3 ms·

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

by aazaa 5y ago

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 5y ago
The sheets are linked in previous parts of the series, as well as the data. For example: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xO-OsDaQBnaCDGqHAtbzEiZetO1oXhVmTJKoi4_IT4U/edit#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xO-OsDaQBnaCDGqHAtbz...
mark212 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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-missing-gas/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/08/the-mystery-of-elon-musks-...
  - rspeed 5y ago
    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.
    - ESGHound 5y ago
      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
ESGHound 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    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_engagement/spacex_starship/media/Draft_PEA_for_SpaceX_Starship_Super_Heavy_at_Boca_Chica.pdf https://www.faa.gov/space/stakeholder_engagement/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?

by aazaa 5y ago

RobLach 5y ago

The sheets are linked in previous parts of the series, as well as the data. For example: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xO-OsDaQBnaCDGqHAtbzEiZetO1oXhVmTJKoi4_IT4U/edit#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xO-OsDaQBnaCDGqHAtbz...

mark212 5y ago

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 5y ago
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-missing-gas/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/08/the-mystery-of-elon-musks-...
- rspeed 5y ago
  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.
  - ESGHound 5y ago
    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

ESGHound 5y ago

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 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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_engagement/spacex_starship/media/Draft_PEA_for_SpaceX_Starship_Super_Heavy_at_Boca_Chica.pdf https://www.faa.gov/space/stakeholder_engagement/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?