daily load shifting, outage protection	Emergency power, off-grid support
Battery Degradation	Designed for frequent cycling	Accelerated wear from extra cycles
Equipment Cost	~$12,000 (installed, depending on size)	~$2,400 (hardware) + a compatible EV ($80,000+)
VPP Eligibility	Common, utility incentives available	Rare, limited by vehicle availability and features
Daily Savings Potential	High (TOU optimization)	Low (emergency-focused)

In summary, an electric truck with V2H is a beast for emergency power, but home batteries are the reliable workhorses. Home batteries save you money and stress on the daily. Unless you’re set on making your Cybertruck the Swiss Army knife of your garage, a home battery is the smarter bet for now, and you've always got those outlets on the Cybertruck or F150 Lightning if you need them.

The Solar Crossover Is Coming: How Solar and Storage Will Outshine Rising Utility Costs

Rising Electricity Costs and the Solar Solution

Solar panels generate electricity during the day, but a home needs power 24/7. The answer is pairing solar with home energy storage, like Tesla Powerwall. This ensures power availability at night. Excess solar energy produced in daylight hours charges the battery, storing it for evening use. Storage also provides redundancy; if the grid fails, your battery keeps critical systems running, ensuring your lights stay on during outages. Solar and storage also offer a hedge against rising utility costs. Who wouldn't want to be more energy independent, more resilient, and more sustainable around the clock? But, there's a cost; solar and batteries can be expensive. 

The good news is that solar and batteries can save you money and they are getting more affordable each year. Today, we'll look at the cost and see when solar becomes a no-brainer.

Increasing Home Electricity Prices

Home electricity prices in the United States have been steadily climbing, with an average annual increase of about 3% to 5% over the past decade, driven by infrastructure upgrades, fuel costs, and datacenter and AI demands. Data from the US Energy Information Administration shows residential electricity prices rose from 11.58 cents per kWh in 2010 to about 16.11 cents per kWh in 2025. This trend is likely to continue due to ongoing grid development needs and costly infrastructure investments. As utility bills grow, homeowners are seeking cost-effective alternatives, and solar power paired with home energy storage emerges as a compelling solution to manage rising expenses.

Solar and Storage as a Cost-Saving Solution

Solar energy is increasingly attractive, with installation costs dropping significantly, including a 40% reduction in the past year alone, bringing residential systems to around $2,500 per kW in 2025, according to EnergySage. However, the phase-out of net metering in states like California, where NEM 3.0 significantly reduces credits for excess solar energy sent to the grid, diminishes the financial benefits of grid-tied-only systems. Home energy storage systems address this by enabling homeowners to store excess solar energy generated during the day for the home's use at night. This maximizes self-consumption and reduces reliance on the grid. Battery prices have also fallen, driven by advancements in lithium-ion technology from the electric vehicle market and large-scale energy storage projects, with residential storage costs declining from $1,200 per kWh in 2010 to about $300 per kWh in 2025, per BloombergNEF.

The Economic Crossover Point

Solar adoption is increasingly driven by price, marking a pivotal shift. Early adopters were primarily motivated by a commitment to environmentalism. However, as solar panels and storage solutions become cheaper than traditional grid electricity, the enticement broadens. This cost advantage is ushering in a majority adoption phase, where economic pragmatism outweighs niche motivations. With declining production costs, solar is no longer a luxury but a practical choice for households and businesses. This transition promises a sustainable energy future, fueled by affordability and widespread accessibility.

As utility electricity prices rise and the costs of solar and storage continue to decline, a crossover point is approaching where generating and storing your own energy becomes cheaper than purchasing grid power. This analysis focuses purely on the economic perspective, setting aside the significant environmental benefits of solar. 

Inyokern, CA: A Solar Powerhouse

To illustrate the potential savings, we'll examine this trend in Inyokern, California, one of the sunniest locations in the US, a place where solar and storage systems can shine. We'll use Inyokern as a leading indicator of how this might play out. As the cost trends continue, this will apply to more parts of the US and the world.

The city of Inyokern is located in California's Mojave Desert, about 120 miles northeast of Los Angeles. It's a small community positioned near the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station. Inyokern serves as a gateway to outdoor recreation in the Sierra Nevada and Mojave. It's an ideal case study for evaluating "grid-light" and off-grid solar storage solutions.

Assumptions for a Typical Home

For this analysis, we assume a typical-sized, all-electric home in Inyokern with an annual energy consumption of 10,332 kWh (based on the national average for a household with electric heating and cooling). Our fictional average home is a 2,000-square-foot single-family residence.

Energy Costs Without Solar or Storage

The utility cost of electricity for this home is calculated using California's average residential rate of 30 cents per kWh in 2025, with a projected annual increase of 4%. The annual energy cost today is $3,100 or $258 per month. By 2030, with rates at ~37 cents per kWh, the annual cost rises to $3,771, or $314 monthly. By 2040, with rates at ~53 cents per kWh, the annual cost reaches $5,445, or $454 per month.

50% Off-Grid Solution

A 50% off-grid solar solution in Inyokern leverages the area’s abundant sunshine to power half a home’s annual energy needs. A 2.6 kW solar PV system generates 5,166 kWh yearly, while a 37 kWh battery stores excess energy for nighttime use. If the grid fails, the battery ensures critical appliances stay powered, offering resilience. In 2025, a system of this size costs $17,597, with a monthly loan payment of $136 (20-year, 7% loan). This is competitive with utility bills. As solar and storage costs drop, this solution becomes increasingly affordable, blending savings with energy independence in Inyokern’s sunny climate.

Year	PV Cost ($/kW)	Storage Cost ($/kWh)	Total PV Cost ($)	Total Storage Cost ($)	Total System Cost ($)	Monthly Loan Payment ($)
2025	2,500	300	6,425	11,172	17,597	$136
2030	1,580	200	4,060	7,448	11,508	$89
2040	1,000	100	2,570	3,724	6,294	$49
2070	500	50	1,285	1,862	3,147	$24

80% Off-Grid Solution: Costs and Loan Payments

For an 80% off-grid solution in Inyokern, this home requires a 4 kW solar PV system and 57 kWh of storage. This system cost is ~$27,186. Financed with a 20-year loan at 7% interest, the monthly payment is $257, slightly below the current utility bill of $258, indicating near-immediate savings. In 2030, with system costs dropping to $17,770 (PV at $1,580/kW, storage at $200/kWh), the monthly loan payment is $168, significantly less than the projected utility bill of $314. By 2040, with costs at $9,742 (PV at $1,000/kW, storage at $100/kWh), the monthly payment is $92, a fraction of the $454 utility bill, demonstrating substantial savings.

The above graph clearly shows that the crossover point for solar cost and utility cost has already occurred. Looking out to 2040 or beyond (if these trends continue), solar and storage are even more compelling in more places. 

100% Off-Grid Solution: Costs and Loan Payments

For a 100% off-grid solution, requiring a 5.1 kW solar system and 142 kWh of storage. The 2025 cost is $55,215, with a monthly loan payment of $521, well above the current utility bill, making it less economical today. In 2030, the cost drops to $36,368, with a monthly payment of $343, still higher than the utility bill but approaching parity. By 2040, at $19,255, the monthly payment is $182, well below the projected utility bill of $454, indicating that the 100% off-grid solution becomes very compelling at this time. So, (if you're not already) you might be watching Super Bowl LXXIV (74) on a solar-powered big screen. 

A Hopeful Future with Solar and Storage

The declining costs of solar and storage, combined with rising utility rates, position these technologies as increasingly viable solutions for homeowners. Today, 50% systems offer financial benefits; by 2030, 80% off-grid system offers clear financial benefits, and by 2040, even the 100% off-grid option with a large storage battery surpasses grid power in cost-effectiveness. 

Looking forward, solar and battery systems are poised to become standard in new construction, as builders and homeowners recognize their economic and environmental advantages. Widespread adoption will stabilize the grid by reducing peak demand, as homes store and use their own energy, easing the strain on aging infrastructure. Moreover, replacing fossil fuel-based grid power with solar will significantly reduce CO2 emissions, contributing to a cleaner environment. This transition promises not only substantial savings but also a cleaner, more resilient energy future, making solar and storage a cornerstone of our future free from fossil fuels.

Roadmap of Tesla Autopilot/FSD

Origin of Tesla Autopilot/FSD

Tesla was founded in 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning with an initial focus on high-performance electric vehicles. At its founding, the company had no explicit emphasis on self-driving technology. Elon Musk joined as chairman in 2004 and became CEO in 2008, and he has been the primary driving force behind pushing Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) capabilities, repeatedly emphasizing full autonomy (SAE Level 5 - eyes off, hands off, take a nap) as a key goal since at least 2013. Musk's influence escalated in the mid-2010s, where he directed the shift toward vision-based systems and end-to-end neural networks, drawing from billions of real-world driving data frames. Musk's direct involvement, his aggressive timelines and decisions, like removing radar in 2021 for cost and vision purity, have shaped its development.

Key Personnel Involved in Hardware (HW) and Software (SW)

Tesla's Autopilot/FSD development has involved a mix of internal teams and high-profile hires. On the hardware side, the focus has been on custom silicon for processing power. On software, it is centered on AI, computer vision, and neural networks trained on vast datasets.

• Jim Keller: A legendary chip architect, Keller joined Tesla in January 2016 as Vice President of Autopilot Hardware Engineering and left in April 2018. He led the design of Tesla's first custom FSD chip (used in HW3), emphasizing redundancy and high-performance computing for autonomy. Prior to Tesla, he worked on Apple's A4/A5 chips and AMD's Zen architecture.
• Andrej Karpathy: A deep learning expert and OpenAI co-founder, Karpathy joined Tesla in 2017 as Director of AI, leading the Autopilot vision team until his departure in July 2022 (after a 4-month sabbatical starting March 2022). He was instrumental in shifting to vision-only systems, developing end-to-end neural nets, and overseeing FSD Beta releases. He rejoined OpenAI in 2023.

Other notable contributors include Pete Bannon (ex-Apple, worked under Keller on HW3+) and teams focused on Dojo supercomputer for training (though Dojo has faced pivots). Elon Musk has been hands-on, often overriding engineering decisions.

Timeline of Major Milestones

Below is a chronological timeline combining key Autopilot/FSD milestones, hardware introductions (with features added), and software revisions. Hardware revisions focus on enabling progressively advanced autonomy, while software builds on that with features like beta testing and vision improvements. Dates are approximate based on announcements and rollouts.

(Month) Year	Milestone	Details
2013	Early Vision for Autonomy	Elon Musk begins publicly predicting full autonomy within years; Tesla starts internal development.
Sep 2014	HW1 Introduced	First Autopilot hardware (Mobileye EyeQ3). Added basic features: adaptive cruise control (ACC), lane-keeping assist (Autosteer), automatic emergency braking (AEB), and auto-parking. Used 1 forward camera, radar, and ultrasonics. Installed in Model S/X until mid-2016.
2015	Initial SW Releases for HW1	Software v7.0 enables Autopilot features like ACC and Autosteer on highways. Factor of 10 safety improvement predicted by Musk within 6 years.
Oct 2016	HW2 Introduced	NVIDIA Drive PX 2 platform. Added 8 cameras (360° coverage), 12 ultrasonics, enhanced radar. Enabled "Enhanced Autopilot" with auto lane changes, Summon (remote parking), and Navigate on Autopilot (NoA) potential. Installed until mid-2017.
Mar 2017	SW v8.1 for HW2	Brought HW2 parity with HW1, adding speed limit recognition and improved Autosteer.
Aug 2017	HW2.5 Introduced	Updated NVIDIA hardware with redundant  processing units for safety. Added cabin camera (initially dormant). Improved sensor fusion for better reliability in adverse conditions. Installed until early 2019.
Apr 2019	Autonomy Day; HW3 Introduced	Tesla's custom FSD chip (dual redundant SoCs, 21 TOPS). Designed for full redundancy and FSD compute needs. Added support for traffic light/stop sign recognition, automatic city driving. Retrofits began for older vehicles. Basic Autopilot made standard.
Oct 2020	FSD Beta Program Launch	SW v10 Beta: Early access for select users, enabling city streets navigation. FSD price rises to $10,000.
May 2021	Shift to Vision-Only	Removed radar from new vehicles; relied on cameras and neural nets. SW updates like v9 Beta emphasize pure vision.
Oct 2021	FSD Beta v10.3 Issues	Brief halt due to safety concerns; quick fixes rolled out.
Sep 2022	FSD Price Increase	To $15,000; wider Beta access.
Mar 2023	HW4 (AI4) Introduced	Second-gen Tesla chip (higher resolution cameras, more compute ~500 TOPS). Added better handling of complex scenarios, rain/snow performance, and hardware for unsupervised FSD. Installed in new Model S/X, then 3/Y.
2023-2024	FSD v11/v12 Rollouts	v11: Unified stack for highway/city. v12: End-to-end neural nets, no hand-coded rules; hands-free with attention monitoring. Wide release of v12.4 in mid-2024 removes torque-based nagging.
Jan 2025	FSD v12.6 for HW3	Improvements in smoothness and decision-making.
May 2025	FSD v13 for AI4	v13.2.9: Enhanced vision monitoring, better edge cases. HW3 lags behind AI4 versions.
Aug 2025	Dojo Timeline Updates	Custom supercomputer for FSD training; faces delays but crucial for future nets.

Looking Forward: AI5 and AI6 Likely New Features

Tesla is pivoting away from Dojo to focus on in-house chips for inference and training. AI5 is expected to be in production by late 2026, with massive performance boosts (up to 40x over AI4), optimized for sparse tensors, mixed-precision math (FP8/INT4), and dedicated AI blocks. Likely new features: Unsupervised FSD (no human intervention), real-time "reality compression" for efficient processing, better handling of rare events, and integration with Robotaxi/Cybercab. Manufactured by TSMC.

AI6 (2028?) is described by Musk as "the best AI chip by far," with even higher power efficiency. It will likely enable advanced multi-modal AI (e.g., integrating voice, gestures), fleet-scale learning, and energy-efficient autonomy for mass deployment. Making AI6 a perfect fit for a humanoid robotic product. AI6 is planned to be made at Samsung's new Texas facilities.

Fossil Fuels Don't Need Subsidies

Prospects for Ending US Fossil Fuel Subsidies

The United States provides substantial subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, estimated at $760 billion annually by the International Monetary Fund in 2022, including $3 billion in direct subsidies (tax breaks and credits) and $754 billion in implicit subsidies (unpriced environmental and health costs). These subsidies are rooted in policies like the Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction since 1913. Fossil fuel subsidies face growing scrutiny for clashing with climate goals and economic efficiency. Eliminating them is challenging due to political, economic, and regulatory barriers, compounded by the recent passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) in July 2025. However, opportunities driven by climate urgency, global trends, and public pressure offer hope. Below, we explore the barriers, opportunities, and impacts of the OBBBA on ending fossil fuel subsidies.

Political and Economic Barriers

Industry Influence and Lobbying

The fossil fuel industry’s political clout is a formidable obstacle. In 2023, the sector spent over $100 million on lobbying, according to OpenSecrets. They lobbied to preserve tax provisions like the Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction and Percentage Depletion. Congressional allies in oil-rich states like Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana defend these subsidies as critical for economic stability. Past repeal efforts have consistently failed, reflecting the industry’s ability to frame subsidies as essential for jobs and energy security, a narrative that resonates in energy-dependent regions. 

           

Reaping over $200 billion in profits in 2022, the fossil fuel industry does not need subsidies to thrive. These government handouts primarily boost shareholder value, distort energy markets, and delay the transition to cleaner, more sustainable energy future.

Regulatory Capture

Regulatory capture significantly entrenches fossil fuel subsidies. Industry executives and lobbyists often influence or hold positions in agencies like the Department of Energy or Environmental Protection Agency, shaping policies to favor oil, methane, and coal. This capture perpetuates implicit subsidies, such as unpriced pollution costs ($754 billion in 2022, per IMF), by delaying regulations like carbon pricing or stricter emissions standards. It prioritizes corporate profits over public interest, stifling renewable energy transitions and reducing accountability for environmental damage. Capture also undermines reform by embedding industry-friendly regulators who resist subsidy phase-outs, making legislative change politically contentious.

Regional Economic Dependence

States like Louisiana, Wyoming, and North Dakota depend on energy revenue, and lawmakers prioritize local economies, viewing subsidy cuts as a threat to jobs and tax bases. This creates bipartisan resistance to ending corporate welfare.

Energy Price Concerns

Policymakers fear subsidy removal could raise energy costs, impacting consumers and industries. Direct subsidies ($3-20 billion annually) lower production costs, stabilizing gasoline and heating prices. OECD studies suggest price increases of only 1-2%, but public sensitivity to cost hikes, amplified by post-2022 inflation, remains a significant barrier. This concern often overshadows the long-term benefits of redirecting funds to cleaner energy regardless of the truth of the matter.

Policy Inertia and Complexity

Subsidies are embedded in complex tax codes, requiring intricate legislative action to dismantle. Repealing provisions like the domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and gas demands broad congressional approval, often stalled by budget disputes or filibusters. Implicit subsidies, tied to externalities like pollution, face resistance to mechanisms like carbon pricing, particularly from conservative lawmakers and industry allies wary of new taxes.

Opportunities for Reform

Climate Policy Momentum

The US commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050, reinforced by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022, which allocated $369 billion for clean energy, signals a shift toward renewables. International pledges, like the G7’s 2025 deadline to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, add pressure. These frameworks could justify redirecting subsidies to renewables, which received only $15.6 billion in 2022, supporting a fairer energy market and aligning with global climate goals.

Economic and Job Creation Potential

Eliminating fossil fuel subsidies could free up significant funds. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates repealing certain tax breaks could save $25.9 billion over a decade. Redirecting these to renewables, which create 3-7 times more jobs per dollar invested than fossil fuels (IRENA, 2023), could appeal to lawmakers focused on economic growth. Declining renewable costs (solar down 80% since 2010) weaken the economic case for fossil fuel subsidies, making reform increasingly viable.

Public and Investor Pressure

Growing climate activism and investor demand for ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) compliance are shifting the landscape. Public awareness of the $760 billion subsidy cost versus $15.6 billion for renewables could fuel grassroots campaigns. Shareholders are pushing energy firms to diversify, reducing reliance on subsidies. Increased public support could pressure Congress, particularly under climate-focused administrations, to prioritize reform.

Global Trends and Leadership

Countries like Canada and the EU are phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, with the EU targeting 2025. Aligning with these trends could enhance US climate leadership, especially post-COP28’s call for transitioning away from fossil fuels. EU carbon border taxes might incentivize subsidy cuts to avoid trade penalties, bolstering the case for reform.

Impact of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), passed by the Senate (51-50) on July 1, 2025, and the House (218-214) on July 3, 2025, reinforces fossil fuel subsidies, significantly hindering reform prospects. Its impacts include:

• Strengthening Fossil Fuel Subsidies: The OBBBA delays a methane pollution fee, rolls back vehicle emission rules, and streamlines fossil fuel project approvals. Senator James Lankford’s provision exempts many oil and gas drillers from the corporate alternative minimum tax, expanding tax breaks. It also lowers royalty rates for oil and gas (16.6% to 12.5%) and coal (12.5% to 7%) on federal lands, boosting industry profits and entrenching subsidies.
• Undermining Clean Energy: The bill repeals IRA clean energy tax credits (e.g., Sections 45Y and 48E) for solar and wind by 2028, requiring projects to start construction within a year and be completed by 2030. It rescinds $3.6 billion for DOE’s Title 17 loan guarantees and $5 billion for the Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment program, redirecting $1 billion to an “Energy Dominance Financing” program prioritizing fossil fuels. This increases reliance on gas and coal, raising household energy costs by up to $415 annually by 2035 (Princeton’s Jenkins).
• Economic and Environmental Setbacks: The OBBBA increases emissions (up 5% in Q1 2025, per Carbon Monitor), threatens 800,000 clean energy jobs, and raises electricity bills by 10% (Evergreen Action). It undermines $522 billion in announced clean energy investments, delaying the renewable transition.
• Reinforcing Regulatory Capture: The bill’s fossil fuel-friendly provisions reflect industry influence, with groups like the American Petroleum Institute praising its expanded access to federal lands. This deepens capture, as regulators prioritize industry over climate objectives, further delaying subsidy reform.

Likely Timeline and Strategies

Near-Term Outlook (2025-2030)

The OBBBA’s passage makes subsidy elimination before 2030 highly unlikely. Its fossil fuel-friendly provisions, backed by regulatory capture, entrench industry influence. Incremental reforms, like capping tax breaks for marginal projects or tightening federal land leases, may face less resistance, but political gridlock and GOP Senate control (53 seats) limit progress. A strong Democratic majority could push back, but the OBBBA’s legacy complicates efforts.

Mid-Term Prospects (2030-2035)

As renewables reach 50% of US electricity by 2030 (EIA), pressure to eliminate explicit subsidies may grow. Implicit subsidies, tied to externalities, require carbon pricing, which faces resistance due to capture. A fiscal crisis, climate disaster, or stronger international commitments could shift priorities, but the OBBBA’s impacts may delay reform until 2035.

Strategic Approaches

• Targeted Reforms: Focus on low-resistance cuts, like coal liquefaction subsidies ($1 billion), while preserving job-heavy provisions.
• Reallocate Savings: Redirect funds to renewables, job retraining, or consumer relief to mitigate economic concerns.
• Build Public Support: Highlight subsidy disparities to galvanize voters.
• Counter Capture: Advocate for independent oversight of energy agencies to reduce industry influence.

Conclusion

Ending US fossil fuel subsidies faces steep barriers from lobbying, regulatory capture, regional interests, and the OBBBA’s reinforcement of fossil fuel support. Climate urgency, economic logic, and global trends provide reform pathways, but the bill’s impacts delay progress, favoring industry profits over public interest. Incremental reforms by 2030 are possible, with broader cuts by 2035 if political will and public momentum align. Strategic focus on targeted reforms, public engagement, and countering capture is crucial for a cleaner energy future.

Ed Niedermeyer on Tesla :: Right Data, Wrong Conclusion

In part one, we looked at the Expert Fallacy and how it applies to Tesla. Now, I'd like to look at one particular person more deeply, Edward Niedermeyer. 

Edward Niedermeyer is a fellow Oregonian, an automotive journalist, and the author of Ludicrous: The Unvarnished Story of Tesla Motors (2019). We've appeared together on the casual new vehicle tech show What Drives US? multiple times.

Niedermeyer has been a notable skeptic of Tesla and Elon Musk. IMHO, his writings and public statements reflect the expert fallacy. His industry expertise says that no one else has successfully done this, so Tesla will follow this well-worn path to failure. This rearview mirror perspective has shaped his narrative, particularly concerning Tesla’s trajectory over the past two decades. Edward overlooks the unpredictable nature of innovation. As I've said before, he is factually accurate, logical, and completely wrong. 

Niedermeyer’s early coverage at The Truth About Cars (which included the Tesla Death Watch*) around 2008 portrayed Tesla as a struggling startup unlikely to survive. As Tesla advanced with the Roadster, Model S, X, and 3, Ed reinforced predictions of bankruptcy, arguing the company’s financial instability and production challenges would lead to its downfall. In Ludicrous, he critiques Tesla’s Silicon Valley approach, highlighting its departure from traditional auto industry standards, such as meticulous production planning, in favor of a “move fast and break things” mindset. He points to specific setbacks, including the 2015 battery-swap demo flop at Harris Ranch, where diesel generators undermined Tesla’s environmental claims, and the 2016 Model 3 production “hell,” where automated systems underperformed. These examples support his view of Tesla as a company built on hype rather than substance, a stance he has reiterated in podcasts like The War on Cars, Tech Won’t Save Us, and The Autonocast, where he labels Musk a “huckster” skilled at selling implausible promises like the "fraud" that is FSD.

* Niedermeyer claims that he was not involved with the Tesla Death Watch although he was there and writing about Tesla at that time.

Niedermeyer's skepticism mirrors the expert fallacy. Niedermeyer’s deep auto industry knowledge led him to anchor his predictions in known legacy automaker metrics, such as thin margins, slow scaling, quality control, and inability to quickly pivot. This misses Tesla’s non-linear growth driven by software, battery innovation, an expanding TAM, and more. In his 2016 New York Times op-ed, Niedermeyer criticized Musk’s unfulfilled self-driving promises. Yet Tesla’s market cap soared past $1 trillion by 2021, defying Ed's financial doom forecasts. And Tesla drivers who have purchased Tesla's driver-assist / supervised autonomy package are overwhelmingly happy with the feature.

Niedermeyer's, yet untitled, next book will be about Tesla's autonomous driving efforts. He has repeatedly called FSD a fraud on his podcast, so I don't expect his new book to offer an objective view of Tesla's FSD technology, Robotaxi deployment, or future. It will likely again (incorrectly) predict doom for Tesla and Musk, much like the 2008 Tesla Death Watch (that he was definitely not involved in).

Niedermeyer's focus on Tesla’s early defects and missed deadlines, like the 2018 500,000-vehicle target, overlooks Musk’s ability to raise capital (over $20 billion since 2010) and iterate quickly, turning setbacks into successes.

When a big, hairy, audacious goal is put forward, it does not matter if it arrives on the exact day of the prediction. We quoted the wise words from Trent Eady before, “If Musk promises you the moon in six months and delivers it in three years, keep things in perspective: you’ve got the moon.” Making the impossible merely late. 

Niedermeyer’s stance also echoes the curmudgeonly attitude NASA’s Apollo team avoided (as noted in Part 1). His persistent negativity, especially in past interactions with Tesla fans, contrasts with the optimistic collaboration that fueled Apollo’s moon landing. Niedermeyer has left Twitter/X, and you can now find him on Bluesky, where he continues to be a bitter critic. 

Niedermeyer has been accused of having financial ties to short-sellers, though I believe this to be unlikely. He does this because it's who he is, not because Jim Chanos is paying him for it. Niedermeyer's 2022 Slate article, titled "When Elon Musk Dreams, His Employees Have Nightmares", warned that Musk’s dysfunctional management of Tesla was a bad sign for Twitter. Yet Tesla has continued to be resilient, and X continues to operate.

That said, Niedermeyer is not always wrong. His call for a second opinion on Tesla’s hype is valid, though his own bias risks “opinion shopping” by leaning on accounts critical of Musk. Niedermeyer's authority led him to overestimate predictable failure while underestimating Tesla’s adaptive innovation, such as the Gigafactory’s cost reductions or Supercharger network’s competitive edge.

Niedermeyer has referred to the diesel generators at the battery swap station as Tesla's "first roach," and as the saying goes, "if you see one, you know there are more." Niedermeyer used this statement multiple times when appearing in various outlets to promote his book. This single statement encapsulates how he gets Tesla wrong. When you want to build something, you begin by getting things operational and then refining, rather than years of planning and analysis paralysis. If you want to build a battery swap station and recharge center, you need a significant industrial-level electricity supply. A utility cannot deliver that at the drop of a hat, so you find a way to develop a minimum viable product. From there, you iterate. You request the service from the utility, then when it arrives, you remove the generators. Until then, you have an operating swap station that you can use to develop the control software, test, debug, and improve the system.

And, by the way, that electrical service did eventually arrive. By then, the swap station was long gone as Tesla went all-in on Supercharging, but the provided electrical service was put to good use. The Harris Ranch Supercharger was built in the same area. With 98 charging stalls, Harris Ranch is a notable Tesla Supercharger location, and it's a popular stop for Tesla owners traveling along Interstate 5.

In summary, Niedermeyer’s writings and statements exemplify how expert predictions can falter when innovation defies norms. His focus on Tesla’s flaws and delayed timelines misses the broader picture of Tesla's innovation and success. There's a lesson in balancing experience and authority with openness to the unexpected. Reality is an open-world game, not a side-scroller. There's far more than one way to get to the finish line, and sometimes someone will make a move that you've never seen before, no matter how long you've been observing the game.