News
Tesla targets lower operating costs through new waste water treatment system patent
Tesla is arguably one of the most dynamic companies in the industry today, with its tendency to constantly innovate even after it reaches its ambitious targets. This particular culture was mentioned by Tesla’s President of Automotive Jerome Guillen in a recent interview with CNBC, when he stated that Tesla’s work, specifically in its batteries, continue to evolve over time. Elon Musk echoed this tendency on Twitter, stating that even Tesla’s vehicles like the Model S and X are partially upgraded every month “as soon as a new subsystem is ready for production.”
Such a culture is emblematic of Tesla. Such a culture is also reflected in a recently published patent for the company, which outlines a clever waste water treatment system that could pave the way for more cost savings in operational expenses. The patent is titled System for Regenerating Sodium Hydroxide and Sulfuric Acid from Waste Water Stream Containing Sodium and Sulfate Ions and was published on November 15.
Tesla notes in its patent description that “acid leaching performed through the addition of sulfuric acid and neutralization through the addition of sodium hydroxide” are common processes used in manufacturing. As a result of these processes, waste water containing high concentrations of sodium and sulfate ions produced, since sodium and sulfate ions are very soluble and are difficult to remove through conventional precipitation processes. Tesla notes that these factors could result in large quantities of waste water being disposed — a process that is both expensive and harmful for the environment.
In a conventional waste water treatment setup, three chambers separated by an anion exchange membrane (AEM) and a cation exchange membrane (CEM), as well as anodes and cathodes, are utilized. Tesla notes that the present system for waste water treatment leaves much to be desired, considering that the setup is not cost-effective at all.
“With the prior art system, not all of the sodium and sulfate ions are able to be removed from the waste water feed stream to produce the ‘treated’ water. This reduces recovery of acid/caustic, and also presents challenges when trying to reuse the “treated” water. This process becomes increasingly difficult as the concentration of ions in the waste water feed stream lowers as it moves through the electrolysis treatment system, and an increasing amount of electrical voltage needs to be applied.
“Further, the generated acid/caustic products can only be produced at low concentrations. As the product streams increase in concentration, an increasing amount of electrical voltage is needed between the anode and the cathode. Further, as the membranes AEM and CEM are in contact with these higher concentration acid/caustic products, the lifetime of the membranes and decreases. The combination of a high electrical load, low recovery efficiency, low recovered acid/caustic concentrations, and short component lifetimes make the prior art system economically unviable.”
Tesla’s waste water treatment system utilizes membrane concentration systems as a cornerstone to develop a system where waste water is treated and possibly even reused. The electric car maker describes its system in the following description.
“As compared to prior waste water treatment systems, the waste water treatment system of the present disclosure uses the three dedicated membrane concentration systems to maintain high ion concentrations in the feed and low ion concentrations in the product chambers. The first thermal concentration system takes in the dilute acid produced by the electrolysis treatment system that allows pure water to permeate while the dissolved acid species are rejected. The pure water is recycled back to the second chamber of the electrolysis treatment system to dilute this stream, while the reject concentrated acid is extracted as a product.
“The second thermal concentration system takes in the dilute caustic produced by the electrolysis treatment system and allows pure water to permeate while the dissolved caustic species are rejected. The pure water is recycled back to the third chamber of the electrolysis treatment system to dilute this stream, while the reject concentrated caustic is extracted as a product. The membrane concentration system takes in the existing waste water that still contains significant dissolved sodium and sulfate. Pure water is extracted as a product, and the concentrate reject is sent back to the electrolysis treatment system waste water feed to maintain a high concentration of sodium and sulfate ions in the waste water feed.”
With such a system in place, Tesla expects to see optimizations in its operations. The Silicon Valley-based carmaker noted in its patent that its waste water treatment system would likely even extend the lifetime of components such as the AEM and CEM, resulting in more cost savings.
“The waste water treatment system of the present disclosure has significant operational advantages, including resulting in large positive driving concentration gradient assisting electric voltage, as opposed to negative gradient resisting electric voltage in (a) conventional system, dramatically reducing electrical load. The waste water treatment system allows for the AEM and CEM of the electrolysis treatment system to be in contact with low concentration acid/caustic, significantly increasing their lifetimes.
“Further, the produced acid/caustic from the membrane concentration systems are at much higher concentrations than the electrolysis treatment system could make on its own, increasing their value. Moreover, the exiting pure water product is Reverse Osmosis (RO) quality and can be directly used to service pure water needs. The recovery of both sodium and sulfate ions is near 100%, since there are almost no remaining ions in the exiting pure water product.”
Over the past months, published patents from the company show that Tesla is looking to optimize several aspects of its operations. Included among these is a rigid structural cable that could open the gates for more automation, a flexible clamping assembly that would allow the company to easily address panel gaps, as well as a DCM recovery system that could make battery manufacturing safer.
Tesla’s recently published patent for its novel waste water treatment system could be accessed in full here.
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
