Investor's Corner
Tesla explores safer battery production with novel DCM recovery system patent
In what appears to be yet another step towards its goal of operating the safest car factory in the industry, Tesla has been granted a patent that could pave the way for a safer process in battery production. Published today, the electric car maker’s recent patent describes a system to treat and recycle Dichloromethane (DCM), which is among the materials used in the production of electric car batteries.
DCM is utilized in a variety of industrial processes, particularly in chemical plastic welding, wherein softened plastic pieces or surfaces are welded together. The material is also used to soften plastic sheets for stretching or shaping, and as a solvent to remove unwanted compounds. In Tesla’s case, DCM is among the materials used in the forming of a separator base film for an electric car’s battery system. While DCM is invaluable in manufacturing, though, the material carries some health risks.
Dichloromethane is the least toxic among the simple chlorohydrocarbons, but its high volatility makes it an inhalation hazard nonetheless. Prolonged skin contact with DCM could also result in the material dissolving some of the skin’s fatty tissues, causing irritation or chemical burns. With these risks in mind, the manufacturing industry employs ways to recover DCM. Tesla notes that current systems for DCM treatment and recovery are capital intensive, particularly since the process involves expensive components such as activated carbon beds, condensers, steam boilers and distribution systems, density separation vessels, and waste water treatment systems.
-
- Tesla’s DCM treatment system. [Credit: US Patent Office]
-
- A flow chart illustrating operation of an exhaust treatment system for treating a waste exhaust stream containing dichlorom ethane. [Credit: US Patent Office]
Tesla’s diagrams outlining its Dichloromethane recovery system. [Credit: US Patent Office]
Tesla describes conventional DCM treatment systems as follows:
“The DCM itself may then be removed through a heating and/or evaporation process with the exhaust collected. This exhaust containing DCM is then combined with the exhaust from other tools and systems used in the manufacturing process. The combined exhaust may then be fed to a recovery plant to recover DCM. In the recovery plant, the waste exhaust stream is typically treated with activated carbon. This scrubbing process requires high capital expenditure (many expensive components), high operating cost (extensive steam and cooling water consumption which accounts for >20% of total process cost), large footprint requirements, and large amounts of waste water that need to be processed. In order to address these cost and environmental-remediation issues, an improved process for the removal of DCM from exhaust streams is needed.”
Tesla’s take on DCM treatment and recovery utilizes a wet scrubber and a density separator vessel as key components of the system. The wet scrubber in Tesla’s patent has a scrubbing chamber, where water is utilized to scrub the waste exhaust stream containing the DCM. Tesla notes that the wet scrubber could adopt a variety of designs to remove DCM from the waste exhaust stream, including a venturi scrubber design, a condensation scrubber design, an impingement-plate scrubber design, or a packed bed tower design, among others.
Tesla’s use of a density separator vessel is described in the following section from the patent.
“The density separator vessel has an inlet to receive the liquid water and DCM mixture, an outlet to expel DCM, and an outlet to expel waste water. The DCM may be routed back to the industrial process for reuse and/or collected for later use. The waste water may be routed back to the wet scrubber, as shown along (the) waste water return loop. Waste water may also or alternately be routed to waste water treatment system for processing for subsequent treatment by (the) waste water treatment system.
“Typically, a large portion of the waste water is returned to the wet scrubber via (the) waste water return loop and a small portion of the waste water is treated by the waste water treatment system. Even though the waste water may contain small amounts of DCM, the waste water will still retain its ability to scrub the exhaust containing DCM. An advantage of the wet scrubber over the activated carbon beds is that all or most of the water used by the wet scrubber is the waste water from the density separator vessel, resulting in substantial savings of water and energy, and resultantly, substantial cost savings.”
Tesla states that compared to more traditional exhaust treatment systems, the DCM treatment and recovery model outlined in its patent effectively eliminates the use of steam and cooling, while also reducing the amount of throughput needed by a waste water system. With these efficiencies in mind, Tesla notes that it could reduce capital expenditures and operating costs “for the same amount of DCM processed processing.” The increased simplicity of the system and reduced airflow rates are expected to help the company get more savings in both capital expenditures and operating costs as well.
More than a way to optimize its operations, Tesla’s recent patent is also a notable way for the company to keep its battery production lines safer for its employees. Such a system would definitely be invaluable for the company, particularly as Tesla is now preparing the Model 3 for a global rollout. With the Model 3 ramp ever-expanding, and with high-volume vehicles like the Model Y and possibly the Tesla pickup truck in the pipeline, optimizations such as a better DCM treatment and recovery system are all but necessary.
Tesla’s recently published patent on its DCM treatment system could be accessed here.
Investor's Corner
Tesla’s flying Roadster just revealed something bigger than the car
Analysts say the Roadster demo puts a Tesla and SpaceX merger back on the table.
The Roadster unveiling near Waco ended Thursday night, and by Friday morning much of the investor reaction had less to do with the car than with who owns the rocket technology inside it.
Wedbush analyst Dan Ives said the event “puts the Tesla/SpaceX relationship on the table in a tangible way,” pointing to the propulsion, pressure vessel and control hardware sitting on a Tesla product. Gene Munster of Deepwater Asset Management called the demo “a ridiculous display of engineering” with “no commercial value” beyond embarrassing traditional automakers, though he said it showed Musk wants the two companies together.
The more specific forecast came a day earlier from Barclays. Analyst Dan Levy told clients a deal could be announced before Tesla’s annual meeting, which must happen by December 6, and that an announcement in late October or early November could make shareholder approval harder. Barclays expects SpaceX to be the buyer in an all stock deal, with Tesla holders receiving SpaceX shares at a premium, based on market values of roughly $2.1 trillion for SpaceX and $1.5 trillion for Tesla. If nothing lands around the meeting, the bank still sees an announcement within 6 to 12 months.
The Roadster demo just added more weight to merger speculations. Tesla’s demo used cold gas thrusters and pressure tanks of the kind SpaceX uses on Falcon 9, and Musk described the car as a collaboration between Tesla and SpaceX engineers, as we mentioned in our breakdown of the three Roadster configurations.
Musk has not publicly addressed a deal since the event, as far as we have seen. His most direct answer remains the one he gave at the All In Summit, when he said that with so much collaboration, “who can imagine what action one might take” without ruling anything out. Ives has held to a 2027 timeline since his March note, and Musk pushed back on the China piece of the speculation when ARK floated a year end announcement in August.
The next test is Tesla’s third quarter earnings call on October 21. However, we recall in July that Musk told analysts, “we can’t talk about combining companies and that kind of thing on an earnings call,” so a clear answer wouldn’t be expected.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk breaks his silence on the Starlink impact to Ukraine drones
Musk says the US military and president set Starshield limits, not SpaceX, amid Ukraine complaints.
Elon Musk says the speed limit cutting out Ukraine’s military Starlink terminals is not SpaceX’s decision. In a post on X Wednesday, Musk wrote that “Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS.” He added that Starlink is a commercial service limited to civilian or defensive activities and “cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.”
He was replying to Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine’s former defense minister, who had thanked Musk for restoring connectivity at speeds up to 160 km/h and said removing the Starshield limit entirely is “now critical for Ukraine’s defense.”
Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS.
Starlink is a commercial service owned and controlled by SpaceX. Usage of Starlink is limited to civilian or defensive activities and cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 14, 2026
The complaint started Tuesday night, when Ukrainian officials said military terminals began losing service above roughly 100 mph. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said the defense forces got no warning and several missions were disrupted, as Teslarati reported earlier Wednesday. The 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at speeds well below the limit, which made drones harder to control. Poland’s foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, asked Musk on X whether he is “playing politics with your products again.”
That is why the Starlink and Starshield distinction matters. SpaceX introduced Starshield in 2022 as the government version of Starlink, with an initial focus on Earth observation, communications and hosted payloads. It won a Space Force contract in 2023 with a $70 million ceiling. In December 2024, the Pentagon moved Ukraine’s terminals onto Starshield, covering about 3,000 units across two contracts. Ukraine’s military connections therefore run through a service that Musk now says sits under Washington’s control.
While Musk’s post describes who holds authority, it does not infer that anyone ordered the limit, and neither SpaceX nor the US government has confirmed who set it. Ukrainian officials have pointed to the timing, which follows President Trump’s push for an energy ceasefire and Musk’s Saturday post that “Zelensky has gone too far.” The BBC noted Trump denied threatening to restrict intelligence sharing with Kyiv, and no evidence has been presented that Washington requested the cap.
The episode also revives a promise from 2025. After Poland accused him of threatening Ukraine’s access, Musk said Starlink “will never turn off its terminals” and would not be used as a bargaining chip. Poland has since supplied more than 29,000 terminals to Ukraine. Teslarati also covered Kyiv’s search for Starlink alternatives in 2025, and the latest dispute gives that search new urgency.
Investor's Corner
Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet
Tesla opens its Q3 earnings Q&A, and Cybercab, Robotaxi, Optimus and regulators loom over October 21.
Tesla has opened its shareholder question portal for the Q3 2026 earnings call, with the Say Q&A page already listing questions. Investors have until 4:00 p.m. EDT on October 20 to submit and vote on what management should answer.
The call is set for Wednesday, October 21. Tesla will post results after the market closes, with a live webcast at 4:30 p.m. CT, or 5:30 p.m. ET, through its investor relations site.
Say ranks questions by the number of shares behind the votes, which gives institutional holders extra weight over the retail crowd.
Ahead of Q2, retail investors asked why Robotaxi growth had stalled, when Cybercab would start customer rides, and where the Optimus Gen 3 ramp stood, while an institutional holder asked how Tesla and SpaceX would split Terafab duties. Cybercab has since answered one of those. Tesla said last week it has 300 plus Cybercabs serving Austin, up eightfold in 30 days, with Dallas named as the next city. The questions now are likely to move from when to how fast.
There is also a regulatory question hanging over the call. NHTSA has demanded sworn answers on how the pedal free Cybercab was certified against federal safety standards, with responses due October 30, nine days after the call. Whether an analyst raises it live is unknown, but it is the kind of exposure that tends to find its way into a Q&A.
The numbers will not be the main draw. Tesla already reported 486,532 deliveries and 13.7 GWh of storage for the quarter. Consensus sits around 43 to 45 cents per share on roughly $27.8 billion in revenue, according to Zacks, after a Q2 report that missed on EPS. Goldman Sachs, which holds a Neutral rating and a $360 target, argues the outlook for Robotaxi, FSD and Optimus will matter more to the stock than the quarter itself.
The call also lands six days after the rescheduled Roadster event, which Tesla will stream on X on Thursday, October 15, at 7:55 p.m. CT. If the Roadster shows up with a production date or a SpaceX thruster package, expect it to climb the voting list before the deadline.
Tesla Roadster owners to get “Flying Stunt Mode” and looping track access
How to use Grok Bot to block spam calls and texts
Tesla’s flying Roadster just revealed something bigger than the car
SpaceX reveals how its 1 Million AI satellite network will work and prevent space collisions
Elon Musk’s Boring Company lands a new Middle East deal, and Nashville is about to get faster
