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

61–70 of 203 posts

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

#61

Post by lazide »

boringg wrote: post #26
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.

I mean SpaceX is trying to colonize mars, if it doesn't manage to pull off this risky gambit we might as well make our only livable planet unlivable in the process. Seems like a good way to operate. At least we will have some cool space tech too.

There is currently no known way a Mars colony could be economically self sustaining or self contained. Literally zero.

So unless there is something truly magical up someone’s sleeve, we need to keep Earth workable for us for the foreseeable future. And I think that is a good thing.

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

#62

Post by ESGHound »

Hi, Author here.

FAA's document is subject to NEPA and table 2.1 in the PEA considers the gas plant and power plant to be in scope. FAA is the overseeing agency for this action so it doesn't matter that it's not in "FAA's domain"

FERC and DOE do these types of NEPA approvals all the time and include full EPA participation.

SpaceX and FAA didn't consult with EPA and that was likely intentional. This is essentially an unprecedented action under NEPA. Feel free to shoot emails or ask questions. Finally getting lots of attention here.

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

#63

Post by RobLach »

aazaa wrote: post #53

The article shows many tables without ever quoting sources. In the previous article in the series, the author claims: > ... I’m a “forensic environmental data specialist” (I invented the term just now). I use the troves of free to the public data located in regulatory submittals and permits to extract useful information. ... Great. If free to the public, where are the links? Clicking on those table images just links…

The sheets are linked in previous parts of the series, as well as the data.

For example: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xO-OsDaQBnaCDGqHAtbz...

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

#64

Post by antattack »

schiffern wrote: post #17
brabel wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anyone had any doubt about whether Elon really had the environment in mind when he founded Tesla, I think now you've got your answer. In fact, most people driving electric cars likely wouldn't think twice about building a fracked well if they knew they could make millions from that... if they really cared about the environment, they wouldn't even drive around.

>If anyone had any doubt about whether Elon really had the environment in mind when he founded Tesla, I think now you've got your answer. This sort of "tribal purity" logic is silly: "if you've ever done anything negative, it means you never intended to do anything positive." This is nothing but the environmentalism equivalent of the old "you're either with us or against us, we're at war!" fallacy. Rockets have alway…

SpaceX will pay hefty taxes if carbon tax is implemented, yet Musk is still strong proponent of carbon tax.

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

#65

Post by lvs »

Qworg wrote: post #46
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.

The EPA doesn't have a dog in this fight - the feds don't have much of a role at all, unless it is on federal lands of a particular class that would trigger special protections (ie National Park). Piping gas across state lines can involve the feds, or if they impign on a wetland or waterway. There's no interstate commerce to trigger any substantial federal involvement that I can see. Texas was an inspired choice - Ca…

This is not entirely true. The EPA has federal authorities under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the Safe Water Drinking Act to regulate wastes derived from extraction activity into air and water supplies. The exemptions and authorities are complex, but it's incorrect to say there's no federal regulation over this activity in the state of Texas.

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

#66

Post by Denvercoder9 »

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.

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

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

#67

Post by smcl »

ESGHound wrote: post #62

Hi, Author here. FAA's document is subject to NEPA and table 2.1 in the PEA considers the gas plant and power plant to be in scope. FAA is the overseeing agency for this action so it doesn't matter that it's not in "FAA's domain" FERC and DOE do these types of NEPA approvals all the time and include full EPA participation. SpaceX and FAA didn't consult with EPA and that was likely intentional. This is essentially an…

I loved the TrashFuture ep you were on :D

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

#69

Post by dragontamer »

Jweb_Guru wrote: post #21
Ericson2314 wrote: post #13

Guess solar isn't so good at industrial scale, eh? They should go build some fission reactors instead.

Yeah wow you sure showed those people trying to power rockets with solar power.

The FAA document is pretty clear on this subject.

SpaceX is building a 1MW solar plant and a 250MW natural gas plant. See the document in question: https://www.faa.gov/space/stakeholder_engagement/spacex_star...

Just Ctrl-F on "250 MW", to find page 130/131, which discusses the 1MW solar + 250MW natural gas plan.

--------

As such, we know how they're planning on powering the rocket. With traditional natural gas methodologies: a 250MW natural gas power plant, as well as this liquid-natural-gas processing plant.

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

#70

Post by ESGHound »

lvs wrote: post #65
Qworg wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EPA doesn't have a dog in this fight - the feds don't have much of a role at all, unless it is on federal lands of a particular class that would trigger special protections (ie National Park). Piping gas across state lines can involve the feds, or if they impign on a wetland or waterway. There's no interstate commerce to trigger any substantial federal involvement that I can see. Texas was an inspired choice - Ca…

This is not entirely true. The EPA has federal authorities under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the Safe Water Drinking Act to regulate wastes derived from extraction activity into air and water supplies. The exemptions and authorities are complex, but it's incorrect to say there's no federal regulation over this activity in the state of Texas.

It's not true at all. Federal regulations dictate most environmental standards and in top of that TCEQ is a very competent and at times tough regulator.

EPA definitely has a dog in the fight, especially considering that a 250 megawatt power plant would be a literal "major stationary source" under the clean air act

Post reply on HN