[HN Gopher] Engineer demos how SpaceX is building fracked well g...
___________________________________________________________________
Engineer demos how SpaceX is building fracked well gas plant
Author : icapulet2
Score : 169 points
Date : 2021-10-16 16:25 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (esghound.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (esghound.substack.com)
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| Guess solar isn't so good at industrial scale, eh?
|
| They should go build some fission reactors instead.
| roywiggins wrote:
| Given how much Musk gets compared to Iron Man, you'd think he'd
| spend some time working on fusion to build his own Arc Reactor.
| roywiggins wrote:
| 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
| Jweb_Guru wrote:
| Yeah wow you sure showed those people trying to power rockets
| with solar power.
| dragontamer wrote:
| 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/spac
| e/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.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| Oh thought they were burning the gas for more base
| electricity.
|
| This does make sense, but it is odd that the existing gas
| market is not sufficient.
| dragontamer wrote:
| > 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?
| MayeulC wrote:
| 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.
| Jweb_Guru wrote:
| 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.
| rpmisms wrote:
| > But acting like rockets are going to be powered by
| clean energy in the foreseeable future is just wishful
| thinking.
|
| So were practical electric cars 20 years ago.
| davidgerard wrote:
| Just pinged ESGHound that his post had made the HN front page,
| and now he knows where the new readers flaming him on Twitter
| were coming in from
| https://twitter.com/ESGhound/status/1449471403225337856
| heavyset_go wrote:
| As an aside, it's nice to see that you're on HN, David!
| ESGHound wrote:
| 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
| dumbfoundded wrote:
| Thank you for your insightful research.
|
| What can individuals do? Is there a place to leave public
| comments?
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > 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?
| ed wrote:
| Additional context
|
| > 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.
|
| https://www.rigzone.com/news/wire/spacex_texas_plans_face_pu...
| brabel wrote:
| 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.
| DisjointedHunt wrote:
| 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.
| jeffbee wrote:
| 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.
| DisjointedHunt wrote:
| [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.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| 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 like
| forests in the carbon cycle.
| bleh123 wrote:
| 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"?
| TigeriusKirk wrote:
| Where did you come across this idea?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Multiple classes and professors I've had in college, and
| textbooks I've read. This is basic environmental science.
|
| Here's a short slideshow about the carbon cycle from a
| meteorology course[1], under short-term carbon cycle
| you'll see wildfires, decomposition, cellular respiration
| etc. Here's research from NASA[2]. Here's a paper that
| cites numerous references to these facts[3].
|
| Here's what the state of CA says[4]:
|
| > _Fire is an important part of the carbon cycle. Fire
| consumes organic matter, releasing greenhouse gases
| including CO2, methane, carbon monoxide, and other
| materials. Trees and plants not immediately consumed in
| the fire may be killed and decompose rapidly, releasing
| CO2._
|
| > _Although fire produces carbon emissions, it is also a
| natural and necessary part of the ecosystem, especially
| in California where plants are adapted to fire. Rather
| than eliminate fire, the goal is to maintain historical
| fire regimes and thus avoid catastrophic fires that occur
| when fuels build up to unnatural levels._
|
| [1] https://www.sjsu.edu/people/frank.freedman/courses/me
| tr113/s...
|
| [2]
| https://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/ppa/2001/tpenafort/
|
| [3] https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2014_loehman
| _r001.p...
|
| [4] https://www.fire.ca.gov/programs/resource-
| management/resourc...
| speedybird wrote:
| 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..)
| plorg wrote:
| Sure, but when the smoke is bad enough to create bad air
| quality over half a continent away I think it's more than
| a "you chose to live in the wrong place" problem.
| bleh123 wrote:
| So . . what is the statement you're making?
|
| That those forest fires that could have been avoided are
| "natural" and that i shouldn't care about the negligent
| pollution of air or the planet since i should just "move
| away" ?
|
| I'm having a hard time squaring any of this with the
| outrage you've displayed in your other comments about a
| well being drilled.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "[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.
| DisjointedHunt wrote:
| Enjoy the internet points counter go to zero then while
| you and the hive mind declare that one kind of fire
| produces different carbon than the other based on the
| political affiliation of the cause.
|
| Maybe that's the uncomfortable debate? Idk, what do i
| know man? I'm just a guy with questions for idiotic
| sounding arguments without a citation.
| agar wrote:
| > the hive mind declare that one kind of fire produces
| different carbon than the other...Maybe that's the
| uncomfortable debate?
|
| Just a random reader here, but no one is saying this.
| Either you're willfully ignoring the point, or you missed
| it. It has nothing to do with "a different kind of
| carbon" or "the political affiliation of the cause."
|
| Here is another explanation. I hope you find it not
| idiotic, and you'll find a citation for everything I say
| (including quotes from the source to back up my specific
| comments):
|
| Hydrocarbons in the form of fossil fuels have been stored
| for millions of years. They reflect carbons that have not
| been extant in the atmosphere for so long that they have
| been irrelevant to the climate. These fuels also
| developed over geological time, so the creation of /new/
| fossil fuel (i.e., carbon) stores is also irrelevant to
| our climate in human-scale years.
|
| On the contrary, carbons in the form of trees, bushes,
| and grasses have been pulled from the atmosphere within
| the past years or decades (plant mass comes from
| atmospheric carbon, not the ground) as the plants and
| trees grew.
|
| When grasses and trees burn, yes - that carbon gets
| released into the atmosphere. But it then gets
| photosynthesized back into grasses and trees over the
| next years and decades, recapturing that carbon in a time
| period that is relevant to human lifespans.
|
| However when fossil fuels burn, they release net-new
| (from an atmospheric perspective) carbon with no
| recapture mechanism available for perhaps millions of
| years.
|
| Of course there are exceptions. Old growth forests have
| an outsized impact on atmospheric carbon vs. grasslands.
| Additionally, the climate change-driven increase in
| forest fire frequency, combined with our already-high
| carbon levels, mean the short-term increase in carbon may
| have an outsized influence on drought and other negative
| climate changes before it can be recaptured.
|
| So yes, recent environmental research is looking far more
| carefully at forest fires' impact on carbon load and
| climate impact. But no, this has nothing to do with
| "trimming" or "raking" our forests. Nor does it have to
| do with the "politics" of fossil fuel vs. forestry, nor
| is it "different carbon."
|
| I hope this helps answer your questions.
|
| Reference: https://www.futuredirections.org.au/publicatio
| n/wildfires-gr...
|
| > In Australia wildfires may well be GHG emission neutral
| over time. A recent report released by the Australian
| Government Department of Industry, Science, Energy and
| Resources concluded that based on existing evidence, "...
| bushfires release significant amounts of carbon dioxide,
| but generally recover over time, generating a significant
| carbon sink in the years following the fire."
|
| > For millennia fire has been a feature of the natural
| environment. An equilibrium existed whereby the quantity
| of CO2 released into the atmosphere by burning and the
| quantity stored in plant material by photosynthesis
| remained neutral.
|
| > This view, while appropriately conservative in the
| context of the Kyoto protocols in 1997, now still
| understates the importance of wildfire related GHG
| emission in two ways. Firstly, CO2 released into the
| atmosphere by wildfires can remain there for a period of
| approximately seven months before it is re-captured by
| photosynthesis. During this time it will contribute to
| the warming of the planet. Secondly, and most
| importantly, there is compelling evidence from a number
| of sources that the incidence and intensity of wildfires
| is increasing.
| ahmedalsudani wrote:
| Filed under non sequitur.
| DisjointedHunt wrote:
| There are four paragraphs in the comment. If you have the
| patience to read through to at least the third , you'd
| see the comparison.
|
| It's amazing to see the standard of debate in a thread on
| HN slip so bad that people don't have conversations
| anymore, but walk in with the "know it all" mentality to
| downvote .
| ahmedalsudani wrote:
| For the record I'm not against using fossil fuels for any
| purpose.
|
| No matter how many paragraphs you turn it into, the
| forest fires in California have nothing to do with
| fracking gas. Don't turn a discussion of a private
| company's behaviour into a culture war.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| >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.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Thanks. Do you have any good sources on the topic that I
| can read? I would love to cut through all the politicized
| BS.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| This sort of ridiculous cynicism doesn't help that cause.
| schiffern wrote:
| >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.
| antattack wrote:
| SpaceX will pay hefty taxes if carbon tax is implemented,
| yet Musk is still strong proponent of carbon tax.
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| 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.
| nathanvanfleet wrote:
| Wait, your argument is that everyone would build a fracking
| gas plant if they could? What an odd thing to say.
| zionic wrote:
| Seems like stargaze would be a good candidate for Tesla solar +
| mega pack installation. 10 mega packs should do the trick.
| SergeAx wrote:
| 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?
| mark212 wrote:
| 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?
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| It's a valid question. I am surprised (as I am usually) at the
| emotional content of these sorts of things.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > 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?
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| 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.
|
| [1] https://www.texasobserver.org/methane-abandoned-oil-
| wells/
|
| [2] https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/trump-
| epa-rol...
| spamizbad wrote:
| 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.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| A back of the napkin calculation shows that launching 1000
| Starships a year is still a rounding error in humanity's carbon
| footprint.
|
| If Elon wants to measurably accelerate climate change, he's
| doing it all wrong. So, in all likelihood, he doesn't.
| nimbius wrote:
| 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.
| agar wrote:
| IIRC, there is no longer a waste gas flare at SpaceX's
| facilities. They are doing methane recapture and recondensing.
| aazaa wrote:
| 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.
| RobLach wrote:
| 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...
| mark212 wrote:
| 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?"
| heavyset_go wrote:
| 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-...
| ESGHound wrote:
| I've cited every single claim I've made. And no, I'm not a fan
| of Musk.
|
| From a legal and technical standpoint, My work has been run
| through legal, environmental, and oil and gas engineers I've
| worked with over the years.
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| 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.
| dragontamer wrote:
| 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.
|
| #4 is the PEA: https://www.faa.gov/space/stakeholder_engage
| ment/spacex_star...
|
| 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?
| GDC7 wrote:
| 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(tm).
|
| 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.
| ShamelessC wrote:
| ...what?
| whatever1 wrote:
| 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.
| agar wrote:
| > burn fossils for tourism purposes
|
| Like airplanes? Like cruise ships?
|
| 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?
|
| I'm not sure of the point you're making.
| gradys wrote:
| Are we doing that? Was some new gas tax passed in the US?
| whatever1 wrote:
| Last time I checked in Europe 80% of the gas price was taxes.
|
| Last time that I checked in the US up to 30% of the fuel
| price was paid for RINS, aka renewable energy certificates.
|
| So yes we do pay for sustainability. Unlike the billionaire
| explorers.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| 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.)
| rpmisms wrote:
| > And aside from SpaceX, no one has them yet.
|
| I agree with you generally, but Rocket Lab in NZ is also
| reusing rockets.
| mam3 wrote:
| Elon is such a chad <3
| ldjkfkdsjnv wrote:
| :)
| ESGHound wrote:
| 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.
| smcl wrote:
| I loved the TrashFuture ep you were on :D
| stefan_ wrote:
| 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.
| Qworg wrote:
| 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.
| lvs wrote:
| 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.
| ESGHound wrote:
| 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
| Qworg wrote:
| I was speaking directly to the well complex, not any
| future power plant. The EPA is definitely involved in
| that.
| gpm wrote:
| 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
|
| https://www.faa.gov/space/stakeholder_engagement/spacex_s
| tar...
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > Texas was an inspired choice - California would have been a
| knife fight regulatorily.
|
| Inspired in the immediate profit sense, not in the long term
| affects on your planet sense. SpaceX lives here too; it's
| their planet too.
| willvarfar wrote:
| It's like the one company on earth actually concretely
| trying to change that ...
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Not in this case, apparently, and definitely not the only
| company, not even in the auto industry.
| avianlyric wrote:
| Erm _Space_ X is in the aerospace industry, not the auto
| industry. I mean, the name is a bit of a giveaway.
| danielheath wrote:
| I believe that was a reference to the mars colony goal,
| not to protecting this planet
| gpm wrote:
| > 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.
| bserge wrote:
| Not being able to fly over land seems ridiculous. Planes
| fly over land, right?
|
| Sounds like the same shit as nuclear power plant
| regulations. As a civilization or even a species, we'll
| "safety" our way into extinction.
| geenew wrote:
| Rockets also drop parts as they fly - see what's happened
| in China with their inland launches.
|
| https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/01/04/photos-long-march-
| rock...
| bserge wrote:
| Here's hoping they get ahead of everyone else technology
| wise.
| speedybird wrote:
| 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?
| zionic wrote:
| 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.
| boringg wrote:
| 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.
| twofornone wrote:
| Spacex drilling a well to fuel its rocket is not going to
| have any measurable effect on climate change. And an
| "unlivable" planet is essentially a hypothetical black
| swan event, extremely low probably worst case event. This
| is hysteria.
| lazide wrote:
| 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.
| bserge wrote:
| Fuck Mars, all those asteroids are going to be way more
| valuable for Earth. Getting to them needs the same exact
| industry.
| X6S1x6Okd1st wrote:
| Ah yes, the "The ends justify the means" move.
| consumer451 wrote:
| 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.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| 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.
| xyzzyz wrote:
| Yes, heaven forbids he drills 10,000th gas well in the US
| on his way.
| consumer451 wrote:
| I was not thinking about gas wells at all. I have no
| opinion there except I thought we were doing the Sabatier
| reaction process to prep for Mars and be carbon negative.
| lazide wrote:
| 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.
| smoldesu wrote:
| 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.
| ESGHound wrote:
| 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.
| randy408 wrote:
| 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?
| smoldesu wrote:
| Well my cancer cure is subsidized by federal dollars, and
| our headquarters is right next to the post office. Can't
| we just start drilling already?
| lazide wrote:
| 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.
| groby_b wrote:
| 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
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| 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.
| politician wrote:
| Well, apparently not everyone else [1]:
|
| "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."
|
| [1] https://newsflash.one/2021/10/12/market-report-
| leaking-wells...
| speedybird wrote:
| > _" 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?
| oceanplexian wrote:
| 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.
| 8note wrote:
| The EPA is also a national security concern. No need to
| defend space that you've already turned into a toxic
| wasteland
| speedybird wrote:
| > _The EPA is also a national security concern._
|
| I strongly agree, but not for the reason you give.
| Environmental destruction is likely to start more wars
| than it prevents...
| [deleted]
| DisjointedHunt wrote:
| That's a serious accusation without evidence.
|
| 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.
| fallingknife wrote:
| Given his track record? Who has a better one?
| FireBeyond wrote:
| How's FSD looking?
| dpierce9 wrote:
| 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://www.energy.gov/sites/
| default/files/2021-03/SAR%20-%2...
|
| 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.
| speedybird wrote:
| 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.
| criley2 wrote:
| 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.
| reddog wrote:
| Utterly gutted? How do you figure?
|
| The EPA headcount was 14,779 in 2016 and was 14,172 in
| 2020.
|
| https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget
| speedybird wrote:
| 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.
| DennisP wrote:
| 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.
| lazide wrote:
| 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.
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| SpaceX wants to make a roundtrip to Mars, though. There's
| no fossil fuels on Mars.
| lazide wrote:
| 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.
| politician wrote:
| So you're just a typical No-Mars skeptic, got it.
| elif wrote:
| 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.
| lazide wrote:
| Pretty sure that would require something like a 5x cost
| increase in carbon, though I can't find hard numbers
| anywhere easily. Do you have any pointers?
| elif wrote:
| If musk followed strict economics as implied by your
| premise, he would be launching disposable rockets with
| Boeing.
|
| who knows what expense space X would be willing to
| shoulder to be sustainable... We are fortunate that it is
| still privately owned, and isn't legally obligated to
| pursue the financial interests of shareholders like all
| the other players in aerospace.
| gpm wrote:
| > Pretty sure that would require something like a 5x cost
| increase in carbon
|
| 5x over what? The US doesn't have a carbon tax does it?
| lazide wrote:
| 5x over the current baseline cost of fuel.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| 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.
| lazide wrote:
| The process IS already mastered, depending on the bar you
| set?
|
| This isn't something unknown or theoretical.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Yes, but you still need to design, assemble and test the
| particular equipment you want to use, unless you can do
| with off-the-shelf components.
|
| And contemporary off-the-shelf components that perform
| the Sabatier process aren't probably meant to operate
| outside the Earth.
| politician wrote:
| Under STP and 1G, yes. Mars isn't at STP or 1G, so they
| can't assume that the Earth-standard machinery will work
| without modifications. This is a reasonable thing to
| experiment with.
| lazide wrote:
| Which I was referencing with 'depending on the bar',
| though it's a well understood enough process that those
| variables are generally well understood.
|
| Yet they aren't, correct?
| mhh__ wrote:
| Is it possible that they are in for the money and the grand
| plan is just marketing even if they would do it if they
| could?
| plorg wrote:
| 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.
| plorg wrote:
| 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.
| coenhyde wrote:
| 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.
| phkahler wrote:
| Or they want a gas well because super heavy and starship
| engines burn METHANE for fuel.
| cma wrote:
| If it is for desalination why aren't they using solar, which
| wouldn't even need storage in that application.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| 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?
| speedybird wrote:
| 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?
| gpm wrote:
| I don't think there is.
|
| 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.
| sbierwagen wrote:
| >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#Constella
| tion_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.
| gpm wrote:
| 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).
| wolverine876 wrote:
| 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?
| gpm wrote:
| 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].
|
| [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=%28%282+*+pi+*+6378.1
| 4+km+%2...
|
| [2] https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/998/how-
| much-of-an...
|
| [3] https://www.quora.com/Why-don-t-we-build-a-rocket-
| launch-sit...
| justahuman74 wrote:
| 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
| wolverine876 wrote:
| 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?
| elif wrote:
| 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"
| _3u10 wrote:
| Isn't capturing and then flaring methane the environmentally
| responsible thing to do?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| That'll depend on where the methane is captured from.
|
| A landfill, or reclaimed from cow shit? Sure.
|
| An underground well, where it could've been left alone? Not
| necessarily.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-16 23:01 UTC)