Peakers are peaking power plants, also known as peaker plants, that generally run when there is a high demand — known as peak demand — for electricity. New York State has environmental regulations (by DEC) that will limit the use of peaker plants to reduce ozone levels. These are to be phased in between 2023-35. Fewer peakers put the electricity grid at risk during heat waves.
From the annual grid report by New York ISO: www.nyiso.com/documents/20142/2223020/2022-Power-Trends-Repo…
“The CRP concluded that reliability margins will shrink in upcoming years due primarily to the planned unavailability of simple cycle combustion turbines that are impacted by the DEC’s Peaker Rule.”
Figure 17 shows the diminishing reliability margins (page 37). Looking at 95 degree heatwaves, New York City will have razor-thin margins beginning in 2025 before going negative a couple of years later. In the past 10 years New York City has gotten up to 100° three times.
“Looking ahead to 2040, the policy for an emissions-free electricity supply will require the development of new technologies. Substantial zero-emission despatchable resources will be required to fully replace fossil generation. Long-duration, dispatchable and emission-free resources will be necessary to maintain reliability and meet the objectives of the CLCPA. Resources with this combination of attributes are not commercially available at this time but will be critical to future grid reliability.”
With various pushes toward electrification demand for electricity is expected to increase. Unfortunately, New York state is moving in the wrong direction with a decrease in generating capacity.
Each year the state (NYISO) issues a report, the Gold Book, on loads and capacity. In this year’s report we read on page 77:
This section provides an overview of significant changes in generating facilities since the 2022 Gold Book was issued, together with a summary of changes in energy generation in the past year. This information is presented in two steps. Reported first is the net change in existing generation from the 2022 Gold Book through March 15, 2022, which is a decrease of 342.4 MW 9 for the summer. Second, any additional generation changes from March 15, 2023 until the summer of 2023 are reported, which is a decrease of 283.9 MW, excluding changes in Special Case Resources and Net Purchases. This results in a total capacity decrease of 626.3 MW from the summer of 2022 to the summer of 2023. https://www.nyiso.com/documents/20142/2226333/2023-Gold-Book-Public.pdf/c079fc6b-514f-b28d-60e2-256546600214
This is very good news. Hopefully a disaster in Texas right about now and we will get a grid bill through congress. Energy needs to be transported as always.
Last year’s report projected growth over the next 10 year of 0.2% annually. On the second page of this year’s report they project growth of 1% annually, a 5x change.
These simple cycle combustion turbines are old technology and they are dirty and costly. Smart utilities are replacing these turbines with batteries which are more reliable, clean and cheaper to operate/maintain.
The projected growth rate in demand was 0.2% per year. Currently the projected growth rate is 1.0% per year. This much higher projected growth will cause even more problems if generating capacity continues to decline.
You are missing the fact that NYISO has Special Case Resources and Net Purchases which add up to more than their instate power generation decrease. Lots of states purchase out of state power because it is cheaper than instate generation. There is no worry about the fake crisis that you have manufactured. NYISO is not having any blackout worries like Texas and other southern states.
It would be good if they can maintain that going forward. Given the long delays in offshore wind and grid connections in general I hope they can make it. Of more concern are the peaker plants for NYC as noted in the OP. A couple of quotes:
Looking at 95 degree heatwaves, New York City will have razor-thin margins beginning in 2025 before going negative a couple of years later.
“Looking ahead to 2040, the policy for an emissions-free electricity supply will require the development of new technologies. Substantial zero-emission despatchable resources will be required to fully replace fossil generation. Long-duration, dispatchable and emission-free resources will be necessary to maintain reliability and meet the objectives of the CLCPA. Resources with this combination of attributes are not commercially available at this time but will be critical to future grid reliability.”
The decision to retain the plants – the Gowanus and Narrows peakers – comes just as load in the area is poised to climb higher, while the fleet of operating peakers has dwindled in size. In this Energy Insight, we take a closer look at how the remaining peaker plants are taking on increasing responsibility to ensure system reliability in the face of these headwinds…
The area with the largest amount of peaker plants and the subject of this analysis is NYISO Load Zone J. Home to population-dense Manhattan and the outer boroughs of Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Staten Island, Zone J accounts for one-third of the state’s entire electricity load…
The importance of the Zone J peaker plants becomes even more evident when considering that the New York City region faces restrictions on the amount of power it can import from neighboring areas due to transmission capacity limitations.
As the chart below shows, even with the addition of distributed solar generation and energy efficiency improvements, building electrification and deployments of electric vehicles will start to have a material impact on load. By the end of the decade, when such initiatives start to reach scale, peaking generators will take on even greater importance for maintaining system reliability.
Didn’t someone here, some time ago, say that trying to change the vehicle fleet to electric, first, was not the brightest move, because it only shifts carbon emissions to the generation fleet? Shouldn’t the generation fleet be moved to carbon-free sources first, then switch everything that can be connected to a wire next, then vehicles last?
No. Because it will take decades to switch the generation fleet to carbon free sources. Power plants are built to last many decades (in general).
Second point. Even if we are just moving the CO2 generation from cars to power plants, this is a GOOD thing by itself. EVs get far greater miles per unit of CO2 emitted. The MPGe is a proxy measure of this. Most EVs get a 100 MPGe or better (many get 125 or higher) while the average ICE gets about 25 mpg. Even a high mpg ICE is only 40 or 50 mpg.
Third point. Ignoring everything else, switching emissions from every car that we drive around to power plants is a good thing because smog production is less (see MPGe numbers above); and the air we breathe is not next to the tail pipes; and some generation is already emissions free (solar, wind, nuclear).
Is there a good counter argument to those points?
I don’t think so.
Here are three points off the top of my head:
There are a lot fewer power plants than automobiles.
They are owned by fewer decision makers.
Their electricity is used for many other purposes – residential, commercial, industrial.
On a related note, since 2019 New York State has added 2300 MW of generating capacity while retiring 5200 MW. Generator retirements are outpacing additions.
Some good points…but we can do both at once (develop/deploy EVs AND develop/install clean generation). Just because there are fewer power plants doesn’t mean that the owners will choose to shut them down any time soon.
How long do you think it will take, for example, before the 50% dirtiest power plants will all be shut down?
IMO, all our grandchildren will be retiring and wondering why WE didn’t do something more about cleaning the air we breathe everyday and reducing CO2 when the technology to do it for most people was available in ~2020.
From ChatGPT:
BEV powered by Wind: 2.2 g CO2/mile
BEV powered by Hydro: 4.8 g CO2/mile
BEV powered by Solar PV: 8.2 g CO2/mile
BEV powered by Geothermal: 24.4 g CO2/mile
BEV powered by Average U.S. Grid: 77.2 g CO2/mile
BEV powered by Natural Gas: 90 g CO2/mile
BEV powered by Coal: 164 g CO2/mile
Meanwhile…
HEV: 200 g CO2/mile
ICE Car: 360 g CO2/mile
Note: I think these numbers might be 10-15% too optimistic. But there is no real argument on the advantage of EVs from CO2 on average fleet wide if we eliminate coal. Even though BEV/coal beats ICE by a lot.
Electricity is also domestic with no emissions where you drive and live.
True. At the same time the efforts to eliminate/reduce coal power plants have made much more progress than switching the transportation fleet, so Steve has a point.