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

31–40 of 203 posts

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

#31

Post by DennisP »

speedybird wrote: post #5
stefan_ wrote: post #3

The context here seems to be that SpaceX is in fact building an old boring fracked well gas plant in federally protected land, but because they cursorily mention rockets and call it a "methane processing thingamajig" instead of what it plain is, the FAA who has no experience doing environmental review but is involved because rockets is all too happy to just nod it through.

How could it be that SpaceX is answerable only to the FAA and is immune to the EPA? Why is it on the FAA to regulate a well? I think the author of the article should work on including a bit more exposition and a bit less snark (if he actually intents to persuade people, anyway.) Also I'm a bit confused why people are surprised the methane for these rockets will come from a well. Did people really think Elon Musk was…

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.

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

#32

Post by consumer451 »

X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: post #28
zionic wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also don’t see what all the fuss is about here. SpaceX making a well to power the human colonization of mars is a drop in the bucket vs all the other wells in the state.

Ah yes, the "The ends justify the means" move.

I was just thinking about this phrase in regards to Musk about ten minutes ago.

“The ends” are the most laudable things I can imagine: electrifying the world and colonizing other celestial bodies.

While I love the goals, I am afraid of what a mission-driven person might rationalize and do to achieve them.

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

#33

Post by speedybird »

DisjointedHunt wrote: post #23
jeffbee wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbon from forest fires is part of the short-term carbon cycle because it came out of the atmosphere quite recently. It is fundamentally different from carbon found underground that was deposited before humans existed.

[Edit]: You’re a coward if you downvote to suppress an opinion without having the decency to engage in debate. Jesus. . You actually think carbon released from burning wood is exempt from the whole “making the planet unlivable” effect? Repeat that to yourself while you watch the skies turn red. That’s a ridiculous statement to make.

If you think wildfire smoke makes a region unlivable, then consider that before deciding where to live. Wildfires are a natural part of the ecological cycle in some parts of the world. You can fault California for botching their forest management by suppressing fires and consequently causing larger fires later on, but either way you will have to cope with the smoke.

(Also, the sky turning red is actually somewhat pretty. The real harm is what it does to your lungs. Better air filtration indoors is the answer to this, and happily, also a good way to mitigate the risk of respiratory diseases..)

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

#35

Post by bleh123 »

heavyset_go wrote: post #27
DisjointedHunt wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[Edit]: You’re a coward if you downvote to suppress an opinion without having the decency to engage in debate. Jesus. . You actually think carbon released from burning wood is exempt from the whole “making the planet unlivable” effect? Repeat that to yourself while you watch the skies turn red. That’s a ridiculous statement to make.

Forest fires are part of forests' natural life cycles and are, in general, carbon neutral. Forests fixate atmospheric carbon and release it through cellular respiration, decomposition and fires. That atmospheric carbon is then fixated again via vegetative growth. The issue is burning hydrocarbons we pump out of the ground, because doing so interrupts the equilibrium between atmospheric carbon and natural carbon sinks…

Can you cite a single reputable source that backs your claim that, specifically, the forest fires in California that released enough smoke and carbon that they reddened skies as far north as Seattle are part of the "Natural cycle" and are "Carbon Neutral"?

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

#36

Post by speedybird »

dpierce9 wrote: post #30
speedybird wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could it be that SpaceX is answerable only to the FAA and is immune to the EPA? Why is it on the FAA to regulate a well? I think the author of the article should work on including a bit more exposition and a bit less snark (if he actually intents to persuade people, anyway.) Also I'm a bit confused why people are surprised the methane for these rockets will come from a well. Did people really think Elon Musk was…

This is from 2016: https://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/blog/eagle-ford-shale... It suggests the FAA’s role is consideration of launch failure and safety on the proposed plant. FERC also evaluated the proposal. FERC doesn’t really do environmental reviews. Here is a document from April which at the time said EPA had no comment on the draft environmental impact statement as part of an interagency process: https://ww…

This makes sense. If the EPA is slacking and rubber-stamping things, that warrants investigation and criticism. But I'm not buying the angle that the FAA should be expected to enforce the EPA's rules. That's what the EPA is for.

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

#38

Post by hutzlibu »

DisjointedHunt wrote: post #23
jeffbee wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbon from forest fires is part of the short-term carbon cycle because it came out of the atmosphere quite recently. It is fundamentally different from carbon found underground that was deposited before humans existed.

[Edit]: You’re a coward if you downvote to suppress an opinion without having the decency to engage in debate. Jesus. . You actually think carbon released from burning wood is exempt from the whole “making the planet unlivable” effect? Repeat that to yourself while you watch the skies turn red. That’s a ridiculous statement to make.

"[Edit]: You’re a coward if you downvote to suppress an opinion without having the decency to engage in debate."

The other explanation would be, that your arguments and discussion style are not the best and not worth engaging with.

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

#40

Post by toomuchtodo »

consumer451 wrote: post #32
X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, the "The ends justify the means" move.

I was just thinking about this phrase in regards to Musk about ten minutes ago. “The ends” are the most laudable things I can imagine: electrifying the world and colonizing other celestial bodies. While I love the goals, I am afraid of what a mission-driven person might rationalize and do to achieve them.

The ends justify giving people like Musk wide latitude but keeping them in check when the negative externalities tip the scale away from the benefits.
Post reply on HN