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.
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.
Some more context. If I understand correctly this gas plant is need to power a desalination plant which is need to produce massive amounts of water which will be used to implement a sound suppression deluge system that is required by the FAA. Salt water will corrode everything and there isn't existing water and gas infrastructure in place to lean on. ie they have to build the stack from scratch.
Methane is typically the vast majority of the gas, I figured they were burning it for desalination too, but it makes sense if they are burning just the other fraction.
Perhaps there's a more efficient place to build the facility, perhaps someplace with abundant water so that you don't have to spend all this energy to create it?
You need water to your east (because you can't fly over people for safety reasons), for a really long way. As in launches from texas have to dodge Florida, Cuba and all the other islands over there.
You need very low population density (because rocket launches and landings require large exclusion zones).
You need to be in the US, because of export restrictions.
You want to be as far south as possible, for efficiency reasons (to get as much kinetic energy from the earths rotation as possible).
You are looking at this launch site, attempting to acquire a lot of land on Florida's coast (not really feasible anymore, it's all occupied), or launching from tiny islands/ocean platforms which will have the exact same fresh water issues.
>You want to be as far south as possible, for efficiency reasons
It is absolutely true that a rocket launched at the equator gets the biggest boost from the Earth's rotation, but stuff isn't put into orbit just for fun, it's often because you want it pass over a specified part of the Earth's surface. To pass over CONUS you need some inclination, and the more inclined an orbit is the less assist you get from the planet's rotation. A polar orbit (inclination 90 degrees) has no assist, and a sun-synchronous orbit is slightly retrograde, where you then want to launch as far north as possible, so you don't have to cancel out as much rotation velocity!
The Soviets put their launch site at 45.9 degrees north not because they're bizarrely stupid, but because they'd like their orbits to pass over Russia. Similarly, no Starlink satellite has had an inclination lower than 42 degrees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Constellation_design_...
Going forward, depending on how much interplanetary traffic there will be, you can imagine Guiana Space Centre (Which is currently hosting JWST, destined for a Lagrange point) will see more traffic, but right now almost everything has some amount of inclination.
For normal moderately inclined orbits the boost is still greatest at the equator, just always less than for non inclined orbits (until you start launching retrograde).
The soviet launch site was indeed chosen for other reasons than maximizing payload... in particular I think I recall that it was largely motivated by avoiding launching over China, and being in an empty enough part of the world that it's unlikely to kill to many people (despite launching over land).
> or launching from tiny islands/ocean platforms which will have the exact same fresh water issues.
If launching from an ocean platform, then fresh water seems pretty easy to bring in via tanker. That's less workable at Boca Chica, or on most tiny islands - where ports for decent-sized tankers are scarce.
Thank you! Now I'm thinking of course ... Puerto Rico? I don't know how much fresh water there is, or if there's available and suitable land on the east coast. Are Georgia or South Carolina too far north?
Hmm, no I don't think Georgia or South Carolina are too far north, I'd be more worried that their coasts look pretty populated - and generally I'd expect that to be doubly the case around river mouths.
To put some numbers on the "north"ness.
Boca chica is at 26 degrees north, which gives you 416 m/s free velocity (1500 km/h) [1]. The southernmost point of Georgia's coast is at 30 degrees or 401 m/s, the southernmost point of South Carolina's coast is at 32 degrees or 393 m/s.
Actually calculating payload to orbit is more work that I don't really want to do, but you can find someone else who put in the work on this stack overflow question [2], just for different latitudes and a different rocket. 28 to 30 degrees is roughly a .3% change in payload capacity in their model.
You're definitely not the first to suggest Peurto Rico, but I think you have the same problem of there not being enough empty land [3].
The Puerto Rico Ports Authority is actually currently evaluating proposals received in response to an RFI for developing a spaceport in the site of the old Roosevelt Roads US Naval Air Base in Ceiba, on the eastern tip of the island.
Because the rocket is so huge, they need to build it either next to a waterway for barge transport, or right next to the launch pad which has to be on the coast
Thanks. Next question: Inland waterways are fresh water, and generally they carry the largest volume of water near the coast, so why not build next to a river?
I guess you're alluding to KSC or Cape Canaveral? As far as I know they pipe their water in from a neighboring town. Do they actually have enough fresh water to support the launch cadence SpaceX is planning for?
They are also skirting a full environmental review by getting it initially approved as a fuel processing plant only and then getting incremental additions approved under a process with less oversight. So while the plan was always to have a pipeline and in addition to the NG plant, it was initially permitted only for the NG part (under the deceptive description as "rocket fuel") and to process relatively clean NG, and the additional expansions are each deemed to be of "small" relative impact compared to the initial project, until you have a much more environmentally destructive facility that would never be approved if proposed wholesale.
Replying to myself because I misremembered some of the particulars: The Environmental Impact Assesment was initially done for the rocket launch facility in 2014. All improvements and changes have been conducted as small or incremental changes, which require an amendment to the assessment, rather than a new assessment, a process with much less oversight. The fuel facility is being approved through the amendment process even though it represents a substantial change, and it has thus far excluded study of additional parts of the facility that will be required for it to function as presented.
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 - California would have been a knife fight regulatorily.
> Texas was an inspired choice - California would have been a knife fight regulatorily.
California is also just on the wrong coast. You almost always want to launch eastward so you get the free rotational velocity from the earth to help you reach orbit, for the same reason you want to be as close to the equator as possible, and you can't (regulatory/safety wise) have a flight path over land. From within mainland US the only reasonable options are Texas and Florida.
The exceptions to this are polar orbits (for which the rotation of earth just doesn't help) and the rare military spy satellite that wants a retrograde orbit for ... reasons. The US/SpaceX does launch out of california for those orbits, but it's a small fraction of launches.
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
I don't know anything about this sort of regulation, but it might be worth noting that the PEA does indicate that SpaceX will be seeking a permit from TCEQ (on page 42 of the PEA)
> SpaceX would apply for authorization under the Oil and Gas Standard Permit with the TCEQ and adhere to any permit conditions
did you read the article? they are building a methane refining facility. The author is speculating that it will be capable of refining gas which has been mined by fracking. that's the extent of the story...
Please cite your claim of "SpaceX is in fact building an old boring fracked well gas plant"
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 going to stick a hose up a cow's ass to collect the methane?
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.
In short, it looks as if all the usual players are engaged here. While I suspect the FAA has considered the impact of Oil and gas infrastructure on flight paths and airports, I would guess their involvement in this kind of process is an extra layer, not a circumvention.
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.
The EPA was utterly gutted over the past 4 years. The sad part is that it takes much longer to rebuild than it does to tear down. The EPA being unable or unwilling to enforce environmental protections is by design.
Supposing the EPA is gutted as you suggest (my sibling comment suggests otherwise), it surely still has more capability and expertise when it comes to environmental regulation than the FAA. I think expecting the FAA to act as a surrogate EPA is expecting too much.
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.
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.
They will rely on the Sabatier process to produce fuel on other celestial bodies. And the corresponding technology must be tested first - why not in Boca Chica?
I don't think that anyone is trying to make the claim that SpaceX will use the Sabatier process to fuel Starships here on Earth right now routinely. As you say, gas is cheaper to buy here on Earth. But they still must have the technology mastered before they fly away from the low Earth orbit.
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.
Yup and musk also argues in favor of a carbon tax. He is openly hopeful that the fundamental economics will be changed to make producing their own methane via Sabatier economical.
It is up to the controllers of incentive structures to change the fundamentals of commerce/ecology.
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 doesn’t make much sense to try to spin up colonies or the like there. Everyone will starve and/or their US backers will go bankrupt pretty quick.
The big deal is that the well is seemingly exempt from the regulation all other wells go through.
It doesn't matter what Musk does with the methane, what matters is that he's at best exploiting loopholes and at worst operating extrajudicially.
Also, SpaceX "powering the human colonization of Mars" is a pretty huge sip of the Kool Aid there. Given the founder's track record, it's about as believable as "fully self-driving cars in a year".
But, more importantly, it's irrelevant to the problem at hand, sidestepping the regulation process
> "he's at best exploiting loopholes and at worst operating extrajudicially. [...] But, more importantly, it's irrelevant to the problem at hand, sidestepping the regulation process"
Again, the EPA exists, so where are they in this? What loophole is SpaceX using to skirt around the EPA?
IMHO SpaceX should get an exemption for national security purposes (For the same reason the US Military doesn’t need to abide by the EPA). Access to space is in the national interest. I don’t think something that has an immeasurable impact on the climate is anywhere close to being more important.
File a complaint with the Texas Railroad Commission and the US EPA, in all seriousness. If you need methane to escape the gravity well, follow the rules like everyone else in O&G.
"The FTSE 250 group, which is the largest well owner in the US with over 61,000 in its portfolio, found itself on the defensive after a Bloomberg report said several wells owned by the company were leaking methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas."
The document clearly states that Spacex has an application with the FAA for the use of the land as a Launch Site.
The subsidiary “Lone star mineral extraction” is an entity that purchased another company along with all their licenses for extraction rights in addition to seemingly applying for their own licenses.
I’d recommend you edit your comment to correct it. There is no sidestepping of regulations here, the regulations themselves cover different things and the article makes it sound like one set of regulations should cover these activities while clearly saying that it currently does not.
Well, what SpaceX is doing doesn't really matter. I can't just show up to Arkansas and say I'm fracking for oil to cure cancer and get hand-waved through. They're private entities, no matter what they're doing, and they're subject to the same scrutiny that everyone else puts up with.
That is ideally how it is supposed to work, but there are many examples of regulations being bypassed and other folks being stepped on to get a desired employer or a potentially lucrative investment into a place.
It doesn’t sound like it is happening here necessarily, but it does happen pretty frequently.
This is not true at all. Doubly not true when your program is subsidized by Federal dollars and takes place adjacent to protected federal lands.
The FAA is subject to NEPA review, and hence any SpaceX activity in this area must go through the same process as every other industrial activity that impacts federal interests.
Surely you know by now that Elon/SpaceX will get its fuel no matter what, even if it means trucking the fuel there, seems to me your best case scenario will increase net emissions.
Protecting the environment is not the point of this stunt, is it?
Another thought to add here - he also gets paid very well in a very concrete way to LOOK like he is doing those things, and if he never gets in a spaceship but still enjoys the billions? Hard life.
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.
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 to the images themselves.
The article itself is stream-of-consciousness writing with little effort to organize or edit down the useless brain droppings from this author. I bring this up because if the author wants to be taken seriously, style matters, as do bend-over-backwards efforts to document claims. Especially claims against large organizations with deep pockets.
Even for regular HN readers, it helps to be able to verify for oneself claims made of a quantitative nature.
I agree with you. This is poorly written, random snark. It seems sort of plausible but it’s like looking at a pile of Lego and thinking “Yeah, maybe you could make a Millennium Falcon from this I think?”
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.
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
Not sure why you are getting downvoted but the GP comment had a very specific request, link to the data source. You've no doubt got those links somewhere right? Adding a post of links to all the public filings would be a real asset here.
Would it be helpful to maybe discuss which step of the discussion that people are getting tripped up on?
The core of this particular argument is the following:
> Think about it like this. We have 3 variables:
> 1. Inlet Gas Flow rate (measured by mmscf/d but easily convertible to pounds methane equiv.)
> 2. The VOC content mass % of the inlet stream
> 3. The Loss Rate through leaks in valves, fittings, etc. This is the fraction of the total inlet stream is lost to the air
> We simply multiply these three items together to get:
> 4. The VOC emission rate in tons per year (US short tons are EPA standard)
> Since we know #4 (The PEA told us), we know #2 (Pipeline Quality Gas is always <0.1% VOCs, and usually lower), and #3 is a range (with modern cryo plants at the lower end), we can simply go backwards to calculate implied flow rate
#1 is what this post is trying to calculate, to see what is or isn't reasonable.
And is basically the starting point of all calculations. Just Ctrl-F "45.8", the number that ESG_Hound uses in his excel-spreadsheet. That gets you to page 44, the number seems to check out. This post is trying to answer the question: when they wrote this PEA, what assumptions did the engineers make?
#3 is a reasonable assumption that doesn't change much.
The last variable is #2: which has two paths:
1. 99.9% pure pipeline methane -- When we plug in 99.9% pure methane into the calculations, the numbers are absurd. This is a "disproof by absurdity". So we know it can't be 99.9% methane from standard pipelines.
2. Maybe its "raw" methane from a well (varies from 3% to 10%). -- When plugging in these numbers, we calculate a 4.77% VOC rate, which suggests that all the calculations in the PEA were done __ASSUMING__ raw methane.
Now sure, our model isn't going to be the same model as whoever prepared this PEA. but we're probably going to be "within the same magnitude". Calculations, when done independently, will rhyme.
-------------
It seems like a simple argument to me. What part of the discussion are people getting tripped up on?
When using 99.9% pure methane, the amount of Mega-scf of natural gas goes completely out of whack with any reasonable excel-sheet formula. As such, 99.9% pipeline methane cannot be the source of SpaceX's methane (at least, not with the assumptions listed in the PEA).
Does anyone have a problem with any of the assumed numbers? #1, #2, #3 or #4?
-------
So the QED is: SpaceX, when they wrote this PEA, assumed they'd be using raw, untreated natural gas straight from a well. Why would they make this assumption? Is SpaceX planning to set up a pre-treatment natural gas plant inside of Starbase?
What it ignores is that to perform the maximum number of launches permitted under this new license will consume around 1% of the methane this would produce. This equipment will be be used, at most, a few hours every month, but he's producing numbers under the assumption that it would be running 24/7.
You seem confused. This topic is about the pretreatment plant, not the power-plant.
You don't build a pretreatment plant if you're only using a fraction of its capacity. You'd instead just ship in pre-treated methane by pipeline or by truck.
But that's not what SpaceX is asking for. SpaceX is asking for their own, private, pretreatment plant. For... some reason. (The underlying theory is: SpaceX seems to be trying to mine their own natural gas)
--------
EDIT: And if the power plant was expected to be operating at only a minor fraction of the year, you'd expect something in the PEA to note that fact.
> Musk’s SpaceX aims to use a site in South Texas to launch rockets to carry people and cargo to the moon and Mars. To do that, the company intends to drill gas wells to make its own fuel and electricity, according a Federal Aviation Administration document seen by Bloomberg.
> The SpaceX site in Texas will be supplied by at least five nearby gas wells, along with two gas-fired power plants, according to the FAA document. Purified gas from the wells will be pumped into refrigeration equipment that turns it into liquid methane, the document shows. The methane can be combined with liquid oxygen and other compounds to make rocket fuel.
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 always used fossil fuels. This is not news. The fact that SpaceX is vertically integrating changes nothing about that. On the contrary it likely reduces leaks (which is a good thing) by shortening the processing chain.
Relative to revenue, carbon tax won't be that significant for SpaceX.
There aren't any exact numbers yet, but Starship will burn about 5000 metric tons of propellant in a single launch. Assuming a stoichiometric ratio of CH4 to O2, that'll emit about 2600 metric tons of CO2 (the rest is water). According to the ICAO emissions calculator, a roundtrip by plane between LA and London emits about 0.9 metric tons of CO2 per passenger. Thus, a Starship launch generates the same emissions as 2900 passengers making that trip.
At the $400 price I get for that trip on Google Flights, those 2900 passengers generate about $1.2 million in revenue for the airline. A single Starship launch will generate $100 million in revenue for SpaceX.
> Relative to revenue, carbon tax won't be that significant for SpaceX.
Are there any public statements on SpaceX's financials? The rumor from their last round is that it's a classic Elon money-burning enterprise - and profitability is always one quarter away. Revenue is of course pointless, since it's quite easy to have revenue when you're not profitable.
If Greta Thunberg flew on a commercial airplane somewhere far away, she'd be accused of being a hyprocate, so she uses a sailboat to cross a freaking ocean when she wants to.
This may be tribalism purity from the part of conservatives, but that's always going to be the reaction from the "opposite" side in this kind of situations because that's the obvious human response. This is not silly logic, this is how humans behave and if you refuse to believe your eyes when you see this again and again, you're the one being silly.
Yah, meanwhile the support team for her, operating the sailboat and whatnot else flew on commercial planes, to be there at the destination, having it to ferry around, and so on. Whiler her message may be right, her PA is a shitshow.
The argument is that most people would do bad things (build a fracked well in the case of Elon, something smaller for the rest of us, like buying cheaper electronics from places where environmentalism doesn't even exist) to make money or save a penny, even when they do some "good" things when it's convenient to do so (driving electric cars in 2021). I keep forgetting people here on HN seem to need things to be written in a very obvious, literal manner otherwise they do what you're trying to do and interpret things too literally, without any kind of abilitiy to interpret when something is a metaphore, analogy or hyperbole. Sorry.
How much carbon does one year of fires in California produce? For all the regulations on reducing usage, the wise politicians enabled conditions through neglect of forest care and trimming to allow fires so large, the plume could be seen from space and darkened skies as far north as Seattle.
The point here is, what is good for the climate isn’t the purview of these simplistic views of climate science.
Drilling a well doesn’t automatically kill everything Mother Nature created or anything. . . The economic shift that Tesla single handful brought about to get all of traditional auto to move to electric cannot be overstated.
So stop using “The Environment” as a battering ram that only your point of view protects. It is wrong.
>the wise politicians enabled conditions through neglect of forest care and trimming
It baffles me that this is so often repeated when it is quite clearly inaccurate if you just think about it for a second.
First of all, you don't "trim" a forest the size of many small countries. This isn't a city park. It would take every man, woman, and child's sum efforts to 'landscape' even a fraction of the forests in the PNW. That's like saying that the reason the sea is rising is that nobody is running an ice cube maker to refreeze the ice caps.
But to speak to the real origination of this point - resource extraction for the benefit of those who control the cable news narrative: You don't prevent forest fires by logging. That is an old meme from the resource extraction industry - not only does it not prevent wildfires, it also destroys biodiversity of the ecosystems where old, diverse growth is replaced with pine stands.
Forest fires are required for the natural lifecycle of a forest - there are species that cannot reproduce without a forest fire. Not only small brush type plants that thrive in the absence of overgrowth but also the largest organisms in the forest- the trees themselves! Vast areas of the PNW are dominated by so-called 'serotinous cone' deciduous trees whose cones will lay dormant for years, coated in a thick plastic-like resin layer that only allows the cone to release seeds after the resin is melted away by forest fire (when the chances of successfully growing are highest)
Forests require fires to be healthy. A big part of why wildfires are so bad now is that we haven't let them happen for so long because there are more and more people moving into the areas that previously experienced healthy burns. This lead practices to try to prevent fires from happening. Meanwhile, brush built up year after year after year and eventually the fires that do happen are orders of magnitude worse. Climate change and the resulting temperatures and changes in the 'moisture battery' throughout the year are also massive contributors, but that is a whole other post.
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.
Looking at the image in the article, the 'fast fire accellerator' looks suspiciously like a traditional waste gas flare common for the past 50 years in petroleum refining.
Its common to try and redefine these as the EPA cracks down on them and they are environmentally bad. The last major push in industry was to try calling them a steam flare.
Disclosure: I worked a few years in refineries as a mechanical maintenance contractor.
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) without getting a permit from the relevant air quality regulator.
Might be the EPA but I’m guessing it’ll be TCEQ; most states, especially the large ones, have their own state agencies and so long as the standard exceeds what the federal minimums are, then they issue the permits. This is the scheme set up by the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act. (I practice in California and we have two separate state agencies, one for air and one for water. It seems like Texas Comm’n on Enviro Quality does both per their website.) The EPA doesn’t get involved in permit issuing and the state agencies even have authority over other federal agencies’ operations and issue permits to them.
So if the FAA is asleep at the switch, who really cares? There’s a whole second governmental regulator out there and a host of environmental non-profits and local governments with standing to sue if they think that regulator has made a decision they don’t like.
It’s like complaining that the plumbing inspector hasn’t given proper consideration to the minimum set-backs and architectural character of the neighborhood and signs off on the new toilets and showers for a house renovation. Like, who cares? You can’t move in without getting the final permit from the City and even if you did get that permit, the neighbors can sue and stop construction if they think the City made the wrong decision.
What am I missing? Why is this author so obviously emotionally distraught?
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 to survive. So I understand being emotional about an administration rolling back EPA restrictions on coal power waste water release[2] (for example).
Analogy: I don't understand a co-worker being "mad" at you for driving 10 miles to the office because they ride their bike that same distance and are therefore doing more for the environment than you are. Proud of their own efforts? Sure. Mad because not everyone can do what they do? No, I don't understand that.
I think we're stretching the meaning of 'surprised' past the breaking point, but I get your point. Tangentially:
> What people "get" for SpaceX running that activity is a space capability that is superior to every other nation on the planet.
The US already has had that for 50 years, and SpaceX is nowhere near the pinnacle of space capability. NASA has a helicopter flying around Mars, will soon have a new telescope out at (L2?), is operating in interstellar space, put humans on the moon 50 years ago, etc. etc.
SpaceX is good at launches to orbit, but being a private business they can sell that to any country. The US public doesn't own that capability like they do for NASA, any more than they own the new Ford truck line.
> The US public doesn't own that capability like they do for NASA, any more than they own the new Ford truck line.
They do, because ITAR means that SpaceX can't ship that capability overseas without the US governments approval, but ford can ship their truck line overseas (and has in fact been known to do so).
They aren't directly entitled to control it (beyond their ability to pass new laws that effect it, like taxes if they want to capture the profit, or laws forbidding SpaceX sell services to foreign entities they dislike, or so on), but the capability is very much tied down to the nation.
I understand it is specifically about _space launch_ capability. No other state can launch as efficiently as spaceX. And private citizens get tangible benefits from it, such as internet in remote areas
> 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.
I don't know what the "correct" way to apply for a NEPA permit is, and I don't have access to or know how many agencies SpaceX is communicating with. I don't know if they talked to NEPA who said, "get this permit first then we'll issue ours" or if there is a completely separate permit process rolling along with less visibility.
What I do know is that SpaceX wants to launch rockets from Starbase and they want to have the infrastructure to do that. I know they have a lot of experience operating out of Cape Canaveral and are familiar with the infrastructure NASA put there to support NASA's launching activities. And I know that even though it annoys them that agencies like the FAA aren't really equipped yet with processes to deal with companies like SpaceX, they do follow the existing rules.
As a result, it would surprise me if they hadn't aligned all of the respective agencies on what they were doing and jumping through the hoops that were put there by those agencies to get to the other side.
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 Texas, for this one facility, unless it would actually have a deleterious local impact (or be unmitigateable) - but it is a reasonable point of concern and a good use of public comment - though as noted in the series, the NEPA process is more about documentation then prevention. SpaceX can it seems, just update the numbers now and say "yeah so anyway it'll be that".
Where I'm much less clear is the argument about the gas wells or the gas pipeline - which are presented separately but seem to be necessarily together in order to link them as an issue associated with the Starbase site's operations itself, and I'm really not able to connect the dots here: it's implicitly obvious that Starbase is going to use some quantity of hydrocarbons to operate, but I'm not clear - once the site itself is accounted for - why its a problem that the pipeline and wells they'll necessarily build not being initially included matter?
Is the NEPA process somehow going to grant approval to construct fracking wells that will not be on the Starbase site, or approval for the pipeline construction? The pipeline argument in particular seems to be the weakest because if the existing decommissioned pipeline (who's run length I imagine SpaceX intend to use) was denied, based on the map coloring as presented in the post there's very obviously another path which doesn't cross any shaded regions...through which another pipeline already runs. If it does that seems like a problem, but I'm having a tough time figuring out how the FAA approving rocket launches would in any jurisidiction translate automatically into "and so we also are totally approved for this subsidiary company's fracked natural gas well many miles away and a pipeline".
There seems to be a weird implicit assumption that the FAA approving what it has would somehow approve it with every other agency - which, can it? Does it? As things stand "we're going to build a 250MW gas power plant" maybe shouldn't happen on the site seems to be my takeaway, but since they haven't built it yet and since it's existence doesn't seem to of major impact beyond land-clearing and emissions, surely whether it could be built is one question compared to whether SpaceX can get approval to do everything else they'd need to run it? At the moment they've launched zero rockets, but it seems like they'll be able to launch some without any of this and everything else is a question for the future - and surely the point of other regulatory processes particularly if it's not happening on the site itself?
Heres a tl;dr from Reddit. I'm very tired as this is a big deal and no, I don't have a cohesive narrative throughout the series. I was trying to get as much information out there during the very short 30-day window for public comment. I believe public comment is super important for these types of projects. I have over a decade of experience in this specific field, and have worked as a regulator, for non-profits, and as an employee of big oil and gas. Please go easy on me
SpaceX and FAA snuck a bunch of oil and gas infrastructure including a gas plant, a LNG a 250 MW power plant into an "insignificant/minor change" NEPA environmental review document that was supposed to just be for bigger rockets.
It has tons of basic errors, missing data, and even though NEPA is a public disclosure law, no one is talking about the oil stuff at all Also implied, but explicitly not noted in the document are a
1. Pipeline that needs to be constructed and
2. the huge amount of newly drilled oil and gas wells in a region of Texas that currently has no production to speak of.
Oh and all of this is on a federally protected wildlife reserve. And it's super illegal and unprecedented and brings about all sorts of uncomfortable questions about regulatory capture
> I believe public comment is super important for these types of projects.
Something I've always wondered: How is it that public comments have power? What stops officials from mostly ignoring them or misconstruing them? And if the comments do have power, what stops vested interests from hijacking them?
I'm not sure about these types of projects but public commenting for the FDA proposed regulations regarding hemp was actually really helpful for the industry.
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.
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.
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.
People are being critical of SpaceX for this, but it makes perfect sense for their business model.
As climate change disrupts life on earth there will be greater demand for SpaceX's and Tesla's products and services. It is only rational Elon Musk would seek to accelerate climate change - it would be foolish of him to try and stop it. Every ton of carbon in the atmosphere will eventually become money in his pocket.
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.
> This does make sense, but it is odd that the existing gas market is not sufficient.
Its not very clear why the PEA is setup in this manner at all. We know that SpaceX wouldn't ask for something from the regulators unless they had a plan for it, but that's about it.
I think it would have been reasonable to just pipe 99.9% pure methane from some other producer (it is Texas after all, surely there's a supplier out there willing to sell a bunch of methane to SpaceX??).
What's absurd is that the PEA calculations seem to be calculated from the standpoint of a raw-mining operation, and not pre-treated methane. This implies that SpaceX is planning on purifying its own methane, instead of buying it up from a large market that already exists in the area.
----------
I'm sure rocket fuel needs more treatment steps than commodity natural gas. But starting from commodity natural gas probably would have been easier, rather than starting from a well?
I mean you can produce methane trough CO2 capture and a lot of solar power. That's basically what musk said was the goal on mars, so they could develop that tech as well.
Or space-based solar. If anyone has the capability, it's spacex.
Musk says a lot of dumb things. I'm about as far as a Musk fan as you can be. But acting like rockets are going to be powered by clean energy in the foreseeable future is just wishful thinking.
it was already practical? The 20 years was just for the economics to work it out.
If you want to make that comparison watch how long commercial clean energy air travel will take. Then we can make prediction about rockets, which, mind you, escape freaking Earth's gravity
to be clear, I'm not even against this. it seems like the sort of thing he might take a crack at, and it would be substantially more useful than car tunnels to nowhere
I like how we are hiking the fuel prices for the peasants to reduce CO2 emmissions while we give free passes to billionaires to extract and burn fossils for tourism purposes.
Would it somehow be better if SpaceX just bought natural gas on the open market, reducing available supply and thereby potentially increasing price through market forces?
Are you suggesting we tax carbon so SpaceX has to pay tax on the fuel they extract that could go towards clean energy investments?
1 space x launch for wealthy tourists emits the same CO2 as around 500 transatlantic flights that can haul 10’s of thousands of people between continents.
Yet this forum is fast to propose solutions to make long haul flights unaffordable, in order to curb the emissions, but somehow when Elon Musk is involved, the calculation changes completely and it is fine to needlessly emit co2 the moment that climate catastrophe has reached our doorsteps.
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 flies 5,000 per day. Even 1,000 rocket launches per year would be equivalent to 5 days of traditional flights.
People disagree with the climate concern not because "Elon Musk is involved" - it is because critics are focused on the wrong thing. There are far more climate destructive practices with far less benefit to the good of mankind. All those 100,000 flights per day? That only accounts for about 2% of carbon emissions. A SpaceX launch, to use your figures, accounts for 0.00005%.
So why focus on this extraordinarily tiny fraction of climate impact? Is it because it's Elon? Because rockets look big and thus wasteful?
What about the incredibly important climate monitoring satellites they'll lift, or benefits like GPS, global internet, potential breakthroughs in space manufacturing, astronomy, or physics? Or even just the hope and excitement about the future that many feel in the face of otherwise depressing news everywhere. The massive size and lift capacity of the Starship (100 tons to orbit, 8m wide by 20m high or so) will transform activities in low earth orbit and beyond.
And I'll close by saying, yes I think Elon has earned a little slack - he has done more than most people on the planet to reduce global emissions. Tesla, Solar City (now Tesla solar), battery technology (which has been a massive impediment to clean energy storage), future electric long-haul trucks, and the supercharger network (to make extended travel on electric vehicles possible) all have reduced emissions tremendously - probably far more than the additional carbon from rocket launches (though I haven't done the math).
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."
> 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.
Space research and development is a huge part of sustainability. It is literally our only chance to move some polluting industries off Earth, at least long term. (I do not expect to see it happening in my lifetime.)
Reusable rockets are a huge progress in space research. People long thought them outright impossible or impractical. And aside from SpaceX, no one has them yet.
ESA's model of throwing away the entire Ariane at each launch is the very opposite of sustainable. It is an expensive waste of money propped up by French military interests.
(Not that the ULA, the Russians or the Chinese do something different.)
Somehow people will find a way to spin this as a positive thing and a rightful thing that lord Musk is doing for the future of humanity™.
But Zuck is the devil for giving you the option (but not the obligation) to watch pics of other people's vacations.
You know you study the game, you think you understand, you look at the logic which should be the strong point of HN and reddit type crowd...but in the end it always ends exactly where all the other "lesser" social phenomenons end up:
it's all about that "OMG he's so emotional and like deeply cares about it, I can see it in his eyes and his voice"
teenage girls, always looked down upon, understand their feelings better than most adult men.
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.