3 ms·

Is it really though? How many gigawatts of gas peaker plants and all the associated infrastructure sit around waiting for the tens or hundred hours they're need

Is it really though? How many gigawatts of gas peaker plants and all the associated infrastructure sit around waiting for the tens or hundred hours they're needed? Turns out, it's a lot - and it costs the ratepayers: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/just-how-much-business-can-batteries-take-from-gas-peakers https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/just-how-much-b... > Wood Mackenzie calculates the average peaker plant capacity factor will sit between 5 and 6 percent over the next two decades. That amounts to a low number of hours for storage to replicate. In New York City, ratepayers are paying billions of dollars for polluting gas peakers that sit idle. https://www.cleanegroup.org/ceg-projects/phase-out-peakers/ https://www.cleanegroup.org/ceg-projects/phase-out-peakers/ * An estimated $4.5 billion in ratepayers funds have gone to support the continued operation of the city’s peaker plants – most of which operate no more than a few hundred hours each year. * Even though the power plants don’t run often, they can be significant contributors to local air pollution – accounting for more than 10 percent of nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions on high ozone days. Luckily we have the technology to both start replacing gas peakers with storage, and roll out demand response and load shedding to reduce peak demand. For example, my employer is a big power user. On a couple days in the summer during peak heat, the utility requests curtailment. The plant managers can respond by switching HVAC operation plans, shift some loads to the overnight - the utility saves money on peak generation, and the company saves a ton of demand charges. Win-win.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
This is going to come up a lot in future, so we should be careful to seperate two things: 1. Money spent on having generators on standby when they are used only 5% of the time 2. Money spent on fossil fuels for those plants when they actually run. 1 is money well spent, 2 is a problem to be solved but just carbon taxing it is probably enough to consider it solved. Luckily, the high cost of 1, makes it easier to justify adding batteries or a thousand other things that help to reduce 2. But you know people are going to point to the same peaker plants we've had for years and say "look how expensive renewables are!". Also, we've already built the gas plants. Which is probably a big chunk of the cost (they'll just be spreading that cost across the hours that they intend to run during their working life).

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

This is going to come up a lot in future, so we should be careful to seperate two things: 1. Money spent on having generators on standby when they are used only 5% of the time 2. Money spent on fossil fuels for those plants when they actually run. 1 is money well spent, 2 is a problem to be solved but just carbon taxing it is probably enough to consider it solved. Luckily, the high cost of 1, makes it easier to justify adding batteries or a thousand other things that help to reduce 2. But you know people are going to point to the same peaker plants we've had for years and say "look how expensive renewables are!". Also, we've already built the gas plants. Which is probably a big chunk of the cost (they'll just be spreading that cost across the hours that they intend to run during their working life).