Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla's lithium refinery discharges 231,000 gallons of polluted wastewater a day

autonocion.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 272 posts

Re: Tesla's lithium refinery discharges 231,000 gallons of polluted wastewater a day

#101

Post by SoftTalker »

landl0rd wrote: post #96
SoftTalker wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about: Strontium at 1.17 mg/L That seems like a misprint? Strontium is a fission byproduct. And that seems like a high amount if that's milligrams per liter.

Not really; strontium is quite common in the crust. In the oceans it occurs in the single-digit mg/L. This isn't a meaningful datapoint. The entire article doesn't show particularly concerning findings and the protests read more like nimbyism than environmental concern. Industrial processes have some non-zero level of impact and complaining when someone runs one that's not very polluting at all is letting the perfect…

Yes just searched it and found:

While natural strontium (which is mostly the isotope strontium-88) is stable, the synthetic strontium-90 is radioactive and is one of the most dangerous components of nuclear fallout, as strontium is absorbed by the body in a similar manner to calcium. Natural stable strontium is not hazardous to health at low levels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strontium

I guess I didn't realize that strontium had a stable naturally-occuring isotope.

Re: Tesla's lithium refinery discharges 231,000 gallons of polluted wastewater a day

#103

Post by Etheryte »

tekne wrote: post #27
bayindirh wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, it's fine as long as it's legal, then? How about when it enters the food chain and starts to accumulate? Will the elements say that "we're under legal limits, and accumulate slowly, so we will act nice and don't poison the organism we're in?" Love that way of thinking.

I mean... if it's got a similar amount of toxin X to drinking water... then it's probably not making things much worse. There is lead in dirt!

The upper limit does not mean that water actually has that amount in it regularly.

Re: Tesla's lithium refinery discharges 231,000 gallons of polluted wastewater a day

#104

Post by giarc »

semiquaver wrote: post #83
TheJoeMan wrote: post #53

[flagged]

How is that a half truth? If you read the article it’s clear that this discharge is fully permitted and legal. All the substances they portray so shockingly were found at barely detectable levels. I read the whole article and I don’t really understand what is being criticized, if not manufacturing itself. Do people think it’s possible to make a massive battery factory with zero industrial waste water output? Or do th…

Not OP but, half truth is here "remains in complete compliance with all requirements of its state-issued wastewater discharge permit" and yet... "Neither hexavalent chromium nor arsenic appears in Tesla’s TCEQ discharge permit as an allowable pollutant." Both which were found in the waste water. The original test did not test for those, so I guess what the guy was saying was true at a time?

Re: Tesla's lithium refinery discharges 231,000 gallons of polluted wastewater a day

#105

Post by cucumber3732842 »

unglaublich wrote: post #77
TheJoeMan wrote: post #53

[flagged]

(Local) Governments are compliant / bought out to bend to the will of whatever company is providing them with some bucks.

Kinda like when municipalities adopt rules they don't really agree with or think serves their interest because the state says they need to to quality for grant bucks? (and of course the feds to the same to the states)

However dirty you think the sausage factory is it's worse.

Re: Tesla's lithium refinery discharges 231,000 gallons of polluted wastewater a day

#106

Post by IshKebab »

Waterluvian wrote: post #11
porphyra wrote: post #4

Obviously, discharging "dark and murky" polluted water is bad. But some of the figures from the lab report don't seem that terrible: * Hexavalent chromium at 0.0104 milligrams per liter, just above the lab’s reporting limit of 0.01 mg/L. Hexavalent chromium is classified as a known human carcinogen by the US National Toxicology Program. It is the substance the Erin Brockovich case was built around. * Arsenic at 0.002…

If I wanted to fall under that reporting limit, can I just dilute my wastewater a bit more?

Presumably. But they are also limited on the volume of wastewater they are allowed to discharge, so it probably wouldn't be an ideal "solution".

Re: Tesla's lithium refinery discharges 231,000 gallons of polluted wastewater a day

#107

Post by whimsicalism »

bayindirh wrote: post #18
porphyra wrote: post #4

Obviously, discharging "dark and murky" polluted water is bad. But some of the figures from the lab report don't seem that terrible: * Hexavalent chromium at 0.0104 milligrams per liter, just above the lab’s reporting limit of 0.01 mg/L. Hexavalent chromium is classified as a known human carcinogen by the US National Toxicology Program. It is the substance the Erin Brockovich case was built around. * Arsenic at 0.002…

So, it's fine as long as it's legal, then? How about when it enters the food chain and starts to accumulate? Will the elements say that "we're under legal limits, and accumulate slowly, so we will act nice and don't poison the organism we're in?" Love that way of thinking.

What a ridiculous comment for something that is obviously extremely +EV for the environment.

Re: Tesla's lithium refinery discharges 231,000 gallons of polluted wastewater a day

#108

Post by Symmetry »

fuzzy2 wrote: post #38
dvt wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, it's fine as long as it's legal, then? > Love that way of thinking. I mean.. yeah, kinda'? We live in a society made up of laws, that's kind of the premise. So if we don't think something is fine, we can make it illegal (and we often do). It's a pretty good way of thinking methinks, what's your alternative?

Dunno, maybe strive to release no pollutants at all? Then we wouldn't need all the pesky big government overreach.

In all of human history nobody has ever had a glass of water with literally no arsenic in it, there are trace amounts in every lake, river, and well. Even the ultra-purified water used in bleeding edge semiconductor fabrication has a lot more than 1 atom of arsenic per glass. In the far future humanity might obtain the technology to create water with literally no pollutants in it but that age has yet to arrive.

Re: Tesla's lithium refinery discharges 231,000 gallons of polluted wastewater a day

#109

Post by xg15 »

gdudeman wrote: post #92
xg15 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also a complete fiction in a world dominated by commercial interests, entrenched lobby groups, corrupt politicians and regulatory capture.

Is there an alternative? We live in a much, much cleaner world than we did 50 years ago. Legislation and environmental rules have worked. There are some areas where it could obviously be better, but also some areas where regulation is too strict (blocking housing, renewables, transit) and the system is evolving to address those. I think the loss of local media has made it harder for misdeeds to come to light, but I d…

I think a look at other countries would do well. There are many with much tighter regulations (e.g. EU countries, Singapore, Japan) and they seem to have good results with that.

> We live in a much, much cleaner world than we did 50 years ago. Legislation and environmental rules have worked.

I think prevention of pollution is one area where very tight regulation is absolutely needed, and this seems to be an argument for that.

Of course regulation can be weaponized and used as a tool to serve entrenched interests as well - but this is then more a problem with the overall political system. Also, I think a proof that this is the case is necessary instead of assuming it by default.

Re: Tesla's lithium refinery discharges 231,000 gallons of polluted wastewater a day

#110

Post by [deleted] »

john_strinlai wrote: post #20
rdtsc wrote: post #10

> Quality, the state environmental regulator known as TCEQ, had quietly issued Tesla a wastewater discharge permit on January 15, 2025. Are permits issued loudly usually?

i think they just meant "quietly" as in not notifying the Nueces County drainage department that a permit was granted in their area.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN