Peakers are never going to be as efficient as CCNGs. That’s just how physics works. There will have to be some intelligent operation decisions as to whether it would make sense to do a bit of ‘peaker’ fill-in or go for full CCNG production over a longer amount of time. As we bring battery storage on line we can forego some of the gas peaker runs and then use CCNGs when there are prolonged supply issues that can’t be filled by the storage available.

The new GE gas plant that is optimized for wind and solar backup may be what utilities need to install as we wait for better storage tech.

If something like the Ambri battery pans out there’s going to be some serious blood-letting in gas peaker land….

In the end I think it will come down to a question of capital expenditure. Where suitable natural formations or even existing hydro plants are available, pumped storage is an attractive solution. Where not, gas power plants are likely to provide better economics.

Best regards, Kimi Arima

I guess we’ll see the answer to that one in the next 5-10 years
Best regards, Kimi ArimaWärtsilä Power Plants-www.smartpowergeneration.com-

Best regards,
Kimi Arima
Wärtsilä Power Plants
-smartpowergeneration.com-

thanks for pointing out the subsidies for natural gas. And, of course, if we also take into account the subsidies on the production side, I’m sure gas does get considerably more subsidies than wind (it seems that the US has an even more complicated structure of subsidies related to energy than some European countries).

I agree with you, we are years away from needing to build additional capacity to fill in for wind and solar. But the need is already recognised. For instance, Günther Öttinger, the EU Commissioner for Energy, mentioned in a recent speech that, if EU is to achieve its targets for renewables (the so-called “20-20-20″ targets), they will need around 100 GW of new flexible power generation capacity (meaning gas). This purely from a technical point of view, needed in order to safeguard the stability of the European power system. For this capacity to be in place on time, the EU aims to have a properly incentivising structure of market mechanisms in place by the end of 2014 (lead times for gas power projects range from 2 to 5 years). And this means that, behind closed doors, proposals are already being worked on.

The US aims for renewable power are, according to my understanding, a bit lower than in the EU, but I would suspect that the (as yet unstated) need for backup is on the same scale.

Best regards,
Kimi Arima
Wärtsilä Power Plants
-www.smartpowergeneration.com-

thank you for the reply. I fully agree, the tables should be switched to, as you said, 50% wind / 10% gas. Even IEA noted in one of their recent reports that the role of gas in the future will be to provide a backup for wind and solar.

But: the 10% gas power is not the made up of the same plants we have today. Ask any operator of a combined cycle gas turbine plant, they hate ramping up and down and shutting down and starting up to balance wind (in industry lingo, this is called “cyclic operation”). The reason for this is that a combined cycle gas turbine plant is designed for steady state operation, and cyclic operation dramatically (1) increases operation & maintenance costs; (2) decreases efficiency, and (3) increases emissions (as a result of (2)).

So, new plants are needed to be better able to function in the role of backup for wind and solar. But, due to the deteriorating effect of price uncertainty on feasibility projections, these new plants are not getting built. Hence the discussions in the UK and Germany, among other countries, for a market mechanism (e.g. capacity payment) to support such backup capacity.

Kind regards,
Kimi Arima
Wärtsilä Power Plants
-smartpowergeneration.com-

The thing that is driving natural gas plant construction today is the EPA pressure to clean up or close down the worst of the coal plants. Utility managers are finding it cheaper to build new gas generation than to refit old coal plants.

BTW, natural gas also receives a share of subsidy and preferential tax treatment, best not to tell only one side of the story.

Even shills for the natural gas industry should realize that.

When “smartpowergeneration” sponsors are going to be in real trouble is when their price for fill-in power exceeds the cost of stored wind/solar electricity. And that time may be soon arriving.

But, hey, you gave it a try. You might attempt to disguise your motives a bit more next time….

This is not a zero-sum game. What is needed is a system with proper incentives for both intermittent renewable power generation and dispatchable power generation, such as gas power plants.

-www.smartpowergeneration.com-