Environmental Justice advocates like the PEAK coalition argue that "Fossil peaker plants in New York City are perhaps the most egregious energy-related example of what environmental injustice means today." This post critiques a recent General Accounting Office report on "Information from Peak Demand Power Plants" that was prepared in response to a question about pollution from these facilities by some congressional representatives.
The GAO website summary for the report explains why they did the study: Environmental advocacy groups, and some congressional leaders have expressed concerns that peakers may be less efficient than non-peakers, meaning peakers may expend more energy that is not converted into electricity than other types of plants.
Further, due to the nature of their operations, peakers may also negatively affect the air quality in communities around the plants, which may be historically disadvantaged or disproportionately low-income.
Initially, my concerns were associated with developing an emissions tracking system to ensure compliance with air quality requirements for peaking plants.
Peaking Power Problem I think the GAO report missed the opportunity to highlight the challenges and implications of peak power demand and how it could and should be addressed.
While the daily peak is a problem it is far less impactful than the annual peak load. GAO Report The GAO report determined how many peakers are in the country and where they are located.
The GAO analysis determined the number of peaking power plants as a function of how much power plants ran in 2021: For the purpose of our report, we generally define peakers as plants that use fossil fuels, including natural gas, coal, and oil; have a capacity factor of 15 percent or less; and have a nameplate capacity of greater than 10 megawatts of electricity.
The GAO report states that "Peakers are used to supplement other types of power plants, such as baseload plants, which run consistently throughout the day and night, and intermediate plants, which run mostly during the day and less at night".
There is a difference between power plants designed to meet peaking applications and many facilities that now operate as intermediate or peaking units.
The GAO summary lists 999 peaking power plants in the following table.
The GAO claims that "For example, based on our model and main definition of a peaker, a community that is 71 percent historically disadvantaged is expected to be 9 percent closer to the nearest peaker than the average community, which is 40 percent historically disadvantaged." I do not think this is an unexpected result, but I also think it is meaningless.
The GAO report addressed the impact of emissions and the resulting health impacts: "When operating, peakers emit similar types of pollutants to other power plants that also use fossil fuels, and these pollutants are associated with various negative health effects, according to existing literature." The impacts section notes: Compared to non-peakers, peakers emitted more pollutants-such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide-per unit of electricity generated, but fewer total annual pollutants in 2021, according to our analysis of EPA data.
Moreover the reality is that nitrogen oxides scavenge ozone so that the peaking power plants actually reduce ozone concentrations close to the facility.
The health effects section states: "Multiple pollutants that are emitted from peakers and other plants are associated with various negative health effects for the people exposed, according to federal agency reports we reviewed".
Pdf The EJ activists pushing the negative impacts of the peaking power plants presume that there are alternatives.
Efforts to decrease consumers' use of power during peak times: Efforts to incentivize consumers to reduce or shift electricity use during times of peak use to off-peak times.
The report notes that "Some alternatives may have higher capital and operating costs compared to current fossil-fueled peakers": Replacing peakers, some of which have already paid off their capital costs, will likely lead to additional up-front or operating costs compared to keeping the existing peakers.
In contrast, a fossil-fueled peaker is only limited by fuel availability-a natural gas-fueled peaker could keep operating so long as natural gas is available.
Discussion The GAO was asked to respond to a question about pollution from peaking power plants by some congressional representatives.
The final summary point begrudgingly admits that there are "Costs, reliability, space, and location challenges" for replacements to peaking power plants.
The reality is that in order to deal with peaking power plants and the net-zero ambitions we do not have the generating or transmission technologies needed.
The bigger picture problem is the potential threat that political and activist pressure will force premature retirement of peaking power plants with a marked increase in potential reliability risks.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/29/gao-information-on-peaking-power-plants-report/
No comments:
Post a Comment