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.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
