Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tesla's NOx Problem: Model X Delay Explained? (dailykanban.com)

Posted by timothy on from the arranging-the-supply-chain dept.

An anonymous reader writes: It may not have come as a surprise that the NOx emissions violations discovered in some of Volkswagen's diesel engines have led to similar findings in cars from several other manufacturers. However, Daily Kanban's Edward Niedermeyer has discovered that a seemingly unlikely car maker has also received a Notice of Violation for NOx emissions: a thermal oxidizer used in Tesla's Fremont, CA plant produces far more of the reactive gases than the permit allows. According to Niedermeyer, the device is located at the paint shop destined for the Model X production and this environmental problem could well be the leading cause for the delay.

42 comments

  1. Self-reported by Big_Oh · · Score: 3, Informative

    FTA: "In fact, Daily Kanban has discovered that Tesla has self-reported an NOx noncompliance at its Fremont, CA factory that may be contributing to delays in the production of the firm’s new Model X SUV."

    1. Re:Self-reported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They may have self reported, but fact is, they claimed their site was going to produce .8 pounds of NOx per day, and their burner alone was producing as much as 1 pound per hour. And there's no indication on how long they'd been using it or how long they knew about it before reporting. You're probably looking for sympathy for them, but when you're producing 10x as much as you're supposed to be, that's pretty bad.

    2. Re:Self-reported by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why is NOx a problem at a static location anyway? I understand that they are hard to deal with in a vehicle because of weight and maintenance issues. But in this case they can just run the exhaust through an akaline mister or bubbler that could strip out nearly all the NOx. It shouldn't be that hard.

      Does anyone have Elon's cell number? Maybe I can give him a call and offer some suggestions.

    3. Re:Self-reported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To put that into perspective, the EPA reports the average annual NOx production for a passenger vehicle is about 18.32 lbs. If we say 1 lb per hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, that's 8760 lbs. Or about 478 cars. That's a worst-case if you're running it every second of the year. That's serious, but I wouldn't put it in the same category as knowingly and willfully cheating on smog tests. If they built more than 478 cars in a year, its still a net benefit.

    4. Re:Self-reported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any chance that will increase alkali or other emissions? Or noise emissions?

    5. Re:Self-reported by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Any chance that will increase alkali or other emissions?

      They don't vaporize, and any that were emitted as a mist would quickly settle out of the air. Ocean spray is alkaline. So is calcium rich spring water sold in grocery stores.

      Or noise emissions?

      There is no reason that a bubbler or mister would be noisy. Certainly less than the 100 ton stamping machines. The Tesla plant is located in Fremont next to I-880 in an industrial area, and it is a HUGE building surrounded by large parking lots. They are far away from anyone who would care about noise.

    6. Re:Self-reported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may have been a reasonable analysis if this oxidizer were the only source of pollutants during the production process of a Tesla Model X. Somehow I doubt that that is the case.

    7. Re:Self-reported by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      What you suggest isn't a reasonable analysis either, since it fails to account for the emissions from manufacturing conventional ICE cars.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    8. Re: Self-reported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares? This 'news' is just another planned distraction, another excuse why the "model x" hasn't shipped yet.

      The real reason is simple: it doesn't work. It isn't ready yet.

    9. Re:Self-reported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it a problem?

      The technical answer is: you still produce it, so what do you do with it when it's done and are you overloading the disposal sites with far more than you said you would.

      The real answer: the plant is in California; the environmentalist movement in the State government is batshit crazy. There's a drought now which is mostly caused by water conservation legislation that completely did the opposite of conserve water, and they can't get a massive solar installation up and running in the desert because a not-so-endangered gecko might-but-might-not be endangered by the power lines run from the solar plant to connect it to the grid; the environmentalists are holding up the environmentalists. Trying to get something environmentally sound through the byzantine bueraucracy of the California State government is like trying to navigate an insane asylum blindfolded and being chased by the sociopaths.

    10. Re: Self-reported by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the 5 people who got the early production versions 2 months ago, that their cars don't work.

    11. Re: Self-reported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10x? Your math seems questionable. One pound per hour is 24 pounds per day if the plant runs non-stop, which is only three times 8 pounds/day.

    12. Re: Self-reported by dl_sledding · · Score: 1

      RTFA:

      "Tesla estimated its plant’s NOx emissions would be just .8 pounds per day". NOT 8 POUNDS, 8/10 OF A POUND. So, estimating 10 times as much is closer than your 3. In actuality, it'd be more like 30 times as much.

      That's if the furnace was running at 100%, 24 hours per day. Which is probably not true, but must be considered.

      Fucking dumbass AC.

    13. Re: Self-reported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "trying to navigate an insane asylum blindfolded and being chased by the sociopaths"

      Sounds like horror franchise waiting to be made.

  2. Everyone is cheating by Spinlock_1977 · · Score: 0, Troll

    So the other car manufacturers are cheating too? Who saw this coming: http://geekcrumbs.com/2015/10/...

    --
    - The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
    1. Re:Everyone is cheating by NotInHere · · Score: 0

      Why was this modded down?

    2. Re:Everyone is cheating by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      Because the cheating the OP is referring to is emissions from the car and what the article is talking about is emissions from the manufacturing process. They are different issues. It is impossible to do a tear down on another company's manufacturing plant.

  3. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That article is full of bullshit, they are saying that the painting of the cars doesn't meet some requirement.

    The painting of the cars is not the difficult part, they can use any process any other car manufacturer uses.

    This is just talk for the sake of the words and the propaganda.

    1. Re:Bullshit by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      The painting is not the issue. It is the disposal of all the VOCs from the painting process and it looks like the oxidizer is running at too low a temperature and producing too much NOx.

    2. Re:Bullshit by confused+one · · Score: 1

      other way around. NOx formation occurs at higher temperatures.

    3. Re:Bullshit by nnull · · Score: 1

      You can tell this is a hit piece and someone actually went to the trouble to dig this crap out. Who the hell reports on permit violations? Seriously, I can go to any manufacturer and find a lot of places with either no permits or violating a whole lot of regulations, yet it goes unreported or no one even cares. Why this focus on Tesla's manufacturing equipment? What next? Are they going to report that Tesla's equipment is not according to plans and the power to the place should be shut down?

      In the meantime, from the sounds of this AQMD report, it sounds like Tesla should just move this operation to Mexico like every other manufacturer that requires printing or painting. AQMD's nonsense has brought absolute misery to a lot of people in California which forces them to use more inferior products to operate in California and unable to compete with other businesses out of state or in Mexico. A lot of places don't even require these type of incinerators which costs a huge amount of money, energy and there is ZERO return on them. We don't use them to generate energy (Unless you have a smart engineer design something clever to use this heat for something, which I doubt, our engineers are stupid) and they use up more precious fuel to burn all this crap.

    4. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1) These environmental guidelines are useful for sustaining life on earth.

      2) Moving to Mexico won't help.

      3) If you are worried about not being able to compete with Mexico, argue to your (potential) customers.

    5. Re:Bullshit by khallow · · Score: 1

      1) These environmental guidelines are useful for sustaining life on earth.

      They are apparently more useful for sustaining life outside of the US than they are inside the US.

      2) Moving to Mexico won't help.

      It'll help Tesla and Mexico a great deal.

      3) If you are worried about not being able to compete with Mexico, argue to your (potential) customers.

      Are your potential customers going to adjust US regulations? Or are they going to buy a more expensive product just to save a negligible amount of pollution emissions?

    6. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a small cadre of people who are constantly harping on Tesla because they're shorting the stock.
      Mark B Spiegel ("Logical Thought" on Seeking Alpha) is notorious for the number of negative articles on Tesla & Musk and tweets anywhere from 10 - 50 anti-Tesla
      brainfarts daily.
      And he's far from alone.

    7. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That makes zero sense.
      High temperatures produce NOx. If they're running at too low a temperature and they're dramatically exceeding their NOx budget then fixing the former problem is going to make the latter worse.

  4. Niedermeyer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A pledge pin? On your uniform?"
                    - Niedermeyer

  5. Re:Bullshit; maybe not! by TimSSG · · Score: 1
    You are thinking that at least one US manufacturer process is actually following the EPA rules.
    I no longer think this can be taken for granted as being true!

    Tim S.

    That article is full of bullshit, they are saying that the painting of the cars doesn't meet some requirement.

    The painting of the cars is not the difficult part, they can use any process any other car manufacturer uses.

    This is just talk for the sake of the words and the propaganda.

  6. California by daninaustin · · Score: 2

    It just serves as another reminder of why you don't build a manufacturing plant in California.

    1. Re:California by nnull · · Score: 2

      The problem is that California has all the logistical capacity and ports in the state that drops costs down dramatically, especially when a lot of final production manufacturing is still in California. So you're still going to have a very hard time competing against a business who deals with the bullshit regulations in California when their business is next to your huge potential client and next to every other supplier or have easy access to the port for shipping, bringing their costs down dramatically despite the bullshit. Most places in California have an advantage where a lot of manufacturers are very nearby. Try that in Idaho, where your delivery times will be 1-2 weeks from suppliers or clients, because they're all in California still.

      You might have better luck in Las Vegas or Reno, but when the I15 gets screwed up (Which it does quite often), you're pretty much screwed. Or Mexico, in Tijuana (Huge manufacturing base booming there), if border issues don't screw you up.

      Despite what people say, businesses are still coming to California, more so than they are moving out of the state. I'm not advocating that California is right in doing what it does, because I do think it's stupid, but it's not having this huge impact as some people think because of what I stated above. People for now are still willing to deal with the bullshit as the total costs balance out compared to other places. Most of the businesses you hear about leaving are usually the ones without permits and some of the crappiest equipment you could possibly imagine.

    2. Re:California by RubberDogBone · · Score: 4, Informative

      They didn't "build it" as such. The Tesla plant is the old GM/Toyota NUMMI plant which built collaborative Toyota and GM cars and pickups for years, which was in turn a GM-exclusive plant for years before that.

      It's an OLD car plant, modernized and updated no doubt by Tesla. But Tesla certainly didn't build all of it. They simply grabbed the otherwise disused NUMMI plant for cheap. There were a LOT of good reasons for doing that, ranging from existing infrastructure dedicated to building cars, to workers from what was one of the world's best car factories, to local suppliers, machines, room to expand, etc. Reusing NUMMI was a great idea for Tesla and everyone else too.

      This paint booth problem can and will be solved. It won't be enough to stop Tesla or any other auto maker. It's merely something they need to fix.

      --
      Sig for hire.
    3. Re:California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that many of the businesses leaving California aren't interested in doing anything to help clean up the environment or to provide a modicum of worker protections. They'd rather leave, and I say it's a damn good riddance.

    4. Re:California by daninaustin · · Score: 1

      I see the point about Idaho, etc, but we have ports in Texas and have been taking a lot of jobs from California already.

    5. Re:California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, according to the article, they are already in the process of fixing it:

      "Furthermore Tesla’s schedule of compliance for A1002 indicates that the oxidizer will not be compliant until January 30 of 2016, because Tesla is refurbishing a replacement oxidizer rather than purchasing a new unit."

      So, they ratted themselves out, while already in the process of fixing the problem.

      I really don't understand why this is a story of any great import. Especially since (again, from the article):

      "Specifically, under the assumption that the plant produces 20,000 units per year production of the Tesla Model S would emit 6 fewer pounds per day of NOx emission than a typical automobile manufacturing plant, eliminating almost 90% of associated emissions."

      They could have simply stated to the EPA that they were going to be producing 6.7 lbs/day NOx (the "typical automobile manufacturing plant" output), received their permit (because, that's what the EPA would expect, because "typical"), and had never gone out of compliance. Nowhere in the article does it state exactly how much NOx is being released per day (though it does state that the oxidizer, at full throttle of 10 million BTUs, can generate up to 1 lb/hour). The article does not state the burn rate, nor the hours per day. So any numbers are guesswork, and Tesla has simply stated that they are noncompliant with their permit, not how far out of compliance.

      The funny thing is, they are using this furnace to destroy VOCs, another California pollutant. So, to stay compliant with the VOC output, they are emitting NOx. Just to make Cali happy. What a rat race.

    6. Re:California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because who wants manufacturing plants held to high environmental standards?

      We did to get it all to a place where we can just pollute the crap out of everything.

  7. A pound a day? by PPH · · Score: 1

    For the whole fscking plant? This is so far below the natural background level of NOx creation it is funny. But then I guess it isn't so funny if you are trying to do business in California.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:A pound a day? by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      The non compliance level is 1 lb per hour, as far as I can find there is no indication of how much NOx is being produced in the article beyond speculation.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  8. Coren22's "APKolypse" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "secretary at MalwareBytes took a look at his source code & said it looked all good" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015

    Mr. Steven Burn of Malwarebytes

    "yes I've seen the code & yes it is safe." FROM http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi...

    ---

    "we should avoid your crap it looks like malware." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

    60++ reputable sources say different:

    64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    &

    Installer-> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

    ---

    "privilege escalation's a bad thing" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015

    How else programmatically update it?

    "requires elevation to write hosts" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015

    Hypocrite later admits it - hosts do vs. WFP/SFP not my ware. Users set it not programmatic impersonation. Security wares need it.

    Coren22 IMPERSONATES RESPECTED MEMBERS OF THE SECURITY COMMUNITY http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    ---

    "MiTM... his software provides" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015

    Hardcoded favs users provide = REVERSE DNS verified & my ware filters 5,500++ false positives - security site hosts data = false positives filtered.

    ---

    "Apk doesn't think DNS servers are worth running & believes Microsoft Active Directory can run w/out DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015

    Show us where I say it? Not illogic logic but where I say it. I say AD needs internal DNS far back as 2007

    http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

    See "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers" there.

    APK

    P.S.=>

    "modding you down for trolling in your signature" - by Dog-Cow (21281) on Wednesday November 25, 2015

    Dog-Cow's (old acc't. no new sockpuppet from you) thoughts of your signatures about me

    ... apk

  9. Coren22's "APKolypse" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "secretary at MalwareBytes took a look at his source code & said it looked all good" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015

    Mr. Steven Burn of Malwarebytes

    "yes I've seen the code & yes it is safe." FROM http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi...

    ---

    "we should avoid your crap it looks like malware." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

    60++ reputable sources say different:

    64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    &

    Installer-> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

    ---

    "privilege escalation's a bad thing" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015

    How else programmatically update it?

    "requires elevation to write hosts" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015

    Hypocrite later admits it - hosts do vs. WFP/SFP not my ware. Users set it not programmatic impersonation. Security wares need it.

    Coren22 IMPERSONATES RESPECTED MEMBERS OF THE SECURITY COMMUNITY http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    ---

    "MiTM... his software provides" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015

    Hardcoded favs users provide = REVERSE DNS verified & my ware filters 5,500++ false positives - security site hosts data = false positives filtered.

    ---

    "Apk doesn't think DNS servers are worth running & believes Microsoft Active Directory can run w/out DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015

    Show us where I say it? Not illogic logic but where I say it. I say AD needs internal DNS far back as 2007

    http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

    See "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers" there.

    APK

    P.S.=>

    "modding you down for trolling in your signature" - by Dog-Cow (21281) on Wednesday November 25, 2015

    Dog-Cow's (old acc't. no new sockpuppet from you) thoughts of your signatures about me

    ... apk

  10. Coren22's impersonation "APKolypse" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coren22 IMPERSONATES RESPECTED MEMBERS OF THE SECURITY COMMUNITY http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    ---

    "privilege escalation's a bad thing" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015

    How else programmatically update it?

    "requires elevation to write hosts" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015

    Hypocrite later admits it - hosts do vs. WFP/SFP not my ware. Users set it not programmatic impersonation. Security wares need it.

    ---

    "secretary at MalwareBytes took a look at his source code & said it looked all good" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015

    Mr. Steven Burn of Malwarebytes

    "yes I've seen the code & yes it is safe." FROM http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi...

    ---

    "we should avoid your crap it looks like malware." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

    60++ reputable sources say different:

    64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    &

    Installer-> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

    ---

    "MiTM... his software provides" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015

    Hardcoded favs users provide = REVERSE DNS verified & my ware filters 5,500++ false positives - security site hosts data = false positives filtered.

    ---

    "Apk doesn't think DNS servers are worth running & believes Microsoft Active Directory can run w/out DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015

    Show us where I say it? Not illogic logic but where I say it. I say AD needs internal DNS far back as 2007

    http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

    See "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers" there.

    APK

    P.S.=>

    "modding you down for trolling in your signature" - by Dog-Cow (21281) on Wednesday November 25, 2015

    Dog-Cow's (old acc't. no new sockpuppet from you) thoughts of your signatures about me

    ... apk