[ad_1]
An environmental document which requires approval from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration before SpaceX can begin testing the world’s largest rockets, key details on where its fuel is coming from are missing, experts say.
The proposed Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for SpaceX’s Starship and Super Heavy launchers, which Elon Musk hopes will soon be orbit and then to Mars, was released last month by the FAA for public comment. The 142-page document covers the construction and day-to-day operations of SpaceX’s facility in Boca Chica, Texas, which Musk hopes to integrate as a city called Starbase. These include pre-flight operations, rocket testing, launches and landings, as well as fuel, water and electricity supplies.
A new pre-treatment system will purify and cool natural gas into liquid methane fuel for the Starship and Super Heavy rockets. A lot more gas will be needed for a new 250 megawatt gas-fired power plant. A power plant of this size typically serves over 100,000 homes and can cost hundreds of millions of dollars. But while rocket launches enjoy wide coverage in the PEA, the new powerhouse receives only cursory mention. In particular, it is unclear how the tens of millions of cubic feet of gas needed daily will arrive at SpaceX’s remote facility near the Mexican border.
Not mentioning it in the PEA is unusual and may violate the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), says Pat Parenteau, professor of law and senior counsel at the Environmental Advocacy Clinic at Vermont Law School.
“NEPA is what we call the watch-before-you-jump law,” Parenteau said. “It is designed to inform federal decision-makers about the environmental impacts of their actions and how to avoid them.
A pipeline is the usual means of transporting natural gas to a power plant. AA federal agency official told TechCrunch that earlier this year, SpaceX inquired about the reuse of an old gas pipeline crossing the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge.
“They want to reactivate the pipeline to transport the methane by pipeline rather than by truck like they are doing now,” wrote the official, who asked not to be named.
However, this pipeline was permanently abandoned in 2016, according to official and state records. The official told TechCrunch that the old pipeline now houses a fiber optic cable for an internet connection from the University of Texas at Rio Grande Valley.
Trucking enough natural gas to support both a large power plant and regular rocket launches would be a huge undertaking. It would require thousands of tanker deliveries each year, according to an engineer TechCrunch spoke to.
SpaceX even suggested it would be interested in drilling for gas itself, as first reported by Bloomberg earlier this year. In a dispute over the ownership of some abandoned gas wells, the company later wrote: “SpaceX [has] a unique ability to use natural gas with different economic incentives that do not depend on transport or sale in gas markets.
Whichever method SpaceX chooses, the environmental impact should have been disclosed in the PEA, according to Parenteau.
“Methane is a very potent greenhouse gas and the courts have said that every time you come up with a project involving methane you have to go back to the wells, pipeline distribution and downstream effects where the gas is burned. “, did he declare.
According to the blog of an environmental engineer who has studied the starbase, the PEA also makes no mention of other equipment that would be typical of gas-fired power plants and gas processing plants, including a thermal oxidizer, ammonia storage tanks and a gas torch. All of these have environmental impacts, including a carbon footprint and air pollution.
The FAA provided the following statement: “The draft assessment has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and other applicable environmental laws and regulations. “
SpaceX did not respond to requests for comment, but Musk referred to the company’s dependence on fossil fuels at a Tesla shareholders meeting on Thursday. “People say a carbon tax would benefit Tesla,” he said. “I’m like ‘Yeah, but that would hurt SpaceX.’” He then noted that (atmospheric) methane eventually breaks down into carbon dioxide. “Don’t worry too much about methane,” he concluded.
While the exact location of the gas plant is still uncertain, it will have an area of approximately 5.4 acres, structures up to 150 feet tall, and will operate continuously year round, day and night. There is also a small solar farm (1 megawatt) that SpaceX hopes to expand, according to the PEA report..
SpaceX needs the gas power plant to operate a new desalination plant that will produce the millions of gallons of fresh water needed each year for noise and fire suppression during launches. Large amounts of electricity will also be used to make liquid oxygen from air.
NEPA is not the only federal rule that applies. A 250-megawatt power plant would normally be considered a major new source of air pollution under the Clean Air Act, according to Parenteau and another expert. That would trigger another lengthy environmental review.
“More than 50 years after NEPA [was enacted], I’m quite surprised to see an agency do this, ”said Parenteau. “Maybe they hope no one notices?” “
After the public comment period closes on November 1, the FAA will either issue a final PEA that will allow SpaceX to proceed – subject to the FAA’s safety findings – or state its intention to prepare an environmental impact assessment (EIA ) much more detailed. , which usually takes years to prepare.
If the final PEA does not appear to meet NEPA or Clean Air Act requirements, the local community or environmental organizations could take legal action to force the FAA to prepare an EIS, which could further delay the orbital launch of the EIS. ‘spaceship.
[ad_2]
Source link