Hi, Author here.<p>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"<p>FERC and DOE do these types of NEPA approvals all the time and include full EPA participation.<p>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.
The article shows many tables without ever quoting sources. In the previous article in the series, the author claims:<p>> ... 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. ...<p>Great. If free to the public, where are the links? Clicking on those table images just links to the images themselves.<p>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.<p>Even for regular HN readers, it helps to be able to verify for oneself claims made of a quantitative nature.
Additional context<p>> 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.<p>> 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.<p><a href="https://www.rigzone.com/news/wire/spacex_texas_plans_face_public_scrutiny-01-feb-2021-164490-article/" rel="nofollow">https://www.rigzone.com/news/wire/spacex_texas_plans_face_pu...</a>
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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>What am I missing? Why is this author so obviously emotionally distraught?
Heres a tl;dr from Reddit. I'm very tired as this is a <i>big deal</i> 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<p>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.<p>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.<p>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
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 <a href="https://twitter.com/ESGhound/status/1449471403225337856" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/ESGhound/status/1449471403225337856</a>
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?
People are being critical of SpaceX for this, but it makes perfect sense for their business model.<p>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.
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.
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™.<p>But Zuck is the devil for giving you the option (but not the obligation) to watch pics of other people's vacations.<p>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:<p>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"<p>teenage girls, always looked down upon, understand their feelings better than most adult men.