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

141–150 of 272 posts

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

#141

Post by wil421 »

wongarsu wrote: post #133
tremon wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm confused, does Tesla have the right to dump water or not? I would assume that this is exactly what a permit is for? If you have a permit to dump wastewater into a river, you are not allowed to dump your wastewater wherever in that river's basin on the assumption that it will eventually flow into the river. You are supposed to use a pipeline for wastewater transfer.

But according to the article the permit is for dumping wastewater into a ditch. And Tesla appears to deliver the wastewater to that ditch by pipe. And it doesn't appear like the pipe is the topic of contention here, but where it ends and what comes out of it. All things that seem to be properly permitted, from what the article is telling us

They have a permit to dump water but not put it in the ditch where the pipe runs.

They need to get it to a body of water, not a ditch. Dumping into the drainage ditch or running a pipe in the drainage ditch requires a separate permit.

The water quality is also questionable. Tesla and the drainage company are at odds on the testing method.

At least that’s my understanding of the situation

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

#142

Post by ggreer »

Braxton1980 wrote: post #112
something765478 wrote: post #91

> The permit, a Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System authorization known as TPDES, allowed up to 231,000 gallons of treated wastewater per day to be discharged into an unnamed ditch that flows into Petronila Creek and from there into Baffin Bay, a longtime South Texas saltwater fishing destination. Ok, so sounds like Tesla got the necessary legal provisions. > What it did not do, explicitly, was grant Tesla t…

Would Eurofins be able to set up monitoring on Tesla's property? What other sources would have similar pollutants to a Lithium factory? It seems pretty specific and if there was some other obvious source why wouldn't Tesla point that out?

Hexavalent chromium can come from many industrial sources, including welding stainless steel. If you go to Tesla's lithium refinery in google maps[1] and follow the drainage ditch along highway 77 (to the northeast) about a half mile, you'll see a company called Tex-Isle Processing. They supply steel pipes and coating services for oil drilling.[2] It could be that one of their manufacturing processes creates hexavalent chromium.

In my opinion there isn't enough information to blame anyone for the slightly-above-drinking-water levels of hexavalent chromium. The drainage ditch goes along a highway and a rail line, so pollution could come from all kinds of places.

1. https://maps.app.goo.gl/7iNTbiPcs1sZ9CqP8

2. https://www.texisle.com/

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

#143

Post by xg15 »

something765478 wrote: post #91

> The permit, a Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System authorization known as TPDES, allowed up to 231,000 gallons of treated wastewater per day to be discharged into an unnamed ditch that flows into Petronila Creek and from there into Baffin Bay, a longtime South Texas saltwater fishing destination. Ok, so sounds like Tesla got the necessary legal provisions. > What it did not do, explicitly, was grant Tesla t…

> allowed up to 231,000 gallons of treated wastewater per day

What I'd like to know is what "treated" means here and whether the pollutants measured in the water are in compliance of that definition.

After all, the problem that there is an important fishing area downstream does not go away, whether there is a permit or not. So in my understanding, the whole reason why the permit could be issued in the first place was the assurance that the water was treated enough to not be a danger to downstream consumers. But pitch black fluid with questionable analysis results doesn't exactly seem like that.

> As the article itself says, that is a legitimate argument.

Technically yes, but I think it's somewhat unlikely that there just happens to be a chromium/arsenic/lithium/strontium deposit somewhere along the length of the ditch that would re-pollute Tesla's pristine wastewater and make the readings look bad.

Or at least, the question whether there are any potential other sources for the substances should be easy to answer, by looking at a map or sending someone to check the ditch for any other unexpected pipes.

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

#144

Post by pfdietz »

SoftTalker wrote: post #101
landl0rd wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

There are only two elements below the actinides that have no stable isotopes (technetium and promethium).

I include bismuth as stable even though technically it is radioactive with an extraordinarily long half life.

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

#145

Post by stinkbeetle »

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.

Wonderful to see so many people here embracing skepticism when it comes to government institutions, bureaucrats, and their "experts".

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

#146

Post by 1234letshaveatw »

xg15 wrote: post #143
something765478 wrote: post #91

> The permit, a Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System authorization known as TPDES, allowed up to 231,000 gallons of treated wastewater per day to be discharged into an unnamed ditch that flows into Petronila Creek and from there into Baffin Bay, a longtime South Texas saltwater fishing destination. Ok, so sounds like Tesla got the necessary legal provisions. > What it did not do, explicitly, was grant Tesla t…

> allowed up to 231,000 gallons of treated wastewater per day What I'd like to know is what "treated" means here and whether the pollutants measured in the water are in compliance of that definition. After all, the problem that there is an important fishing area downstream does not go away, whether there is a permit or not. So in my understanding, the whole reason why the permit could be issued in the first place was…

ggreer did the work for us https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48199824

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

#147

Post by Aurornis »

MisterTea wrote: post #123
cucumber3732842 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That is how car manufacturers worked around the old tail pipe emission laws. They added air pumps plumbed to the exhaust manifold(s) to increase the exhaust mass diluting the stream enough to pass emissions tests. Problem solved! I'm sure that people of a certain bent will eat your comment up but that's just not true. Air pumps were for catalyst efficiency. The old ones needed extra oxygen molecules floating around…

> Air pumps were for catalyst efficiency. The old ones needed extra oxygen molecules floating around for the big stuff (hydrocarbons) to oxidize with until the catalyst was up to operating temp and working at peak-ish efficiency. My experience comes from driving and working on a 1988 GMC 6000 truck with an anemic 350 small block with a Muncie SM465 behind it. There was no catalytic converter, only a muffler. It featu…

> My experience comes from driving and working on a 1988 GMC 6000 truck with an anemic 350 small block with a Muncie SM465 behind it. There was no catalytic converter,

Catalytic converters were required on most vehicles starting in 1975 in the US and the requirement was expanded to cover all vehicles in the early 80s.

Your truck was modified by someone.

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

#148

Post by beloch »

DOGE explicitly made gutting the EPA a top priority, which is probably why drainage workers are making these discoveries and not inspectors. Pretty much any company linked to Musk should be under increased scrutiny now. The trouble is, anyone who performs that scrutiny is likely to face intimidation and "lawfare".

Americans should carefully watch what happens to these workers and their county in the coming months. Beyond that, they should ask who is still keeping an eye on polluters in 2026.

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

#150

Post by Aurornis »

MisterTea wrote: post #57
Waterluvian wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That is how car manufacturers worked around the old tail pipe emission laws. They added air pumps plumbed to the exhaust manifold(s) to increase the exhaust mass diluting the stream enough to pass emissions tests. Problem solved!

This is completely false.

The ECU turns on the secondary air system and enriches the fuel mixture so the exhaust temperature goes up, heating the catalytic converter rapidly. Catalytic converters must be hot to work, so getting them hot quickly is important.

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

EDIT: OP drove an older truck. In earlier days, the extra air injection into the exhaust was to provide some air for the secondary exhaust gasses to fully burn. It had to be done early in the exhaust where the exhaust gases are hot.

Post reply on HN