As the demand for electrical energy increases, it creates a huge footprint on the quality of people’s lives and the environment. It feels like riding a runaway train. There is no good nonconsequential ending or is there? We can now change our strategy to improve and reduce the impact.
In the USA, the national electrical grid is supported by portfolios of a few large base load generation units, small numbers of intermediate plants, and many quick-responding units called Peaker units.
The baseload units operate 24/7 all year except for scheduled or unscheduled outages in support of the unit’s operation. Intermediate units are operated based on scheduled grid demand. Peaker units are operated to support frequent short-term grid fluctuations. These units come online in minutes and only stay online for a short period when the baseload and intermediate units cannot support the grid requirements.
Peaker units normally run for 5 to 10 percent of the year and they only run for a few hours (2 to 4 hours) per day. Currently, several renewable energy systems such as pumped storage hydropower (PSH), solar, and wind are employed to support the grid in case of short-term increases in demand. Traditional Peaker units and renewable energy systems have a large environmental and ecological footprint.
Considering the nature of electrical grid demand and power usage, Peaker units are required for reliable and stable national grid operation. With that said, we need to look at options that meet occasional grid demand with far less environmental and ecological consequences. Are there any alternative Peaker systems that meet the national grid demand with far less environmental and ecological consequences?
Peaker units are normally built near the national electrical grid with very low MW ratings but take very little time to ramp up to their full generation capacity. They are used for about a few hundred hours a year. However, they are required to be maintained in ready status for a quick start-up all year long. They use some types of fossil fuel and generate a lot of pollution. There are over 1000 Peaker units nationwide and they are operated with various types of agreement. Many of the Peaker units are very old and they will be retired in the next decade.
During the past several years, utilities have been working with various organizations to use certain amounts of renewable electrical energy to replace the current fossil Peaker units. Alternative renewables such as pumped storage hydropower, solar, and wind are some of the top drivers for consideration. These types of energy systems have different environmental and ecological consequences. Here is a quick high-level review of these types of energy systems.
Recently, I posted a detailed document on the pros and cons of using pumped storage hydropower (PSH) at LinkedIn and I will not cover it here again. Please see my LinkedIn posting in late June.
Solar and wind energy systems development and harvesting have their own environmental and ecological challenges. For example, a small 5 MW solar energy center will require at least 10 acres of land with special contours and the clear-cutting of all trees. Also, there is a large carbon footprint for manufacturing solar panels and disposal. Normally, a solar energy center's life expectancy is about 12 to 15 years. Understanding the solar panels’ sensitivity to high temperatures, required storage and transmission of harvested solar energy, etc. solar energy centers most likely would not be built in the middle of nowhere. Hence, the land usage and environmental and ecological challenges. Just to keep everyone focused on the message, I am not saying that we should not develop a certain amount of solar, wind, or other renewable energy units where it makes sense. On the contrary, I am very supportive of these energy systems, and I believe they will be with us forever. What I am saying is that we cannot build our way out just by using renewable sources to replace current Peaker units. I think you would agree with me.
The reality is that we cannot have a stable and reliable grid without the support of Peaker units. Also, the current definition of insanity would not give us a different result. So, what is the answer?
Many fossil Peaker units are scheduled to be retired in the near future. We have a great opportunity to consider more reliable clean energy units to replace them. I am talking about small advanced modular reactors. SMRs are a perfect sustainable answer to the current question. These units have a very small footprint, they can be designed for incremental load increase in support of the national electrical grid demand. In some cases, extra energy generated could be restored on-site for any future energy demand.
Based on recent reports, over 260 GW of electrical load is provided by Peaker units to support the national electrical grid. Also, it is projected that an additional 20 to 30 GW will be required for the next decade to meet increased demand. Understanding that 60% capacity of the current Peaker units will be retired because of aging in the next decade, we will need to build 130 to 150 GW of new units to maintain the national grid during the next 10 years. This is a great time to employ SMRs for this application. This strategy will support our national clean energy goals, energy independence, and energy cost reduction. In some cases, SMRs could play several roles in the nation’s bigger strategy of increasing clean energy use and reducing environmental impact. The question is: Why are we not doing it? I would like to hear your professional insights and suggestions to integrate SMRs in the cleaner Peaker unit’s strategy for the national electrical grid operation.