Managing the Duck Curve and all of Its Foul Relatives

I agree with Bob. Using  bio derived fuel in a gas turbine is a very unlikely path. The machines can technically fire the fuel, but supplying the fuel is one hell of a problem.

Also, when you run the financials on an even handed basis, advanced gas turbines such as the LMS 100 are competitive with solar energy, while obviously being significantly more reliable and able to provide energy when needed.

Attempting to solve Duck Curve issues in California strikes me as fundamentally based on quackery. Making the wildly impractical assumption of zero CO2 emissions yields to not particularly rational solutions. As theses are the same folks hell-bent on shutting down the Diablo Canyon nuclear station, not surprising that La-La land type solutions emerge.

John,

Here is some data that backs up your comments. EIA started breaking down NG generation by plant type in 2008. Generation from simple-cycle plants has declined from 36TWh in 2008 to 16 TWh in 2019.  Since these plants use a lot more NG per TWh eliminating simple-cycle NG generation should be a priority if we want to lower CO2 more efficiently.

Also, current "run-rate" for batteries on CAISO is about 3,000 MWh/day or 1TWh/year. This should double by the end of year. This implies that a further 8x increase in battery storage could eliminate the remaining 16 TWh of simple cycle generation.  Obviously it won't be a 1-1 drop but this is a good ballpark.

By the way thanks to Bob for this source - great info on replacing NG peakers in CA - highly recommended.

In this analysis, we assess where solar and storage have the potential to replace existing California peaker power plants and where their deployment may yield the greatest environmental health and equity benefits.  Across California, nearly 80 gas-fired power plants help meet statewide peak electric demand. These plants include 65 combustion turbines designed to ramp quickly to meet peak demand, and over ten aging steam and combined cycle turbines now used infrequently to meet peak needs.

Zero emissions in California (or US for that matter) is not a logically sound position, particularly when viewed in the larger context of global CO2 emissions. Then throw in the fact that the threat of CO2 emissions is long range conjecture. The economics of zero emissions become irrational.

A simple follow-the-money analysis quickly leads to the conclusion that zero-emissions is largely a ploy to line the pockets of the well-off at the expense of most of the rest of the population.

Electricity generation should first and foremost be based on providing reasonably priced energy, and that goal also includes the profit motive. Technology innovations   to meet that goal inevitably lead to lower emissions. History provides ample demonstration of the validity of that approach. The evolution of gas turbines provides a text book example of how technology innovations lower production costs and emissions. As long as not used to the extreme, green energy can track along that same path.

"...a battery energy storage system can replace them with no pollution (greenhouse gas or otherwise)."

There is no battery system in the world that can replace peaker plants, and there never will be (or should be). For many reasons:

1) Exorbitant expense. According to EIA:

"California had the most installed battery capacity of any state in 2019. The average battery storage cost in California was $1,522/kWh. About two-thirds of battery storage capacity in California is used for frequency regulation."

Do the math: to shave a tiny slice - 15 gigawatthours - from California's peak consumption each day, we'd need 15 million kWhs of battery capacity at a total cost of $1,522/kWh x 15,000,000 = $22.8 billion. They would need to be replaced every 7-10 years. They'd need 15 gigawatts of additional solar or wind to charge them (they can't charge themselves). They'd need to be charged with exclusively solar or wind energy (they aren't).

Batteries make new nuclear, even at inflated US prices, look like a bargain.

2) Despite popular misperceptions, battery energy storage systems are not "pollution-free". Why? They waste energy:

"...net system CO2 emissions resulting from storage operation are nontrivial when compared to the emissions from electricity generation, ranging from 104 to 407 kg/MWh of delivered energy depending on location, storage operation mode, and assumptions regarding carbon intensity."

3) Despite popular misperceptions, battery facilities are built next to solar and wind farms for appearance only. They charge from a grid mix, like they do anywhere else, but are placed there so naïve renewables advocates will think "the batteries are being charged by the sun by day, and are powering the grid at night!". And per above, they're adding 104 to 407 kg of CO2 to the emissions of that electricity, for every MWh they store.

"I've worked with the CPUC, CEC and all of the major utilities in California for over 40 years. In the last 20 of those years, they have all been really focused on mitigating climate change."

Perhaps you weren't of aware of the blatant corruption associated with the shutdown of San Onofre, or of the links between Jerry Brown / Gavin Newsom and California's natural gas industry. The commissioners of CPUC, CEC, and CARB are appointed by one man - the governor - and both of the above have consistently made energy-related decisions, and appointed commissioners, solely to enrich themselves at the expense of the environment.

"I cannot believe they would knowingly make a decision that ran counter to that effort [mitigating climate change]."

Believe it.

Finally, tell me why I should believe net-zero and carbon-neutral aren't little more than "I gave at the office" excuses for failing to reach zero fossil carbon emissions, as IPCC says we must, in eighty short years?

Saw this today... battery usage on CAISO hit a new high yesterday - 877 MW.  This would be close to using sixteen - 50 MW NG peakers.

Total discharge between 6-10pm was about 1,800 MWh.

The CPUC is doing their best to make electricity a luxury item for the poor and middle class. Further, their actions are utterly irrelevant to climate change as simple mathematics easily demonstrates - relative to world-wide CO2 emissions, California is pure bug dust. Further, the assumption of man made CO2 having any meaningful impact on the climate remains conjecture.

The CPUC actions have been ill conceived and not particularly bright, as they are primarily kowtowing to environmental zealots, at the expense of providing the population with affordable energy. You have a bunch of like minded individuals suffering from severe tunnel vision and group think. Couple that with the arrogance of unaccountable bureaucrats and the result is predictable. Exorbitant energy prices and an intermittent and unreliable electrical grid. Welcome to California, a third world country of the extremely rich and the poor.