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

Engineer demos how SpaceX is building fracked well gas plant

esghound.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 203 posts

Re: Engineer demos how SpaceX is building fracked well gas plant

#181

Post by rspeed »

XorNot wrote: post #168
mark212 wrote: post #103

What I can’t seem to find the answer to in this very long and stream-of-consciousness style series of posts is why the author thinks the FAA is the only relevant federal agency. They complain constantly about violating NEPA and accuse the FAA of just waiving this through … but there’s no way someone can operate a point-source emitter (e.g., large 250mw power station, let alone the natural gas processing facility) wit…

Having read the whole blog post series I agree. I can't figure out what the issue actually is meant to be here: the strongest argument is that the emissions SpaceX will have from the Starbase site itself will be higher then are being reported because the assumptions about the facility they're building are not accurate. This might be significant, although it's certainly an argument I have a hard time worrying about in…

All of those would need to get approval by the Texas DOE.

Re: Engineer demos how SpaceX is building fracked well gas plant

#182

Post by rspeed »

SergeAx wrote: post #136

On today's Lucy launch stream a huge torch was visible nearby. First stage was kerosene-powered, second was using hydrogen. I wonder if this torch is to burn hydrogen byproducts?

The torch would, most likely, be for emergency methane venting. They had previously used a torch for burning gaseous methane during de-tanking, but have since switched to a condenser to cool it back to a liquid. There would essentially be no reason not to continue that practice, particularly when they'll have a nearly unlimited supply of liquid nitrogen.

Re: Engineer demos how SpaceX is building fracked well gas plant

#183

Post by rspeed »

wolverine876 wrote: post #119
_3u10 wrote: post #39

Isn’t capturing and then flaring methane the environmentally responsible thing to do?

It's more responsible not to use natural gas, including by reducing energy usage. It's also more responsible to respect the rules made democratically by your fellow citizens then to try to cheat them.

Starship's engines burn methane.

Re: Engineer demos how SpaceX is building fracked well gas plant

#184

Post by SergeAx »

rspeed wrote: post #182
SergeAx wrote: post #136

On today's Lucy launch stream a huge torch was visible nearby. First stage was kerosene-powered, second was using hydrogen. I wonder if this torch is to burn hydrogen byproducts?

The torch would, most likely, be for emergency methane venting. They had previously used a torch for burning gaseous methane during de-tanking, but have since switched to a condenser to cool it back to a liquid. There would essentially be no reason not to continue that practice, particularly when they'll have a nearly unlimited supply of liquid nitrogen.

I was writing about Lucy launch, which used Atlas V rocket.

Re: Engineer demos how SpaceX is building fracked well gas plant

#185

Post by DennisP »

lazide wrote: post #55
DennisP wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ultimate plan is actually to make it from water and CO2 in the air, using the same tech they'll use to make methane on Mars for the return trip. They're just not there yet.

Sure, and I have a bridge to sell you. The technology already exists. Fundamentally (damn laws of thermodynamics) it is also a energy negative process, and hence expensive. It is far cheaper to just frack and burn fossil fuels (where that energy expense was paid however many millions of years ago by someone else), than it is to expend the energy to reverse the process - even if they were getting nearly free energy.

Of course it's energy-negative, nobody is claiming otherwise. Powering that from renewables will cost more. But the cost of fuel is a very small percentage of launch cost, and if they're doing a lot of launches then being able to say they're carbon-neutral would be pretty helpful for public acceptance. Politics and regulation are much more dangerous to them than a little extra cost in fuel.

Re: Engineer demos how SpaceX is building fracked well gas plant

#186

Post by ESGHound »

rspeed wrote: post #161
heavyset_go wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ESGHound is the source that broke this story[1] about SpaceX that was featured on TechCrunch last week, and this submission stems from that investigation. You might not like their style of writing, but it would be foolish to dismiss it because it offends your taste. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/08/the-mystery-of-elon-musks-...

His arguments don't make sense. This environmental study is being performed so that SpaceX can make five orbital launches per year from Boca Chica, but ESG Hound's numbers would be for more than ten per week. I've pointed this out to him and he responded with personal insults.

No, you tell me that everything I point out that is blatantly a violation must be a Typo. You don't understand emissions calculations and confidently claim expertise in something you just pulled up on Wikipedia.

I am well aware that they don't need a giant gas plant or 250 mw power plant, but that's exactly what they applied for. Your arguments are nonsensical so I stopped replying after repeatedly and calmly explaining the rules to you

Re: Engineer demos how SpaceX is building fracked well gas plant

#187

Post by DennisP »

lazide wrote: post #84
Denvercoder9 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX wants to make a roundtrip to Mars, though. There's no fossil fuels on Mars.

And if it doesn’t make any economic sense to do it here, where it is super convenient, shipping it to Mars (with nothing of known value there to return or any known economic model that could make it worthwhile) to do it there is going to be worth it? Not saying all human endeavor needs to have a healthy profit margin. SpaceX is a business however and besides doing it for the lulz, or getting a government contract, it…

If you want to go to Mars, it's way cheaper to get your return fuel from Mars instead of carrying it all the way to Mars from Earth. If you want to get your return fuel from Mars, then you have to make it, there aren't any convenient natural gas deposits that we know of.

This isn't an original SpaceX idea. Robert Zubrin pointed it out back in 1990 with his Mars Direct plan.

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

Re: Engineer demos how SpaceX is building fracked well gas plant

#188

Post by xyzzy21 »

Well, given that the SpaceX rocket engine runs on methane and a lot of it, it makes sense that they'd need a cheap and plentiful source of that methane (aka natural gas). The cheapest way to get it now is by fracking - the infrastructure exists and is cheaper than technologies (and reserves) used 50 years ago.

Re: Engineer demos how SpaceX is building fracked well gas plant

#189

Post by dragontamer »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #143
wolverine876 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am surprised (as I am usually) at the emotional content of these sorts of things. You're surprised by emotional content of politicized issues, such as the environment and anything Elon Musk?

Yes I am. Contextually Texas has a huge methane problem[1] and there is every indication that SpaceX will run their facility in a responsible way. What people "get" for SpaceX running that activity is a space capability that is superior to every other nation on the planet. I do understand being emotional about the environment and a desire to preserve it in the presence of people and the activities that we have to do…

> and there is every indication that SpaceX will run their facility in a responsible way.

Wouldn't a "responsible way" include applying for a NEPA permit correctly?

A big problem with this PEA is this pipeline + fracking hypothesis. The pipeline, and the wells, are completely missing from the document.

The document has clearly made assumptions: they assume that a pipeline has built, and they seem to assume raw natural gas. But there's literally no disclosure about the infrastructure.

As such: SpaceX is already making an irresponsible move. A responsible company would disclose the details of their planned pipeline and/or mining operations.

Re: Engineer demos how SpaceX is building fracked well gas plant

#190

Post by agar »

whatever1 wrote: post #176
agar wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, the primary use case of rockets (especially SpaceX) is satellite lift and ultimately Moon and Mars landing, not "wealthy tourists." Obviously the recent Inspiration4 launch shows that there will be tourist flights, but this appears to be the exception and not the norm (unlike Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic). Second, there are approximately 100,000 airline flights per day worldwide; American Airlines alone fli…

Even ExxonMobil by itself does not contribute more than 0.00001% to the total global emissions, and they keep our infrastructure running. So I guess nobody has to do anything about climate change since they individually represent a tiny fraction of the problem. Then why do the peasants pay renewable energy tax?

Why are you throwing out numbers like that while complaining about other people's unsourced information?

You are also using a strawman argument. I said people should focus on areas of great impact, not "nobody has to do anything." I'm beginning to think you are not interested a credible discussion.

This link refutes your assertion of ExxonMobil (they are responsible for 1.68% of global emissions), as well as answering why "the peasants pay renewable energy tax."

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/08/companies-highest-c...

> Exxon Mobil, which accounted for 1.98% of global emissions, the sixth highest percentage, ranked ninth among the top spending oil and gas companies, according to an OpenSecrets analysis of the IPCC report. The company’s PAC contributed $1.1 million to federal candidates in 2020, 78% of which went to Republicans. It also contributed $165,000 to other PACs and party committees last year, 97% of which went to Republican groups.

Post reply on HN