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.
It is safe to say SpaceX won’t be going for electric rockets anytime soon.
In a characteristically blunt reply on X, SpaceX frontman Elon Musk stated, “Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible,” following reports that MSCI had assigned SpaceX its lowest possible ESG rating of CCC.
The assessment, issued just this past week, coinciding closely with SpaceX’s public market debut, placed the company on par with nations like Russia in sustainability scoring and cited significant risks in environmental, social, and governance areas.
MSCI flagged SpaceX’s exposure to rocket emissions and other operational impacts, alongside governance concerns such as concentrated control by Musk and limited shareholder protections. Musk’s terse comment directly addressed the environmental pillar, underscoring a core physical constraint that ESG frameworks often overlook when evaluating high-thrust industries.
Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 21, 2026
Electric propulsion systems do exist and are widely used in space. Ion thrusters and Hall-effect thrusters accelerate ionized propellant, typically xenon or krypton, using electric fields, achieving very high specific impulse, often exceeding 3,000 seconds compared to roughly 300–450 seconds for chemical rockets.
This efficiency makes them ideal for satellite station-keeping, orbit raising, and deep-space missions where low thrust over long durations is sufficient. SpaceX’s own Starlink satellites employ electric propulsion for these purposes.
However, launching from Earth’s surface demands something entirely different: enormous thrust delivered rapidly to overcome gravity and atmospheric drag. A typical orbital-class booster must generate thrust far exceeding its weight, often in the millions of Newtons within seconds.
Chemical rockets achieve this through exothermic combustion of dense propellants, producing high-mass-flow, high-velocity exhaust. Electric systems, by contrast, expel very small amounts of mass at extremely high speeds. Generating equivalent thrust would require impractical onboard power levels, massive energy storage or generation systems, and prohibitive added mass, rendering the approach infeasible with current or near-term technology.
Musk has previously expressed a similar sentiment, noting a desire for electric orbital rockets while acknowledging the inescapable requirements of Newton’s third law and energy delivery. The distinction is clear: electric propulsion excels once a vehicle is already in space; it cannot replace the high-thrust chemical phase required to reach orbit from the ground.
The episode illustrates broader critiques of ESG ratings. Proponents argue they incentivize better risk management and long-term sustainability. Detractors, including Musk—who has previously called ESG a “scam”—contend that such metrics can penalize essential activities when no practical alternative exists, potentially discouraging innovation in sectors like space access.
Elon Musk dubs the S&P 500 ESG as “outrageous scam” after Tesla gets booted from index
SpaceX has sought to mitigate launch-related impacts through reusability: Falcon 9 boosters have flown more than 30 times in some cases, dramatically lowering the manufacturing and emissions burden per kilogram delivered to orbit. Starship’s design further emphasizes rapid reusability and methane propellant, which can theoretically be produced via sustainable pathways.
Ultimately, Musk’s remark serves as a reminder that certain engineering realities persist regardless of scoring systems. As humanity expands its presence in space for communications, science, and exploration, balancing genuine environmental progress with technological necessity remains a central challenge.
ESG frameworks may evolve, but the fundamental limits of electric launch propulsion are unlikely to change soon.
Tesla just trademarked ‘MEGAPOD’ with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), its latest move in what seems to be a hint that the company is incredibly focused on its AI efforts and storage needs as compute increases.
The application carries serial number 99893717 and lists the applicant as Tesla, Inc., located at 1 Tesla Road, Austin, Texas 78725.
The filing remains in ‘live pending’ status, and it is a new application waiting for assignment to an examining attorney. It has not yet been published or registered.
Tesla just trademarked MEGAPOD
Summary:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and… pic.twitter.com/3l85DsKadl— Robin (@xdNiBoR) June 19, 2026
According to the official goods and services description in the application, Tesla describes ‘MEGAPOD’ as:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and cooling systems, sold as a unit; self-contained modular computing hardware systems for artificial intelligence workloads; integrated computer hardware platforms for artificial intelligence computing, namely, enclosures containing computer hardware, power distribution hardware, and cooling hardware, sold as a unit; downloadable software for monitoring, managing, optimizing, and regulating modular artificial intelligence computing hardware systems.”
This description specifies complete, self-contained modular units that integrate servers and specialized AI processing hardware with networking components, power distribution, and cooling systems. It also includes associated downloadable software for oversight and optimization of these systems. The language emphasizes hardware sold “as a unit” and enclosures that combine the necessary elements for AI computing workloads.
Tesla has an established history of developing and commercializing modular hardware systems. Its Megapack product line, for example, consists of utility-scale battery energy storage systems designed as containerized units for grid applications. The MEGAPOD filing follows a similar pattern of protecting a name for modular, integrated hardware platforms, this time focused on artificial intelligence computing infrastructure.
This could be an early move, especially as Tesla did not have trademark rights to the word ‘Cybercab,’ the name of its self-driving, ride-hailing-focused vehicle.
Trademark applications of this type allow companies to secure priority rights to a name for defined categories of goods and services. The USPTO examines applications for compliance with legal requirements, including distinctiveness and absence of conflicts with prior marks. If the application proceeds successfully through examination, publication, and any opposition period, it could result in a federal trademark registration providing nationwide protection. This is what Tesla’s obvious intention is with ‘MEGAPOD.’
Public reports and analysis suggest MEGAPOD could represent modular, container-style AI computing pods designed for easy deployment. These would bundle servers, AI accelerators, power systems, and cooling into self-contained units suitable for distributed AI workloads. This approach aligns with Tesla’s announced AI compute strategy.
In March 2026, Elon Musk outlined plans for “Digital Optimus” (also referred to as Macrohard), a joint Tesla-xAI project for AI agents capable of handling complex digital tasks. The plans include running these agents on Tesla’s AI4 hardware in parked vehicles as well as dedicated compute units installed at Supercharger stations, which collectively offer substantial unused electrical capacity.
What is Digital Optimus? The new Tesla and xAI project explained
A modular hardware platform like the one described in the ‘MEGAPOD’ filing would support scalable, rapid deployment of such distributed compute resources. It could complement Tesla’s other AI infrastructure efforts, including the Dojo supercomputer used for training models and the development of AI systems for autonomous driving and robotics, by enabling edge or regional AI inference without reliance on traditional centralized data centers.
Investor's Corner
SpaceX is launching a secret spacecraft that could change how things are made in space
SpaceX’s secret disk-shaped Starfall capsule is targeting a market no reentry vehicle has cracked.
SpaceX is targeting Tuesday, June 23 for the first flight of Starfall, a reentry capsule the company has developed almost entirely in private. The Falcon 9 launch window opens at 6:43 a.m. ET from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, with a backup window available the same time on June 24. SpaceX has made no public announcement about the vehicle, only providing launch details. Everything known about it has come through FAA and FCC regulatory filings.
What makes Starfall different starts with its shape. Rather than the traditional cone used by Dragon and every other cargo return capsule in operation, Starfall is a flat disk that measures roughly 10.2 feet (3.1 meters) wide and just 2.5 feet (0.75 meters) tall, and weighing 4,630 pounds (2,100 kg) and capable of returning up to 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms) of payload from orbit. The disk geometry maximizes structural efficiency and payload volume relative to mass, and the heat shield mechanically jettisons just before splashdown, allowing recovery teams to retrieve both the capsule and the shield separately from the Pacific Ocean.
The difference with Starfall from existing competitors, such as Varda Space Industries, which has largely built the orbital manufacturing market and returns heavy payloads per flight is that Starfall’s specification is roughly 30 times more per mission, and is designed to be mass-produced and launched on either Falcon 9 or Starship. That combination of volume and launch access is something no standalone startup can replicate, and it puts SpaceX in direct competition with the companies that currently pay it to reach orbit.
SpaceX to launch military missile tracking satellites through new Space Force contract
The intended market is orbital manufacturing: pharmaceuticals, protein crystals, semiconductors, and advanced optical fiber that physically cannot be produced in the presence of gravity. FAA documents describe Starfall’s long-term purpose as building a “self-sustaining commercial in-space manufacturing market” and as a potential successor to the industrial capabilities of the International Space Station, which is set to retire in the late 2020s. Military rapid global cargo delivery is a parallel application under active discussion with the Pentagon.
The reason some industries seek manufacturing in space comes down to gravity. On Earth, gravity causes materials to settle, separate, and deform during production. In microgravity, those constraints disappear.
SpaceX’s already controls launch access, which means it currently functions as the landlord for every competitor in the orbital manufacturing return space. Starfall converts that landlord position into vertical ownership, and it would no longer just carry other companies’ capsules to orbit, but rather operate the capsule, own the return logistics, and capture the service revenue directly. Viewed alongside Starlink, Colossus, and the xAI merger, Starfall fits a consistent pattern: SpaceX identifying infrastructure layers that others depend on and moving to own them outright. Orbital manufacturing return is the next layer on that list.
If Tuesday’s reentry, parachute sequence, and recovery demonstration goes as planned, the second FAA-approved test flight follows. A successful pair of demos would position SpaceX to begin offering Starfall as a commercial service, likely first to pharmaceutical and materials science customers before scaling toward the military and broader manufacturing segments.
Elon Musk responds to SpaceX’s ESG rating and says its rockets won’t go electric
Tesla just trademarked MEGAPOD: here’s what it is
