Replacing Peaking Power Plants with Battery Energy Storage Systems

 In the last couple of years environmental advocates have vilified peaking power plants in their endless quest for zero risk to Environmental Justice (EJ) communities. I believe the State's policy appeasement of the environmental advocacy organizations is ill-founded and dangerous. There is no benign way to generate and distribute electricity so every option has drawbacks

Peaking power plants are used to balance generation and load.

• New York utilities have relied on two types of generating resources: purpose-built units and existing but aging and inefficient units
• In 1970 Consolidated Edison installed 100 simple cycle combustion turbines to provide peaking power and also maintain reliability in specific regions of New York City and Long Island - known as load pockets.

Environmental tradeoffs and safety risks:

• There is no such thing as a zero-emissions vehicle
• Global uptake of lithium-ion battery technology has "outstripped" our knowledge of the risks
• Once a battery is abused, the chemistry can become unstable and generate gases and heat, which can lead to a thermal runaway reaction
• Thermal runaway runaways should be prevented by safety systems, but they are still occurring

The LG Chem report on SK incidents blames:

• Inadequate design of the electrical protection system

Christensen describes the characteristics of the thermal runaway plume

• The intensity of the fires and the toxic gases mean that fire fighters cannot put the fires out safely

Discussion

• The argument that these facilities are the root cause of significant health issues rings hollow because the primary air quality effects are from secondary pollutants that form after the emitted pollution has been transported away from the neighborhood.
• Moreover, the Hochul Administration is pushing for the closure of all fossil-fired power plants in New York City.

Conclusion

• Until you have a viable alternative, and I submit that the renewable energy battery storage option is not viable, then it is premature to shut down the existing fossil fired peaking generation in New York City and the state.
• Not only will the closures have minimal effect on health impacts but closure could affect reliability.

Another unrecognized constraint by the environmental advocacy organizations is the financing model for a necessary resource that only operates a few times a year.

• Purpose-built peaking generation resources to this point have relied on the cheapest resource available such as simple-cycle combustion turbines
• New York City is requiring a dedicated resource capable of providing peaking power on demand

The environmental advocate argument is that it is necessary to address climate change.

• Paraphrasing Tom Shepstone, my ultimate concern is "it is profound climate misinformation to suppose global warming is such a threat that any action, no matter how risky, is somehow preferable to a fossil fuel alternative without those risks".
• Roger Caiazza
• Environmental staff in any industry have to be pragmatic balancing risks and benefits.

https://pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog/2022/10/24/replacing-peaking-power-plants-with-battery-energy-storage-systems/