Connect with us

Published

on

Right now, the FAA is taking public comments for SpaceX’s environmental review of the upcoming Starship Orbital launch. While I generally support space exploration and hope SpaceX succeeds, it’s important to consider the environmental impacts of space activities and find ways to reasonably minimize the environmental impacts.

The Use of Methane For Rockets Is Mostly Defensible

From an environmental perspective, a rocket should be powered by hydrogen. Burning hydrogen combines hydrogen with oxygen from the atmosphere, producing only water vapor in the exhaust. The water vapor harmlessly diffuses in the atmosphere, and doesn’t contribute to climate change or any other environmental harms. Hydrogen rockets are also a proven technology that took the United States to the moon, so it’s entirely possible to use hydrogen for space launches.

But hydrogen does have some serious drawbacks.

Being a small molecule, it’s very difficult and expensive to make sure a rocket doesn’t simply leak its fuel out. Every weld must be absolutely perfect. Every seam must be carefully sealed. All joints and fittings from tanks to engines must have perfect seals. All of that need for perfection means a lot more work, expense, and even danger.

The second problem with hydrogen is that it makes metal more brittle. This again drives up the cost of safely building a hydrogen rocket. Other problems include the low energy density compared to other fuels, temperature control, expense, and complexity of the systems needed to handle it properly. It’s also not easy to produce on Mars, so it wouldn’t be suitable for a Mars colony.

Methane (the purest form of “natural” gas) is the next best thing. It does produce carbon dioxide when it’s burned, but that’s basically all it produces (other than water vapor, like any combustion reaction). Unlike RP-1 or other rocket fuels, it does contribute some to greenhouse gases, but doesn’t spew out other pollutants.

Given the costs of hydrogen and the fact that methane is only a little worse, going with methane was the obvious choice, even if not perfect for the environment.

All The Methane Has To Come From Somewhere, Though

While assessing environmental impacts, the FAA didn’t factor one thing in: the source of the natural gas that would feed SpaceX’s Starbase.

The obvious thing they’ll need natural gas for is the rockets. For those unfamiliar, natural gas is mostly methane, and while it’s good enough for things like furnaces and power plants, the gas that’s normally in pipes just isn’t pure enough for use in rockets. So SpaceX needs a facility to take natural gas in, purify it, and then cool it down until it changes to a liquid state. Then, it’ll be ready to pump into a rocket’s tank and use for launches.

But they didn’t mention the source of all this natural gas in the report. Theoretically, they could truck the natural gas in using tanker trailers, but that would be expensive, cumbersome, and would take a LOT of trucks. The other, more reasonable, option would be to reactivate a natural gas pipeline that runs through the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge. The pipeline, which was abandoned in 2016, is currently holding fiberoptic cables for a local educational institution.

So, SpaceX may still be able to use the pipeline, or it may have to build a new one.

The other thing that hasn’t been considered in the report is that the gas has to get put in the pipeline from somewhere, and the areas near Brownsville just don’t produce enough gas to feed the needs of  SpaceX at Starbase, so more gas will be needed from at least 80 miles away. That means more wells, more pipelines, and more environmental impact that isn’t currently being considered.

SpaceX Is Also Building a 250-Megawatt Gas Power Plant

Getting methane for rockets would probably be something the nearby wells could supply, with minimal gas needs from elsewhere in the state, and that would be reasonable. But, add the needed fuel for a 250-megawatt power plant that runs on natural gas, and you end up in the situation described above. There just isn’t enough local gas to power the rockets plus a big power plant.

According to TechCrunch and ESG Hound (both linked above), the power plant will be needed to power a desalination plant to provide for Starbase’s water needs, as well as to provide for the base’s other electrical needs.

Desalination makes sense, given the limited water supplies in the area and the abundance of salt water, but the equipment to do that isn’t picky about where its electrons come from. Whether it comes from natural gas, or comes from wind and solar, as long as the power keeps coming in, they’ll be able to produce the needed water.

So, Why Isn’t SpaceX Using Renewables?

Given that the company is already planning on piping in gas, and getting more gas is relatively cheap, it’s probably the cheapest solution overall.

But, really, south Texas has great solar resources.

Image provided by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Public Domain.

Sure, it’s not as red hot as it is in El Paso, but Brownsville still has better quality sunlight for solar power production than most of the country. There’s not much in the way of excuse to not build a big solar power plant with storage to supply the desalination plant’s needs, as well as other needs at Starbase. You probably couldn’t build a plant that big right next to Starbase, but you could find some vacant land in the region to supply enough power.

Brownsville only has 223 sunny days per year, which could make an issue, but there’s no reason to not go further away in Texas for power. El Paso and other parts of far west Texas, as close as Big Bend, have over 300 sunny days per year.

Getting the power from the vacant land to Starbase, whether from nearby or farther away, is an issue, but so is the issue of building pipelines. If you can build pipelines, then you can build power lines. Plus, power lines don’t leak and cause other environmental harms the way that gas lines do.

The cost of doing 250 megawatts of solar is probably higher than 250 megawatts of gas, but it doesn’t make sense to be trying to save the species with Tesla and then turn around and burn natural gas for SpaceX’s space colonization efforts.

 

Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.

 

 


Advertisement



 


Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Continue Reading

Environment

California’s e-bike voucher program stumbles again as ‘technical issue’ forces indefinite delay

Published

on

By

California's e-bike voucher program stumbles again as 'technical issue' forces indefinite delay

California’s rollercoaster of an electric bicycle voucher program, designed to make the highly effective transportation alternative affordable for more California residents, has hit yet another bumpy section of track. This time, a “technical issue” is being blamed for the second tranche of vouchers being delayed indefinitely, causing yet another headache for the beleaguered California E-Bike Incentive Program.

The program was set to launch its second round last night, opening its application window for one hour to distribute 1,000 more vouchers worth up to $2,000 off of an electric bicycle.

But program’s operators announced just before the application window was set to close yesterday that the website had experienced technical problems.

Unlike the first round of the incentive program, last night’s application window was designed to last for an hour, giving every eligible California resident who entered the website during the window an equal chance at receiving a voucher. That system was designed as an improvement to the first round, which was widely criticized for its “first come, first served” approach that rewarded fast typing and clicking to exhaust the first 1,500 vouchers in mere seconds.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

However, the timing of the announcement last night meant that many hopeful applicants were left waiting on the website for an hour before learning that the application round was being delayed indefinitely.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, a spokesperson for the California Air Resources Board, which administers the program, said the board is investigating the issues and attempted to troubleshoot the problems “in real time.” The program “ultimately made the decision to reschedule once it became clear that not everyone was able to access the waiting room,” said CARB’s Lindsay Buckley.

It is unclear how many people entered the website during the one-hour application window, but the first round of applications launched last December saw over 100,000 people vying for the limited number of vouchers.

Despite occasional issues like these, such e-bike voucher programs are a powerful motivator for cities and states aiming to shift more trips away from cars and toward sustainable transportation. By directly reducing the upfront cost of an electric bike – often thousands of dollars – these incentives make e-bikes accessible to a broader population, especially lower-income riders who may not be able to afford one otherwise. And unlike subsidies for electric cars, which tend to benefit wealthier households, e-bike voucher programs often deliver a much higher return on investment in terms of mode shift, equity, and emissions reductions.

The benefits don’t stop at access. These programs help normalize e-bike use in urban and suburban areas, accelerating cultural adoption and proving that two wheels can be a practical alternative to four. Cities that have rolled out vouchers, like Denver and San Diego, have seen immediate surges in ridership and have reported that many recipients use their e-bikes as replacements for car trips.

As policymakers look to reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, and hit climate targets, e-bike vouchers offer a fast, scalable, and cost-effective tool that delivers results where it matters most: in people’s daily lives. Despite California’s own voucher program repeatedly hitting roadblocks, these types of programs have proven invaluable to making real changes in the accessibility of important commuting alternatives to cars.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Facing pressure, Trump scales back tariffs for US automakers

Published

on

By

Facing pressure, Trump scales back tariffs for US automakers

Donald Trump signed two executive orders today that walked back parts of tariffs he previously imposed on US automakers ahead of a rally in Michigan to mark his first 100 days in office.

The Wall Street Journal first reported today in an exclusive that Trump was “expected to soften the impact of his automotive tariffs, preventing duties on foreign-made cars from stacking on top of other tariffs and easing some levies on car parts.”

Trump signed an executive order making sure the 25% tariffs on vehicles and certain auto parts won’t stack on top of existing aluminum, steel, or Canada and Mexico tariffs. He also gave automakers a credit to help blunt the impact of the 25% duties on imported parts that go into US-built cars.

Trump’s backpedal comes after weeks of meeting with automaker executives, and a week after a coalition that included GM, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Hyundai sent a letter urging him to drop tariffs on foreign auto parts due to land in May.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

American Automotive Policy Council (AAPC) president Matt Blunt today said in response to the executive orders, “American Automakers Ford, GM, and Stellantis appreciate the administration’s clarification that tariffs will not be layered on top of the existing Section 232 tariffs on autos and auto parts. Applying multiple tariffs to the same product or part was a significant concern for American automakers, and we are glad to see this addressed. We will review the details of the executive order closely to assess how effectively it will mitigate the impact of tariffs on American automakers, our domestic supply chains and ultimately American consumers.” The AAPC represents Ford, GM, and Stellantis. 

Electrek’s Take

The 25% auto tariffs implemented under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act aren’t going anywhere, and most economists say that tariffs will raise car prices and slow auto sales. This White House Fact Sheet is titled, “President Donald J. Trump Incentivizes Domestic Automobile Production.” Where’s the incentive? US automakers are just getting hit with the stick once instead of twice, and they’re thanking Trump for it.

The carrot that worked as an incentive was Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, along with the stability that came with it. All this whiplash is terrible for the US and global economy.

Read more: Killing IRA EV tax credits will ruin US EV and battery industries – Princeton study


Now is a great time to begin your solar journey so your system is installed in time for those longer sunny days. If you want to make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20 to 30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate partner

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Tesla Powerwall 3 is disrupting the solar inverter market

Published

on

By

Tesla Powerwall 3 is disrupting the solar inverter market

New data suggests that the Tesla Powerwall 3 is significantly disrupting the US solar inverter market.

The home battery pack’s integrated inverter is changing the game.

Tesla acquired its solar business when it bought SolarCity in a controversial deal due to Musk being a large shareholder of both Tesla and SolarCity, and Musk’s cousin led the latter.

The automaker kept the SolarCity operations going for a few years. In fact, it continued until after Tesla shareholders sued Musk over the acquisition, and Musk defended himself by claiming that SolarCity had become an integral part of Tesla.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Shortly after he won the lawsuit, Tesla virtually stopped all operations that came from its SolarCity acquisition, which primarily consisted of residential solar financing and installations.

Tesla even stopped reporting solar deployment. The company’s energy business now consists almost entirely of Powerwall and Megapack deployments.

However, the launch of the Powerwall 3 has indirectly brought Tesla back into the solar business, as the home battery pack features an inverter that works for both solar and storage applications.

EnergySage is a company that matches solar installers with potential buyers, and as a result, it has a wealth of interesting data about the solar industry in the US. Today, it released its Spring 2025 Marketplace report.

In the report, EnergySage revealed that Tesla became the second-most quoted inverter brand in the second half of last year:

Tesla became the most quoted battery brand in H2 2024, occupying 63% of Marketplace share nationwide. Because the Powerwall 3 includes an integrated inverter, Tesla also became the second-most quoted inverter brand. With batteries increasingly being added to solar systems—the national battery attachment rate jumped to 45% in H2 2024, an all-time high—Tesla’s growth was a key driver of the low storage and solar prices seen on EnergySage. In 2025, we are examining whether brand backlash and equipment shortages will affect Tesla’s Marketplace share.

This is also a byproduct of the increased popularity of energy storage systems when deploying new solar systems.

In big solar markets like California and Texas, the majority of residential solar quotes are attached to batteries, and Tesla is not the top quoted brand, thanks to Powerwall 3:

Powerwall was already the preferred home battery pack for many homeowners, and the fact that it now includes a solar inverter has made it even more attractive, as most home energy storage systems in the US are being deployed along with rooftop solar.

The Powerwall 3’s solar inverter integration is pushing solar plus storage costs down quite a bit.

The popularity of the Powerwall 3 has particularly hurt Enphase, a leader in solar inverter. It had 73% of the US market in 2022, and now it is down to 53%.

Despite Tesla driving prices down, Powerwall 3 is not the cheapest battery pack available. Panasonic and EG4 batteries were both priced lower on a per kWh basis than Tesla’s in the second half of 2024, but Tesla won on cost when also replacing the solar inverter.

However, it’s not all good news from Tesla. EnergySage also recently reported an increase in customers requesting alternatives to Powerwalls in 2025, partly due to Elon Musk’s increasing controversy.

If you’re interested in installing solar panels and/or batteries for your home, we recommend using EnergySage. You will be able to get quotes without any hassle and only talk to someone when you are ready to move forward. Within minutes, you can get on the path to producing your own power with solar and battery storage, including with Powerwall.

Continue Reading

Trending