Hacker News Reader

Comment by layer8 | Hacker News Reader

Reuters article on which this is probably based: https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/texas-repeatedl...

Salient quote:

Cheniere’s massive LNG plant, on the outskirts of the Gulf Coast city, has exceeded its permitted limits for emissions of pollutants such as soot, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) hundreds of times since it started up in 2018, according to a Reuters review of regulatory documents.

Instead of levying penalties for such violations, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has responded by granting Cheniere big increases in the plant’s pollution limits, the documents show. The facility is now allowed to chuff out some 353 tons per year of VOCs, double the limit set out in its original permit eight years ago. The state raised limits on four other pollutants by more than 40%.

View on HN

This original title also used "limits" which is more correct for the content, this link and the original title should be substituted. A "raised standard" would imply lower limits allowed by conventional use of the word/phrase.

"Texas repeatedly raises pollution limits for Cheniere LNG plant"

(Note: You can email the mods using the footer contact link and they’ll probably agree and make those changes, if they don’t see this rapidly enough.)

Lots of articles in the Texas newspapers over the last few years about these big petrochemical complexes being habitual, and flagrant polluters.

The environmental regulator in Texas is currently being re-evaluated as part of a regular process to determine if it's effective. The state agency that did the review came up with the conclusion "no, it isn't."

From what I've read, the regulating agency is widely seen as a rubber stamp operation for the petrochemical industry. Part of the codified process involves issuing a draft pollution permit before public input is even sought. Very backward from almost every other state I've studied.

Also interesting, there have been dozens and dozens of articles about massive methane discharges all around the state from various pipelines. Until recently, it's been impossible to see methane dumps in near-real-time. But now that there are satellites that can see the plumes, they're being detected all the time. Rather than flush the methane out of a pipeline into storage before maintenance, the pipeline companies have been just venting it into the atmosphere.

Amazingly, even though the methane dumps coincide exactly with the pipeline maintenance schedules, and the satellites document the plumes, the pipeline companies maintain their stance of, "Oh, yeah? Prove it."

My observation over the last 20 years is that while Texas is slowly getting greener, as the process progresses and technology improves, we're learning just how dirty it was to start with.

insights welcome on the regulatory capture in TX; spin addition on the story from me might be -- that "we're learning just how dirty it was" is not the case in a system of systems. News stories somehow imply a common, collective understanding with a collective voice of discovery, but this is an illusion maintained for civil progress. Multiple individual researchers in every generation, and some institutions and business interests, not only knew how dirty it was, but went to great lengths to tell anyone, do something, make it stop or change. It is a particular brand of militant, obstinate and dominant management style, cherished in Texas politics, that repeatedly ignore and in fact mock opposition. It is a sport among them to bait and goad environmentalists, undermine the agenda, and lay blame on ordinary economic and political trends on greens.

"we're learning just how dirty it was" speaks from the calm policy podium, but is not sufficient in this case of environmental crime.

"flagrant polluters."

This is such a sloppy take, backed by no data. If anyone would spend 10 minutes analyzing GHG and other emissions they would find that BURNING / USING these products is what produces the most emissions. So 40 million+ tons per year easily (in the US) of JUST carbon monoxide. FAR worse globally. Billions of tons of CO2. And heads up, LNG is much CLEANER than many other fuels currently in use, particularly coal.

"We are defending our communities from being obliterated,” says John Serna, a resident of Portland, Gregory, and Ingleside.

Hardly - look at ukraine for what the word "obliterated" means.

> The environmental regulator in Texas is currently being re-evaluated as part of a regular process to determine if it's effective. The state agency that did the review came up with the conclusion "no, it isn't."

More guberment? Feh! Just let The Market™ decide. /s

Sounds like Texas technology on CC (Comission Capture) is "the best available". Is there an open data feed on this? Where is the grafana dashboard showing graft?

If one could summon @dang, the story link should be replaced with the reuters article.

>If one could summon @dang,

You need to speak a little louder and enunciated. Let me help

Oh DAAAAANNNNNNGGGGG. Sitkack needs some HEEEELLLLLPPPPP

You're welcome

The best technology available is to change the standards...

The current HN title is, "Texas raises emission standards for the Cheniere LNG project on a regular basis". I thought I would be reading and reading about a process of moving the approved standards to "better" levels, which in the case of pollutants, would be lower levels. I imagined that maybe the builders of the plant were facing goal post movement every time they got close to completing the plant or something, moving the date of opening of this useful plant ever further into the future.

The word "standards" should probably be replaced with "limits".

Changed to that now from https://newsotg.com/2022/06/25/world-news/texas-raises-emiss.... Thanks!

> The facility is now allowed to chuff out some 353 tons per year of VOCs

For context, the facility liquefies 15 million tons of methane per year [1].

Also for context, the annual US VOC emissions in 2021 were 12 million tons [2].

353 tons is 0.003% of that.

[1] https://www.cheniere.com/where-we-work/ccl

[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/501310/volume-of-volatil...

This seems fairly reasonable unless someone can provide evidence that it would be commercially reasonable to further reduce those 353 tons emitted. 0 is an unlikely number, but I would be interested in seeing what the emissions reductions costs are between 0 and 353.

Sad we are so against nuclear.

More nuclear would not prevent this. This is a political problem. It's also the same kind of problem that makes nuclear undesirable. Can you imagine what kind of mess regulatory capture of nuclear power would lead to?

Things seem hopeless right before the hockey stick goes vertical. Spend a few minutes of what renewables are going to look like in the next 10 years. Terrawatts of capacity are in the works.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com