Posted by Ed on March 24, 2007, 6:36 pm Montgomery Energy Billerica Power Partners, LP Spinning is not costless in terms of either power consumption or environmental cmissions. Of particular note. when operating at partial load to serve a constantly changing peak power requirement, these larger non-peaking power generation machines become less efficient and emit more criteria pollutants than their ratings. The environmental emission ratings are calculated under ideal full load operating conditions and these are what the TPS adopt, but does not reflect how combined-cycles operate in the New England grid. Therefore. even though having a slightly better heat rate and emissions profile under ideal conditions. if it (I) must combust fossil fuel when power is not needed. just to be able to spin so as to produce power later at a discrete peak time, and (2) must operate under partial load conditions, a baseload or intermediate load plant attempting to function outside of its intcndcd application to serve a peaking need. results in more emissions per effective unit of useful power utilized by consumers. There is also a consumer cost associated with dispatching a baseload facility to provide peaking power resources. Baseload generators dispatched to minimum load are compensated for their costs to be committed online; costs that are referred to as “uplift." None of this is captured by the TPS, which reflect bench scale stand alone manufacturer values. and not the actual values of how the power generator will function in the constellation of generating resources that actually characterize the New England system today. They also reflect combined-cycle prime mover configurations. instead of Brayton cycle prime mover configurations. It is well settled in air permit BACT. LAER,. and RACT determinations made under Massachusetts law by the Department of Environmental Protection in Massachusetts, that each primer mover technology is evaluated and regulated only against its own class of primer mover technology. Thus, the BACT required emission level for a Brayton cycle machine is different than for a Rankine cycle machine or a combined-cycle machine. Each must economically. minimize In fact, even having a slightly higher heat rate than a combined-cycle baseload facility. a needed peaking unit actually improves the emissions profile of the entire eleetric system. and evidences a net benefit environmentally and economically for that region. Such appropriate efficiency will be furthered by the installation of this proposed peaking facility. New England is critically short of peaking units. especially those sited near metropolitan Boston load centers. We believe that this Petition is appropriately evaluated in the eontext of how this Alternative Technologies Review Page 3-3 EFSB Billerica Petition.doc
24.34.144.49
I heard from some one the other day that I was and activist? I was also told that the material on theses site was inacurate? So here is page 3-3 from the ENF Petition untouched for you to view. If you don´t believe me then go to the Power Companies site and download it yourself or you can read the whole 147 pages. Read closely and see if you found what I did!
Petition before Energy Facility Siting Board
February 2007
emissions in the context of its particular technology only. The Applicant will demonstrate that it has done this. both in terms of DEPrequirements and any technology specific standard applied to a simple-cycle peaking power generation project.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread