Recently at Public Utility Commission of Nevada meetings I voiced my opposition to NV Energy’s abandonment of converting the North Valmy power plant from a coal-burning facility to a solar-powered facility with battery backup.
NV Energy changed the plan from solar to natural gas. I object primarily since burning natural gas contributes to our excessive CO2 pollution.
Building new gas-fired power plants to operate primarily as peaker plants, used during higher energy demand periods, doesn’t make sense when cleaner alternatives are available such as battery storage. After all, this was NV Energy’s plan originally!
I sourced an article in the New York Times. Therein was a reference relative to battery storage and peaker plants: “One analysis from BloombergNEF found that solar and batteries can be a cost-effective alternative to smaller gas ‘peaker’ plants that only switch on when demand spikes.”
PUCN approved NV Energy’s plan of more gas-fired peaker plants. The plan does include the building of 1,000 megawatts of solar-power plants with battery backup. Well, plans change, as did the one for the North Valmy power station.
My concern is that NV Energy will change these solar plants as well. Why am I concerned? CO2 pollution is one reason. The cost to build these future stranded assets.
Even if hydrogen-ready, unless the hydrogen is generated with green energy, nothing is gained pollution-wise. Tying our electricity costs to the volatility of natural gas prices. Why is NV Energy spending on old technology that exacerbates climate change?
Rob Bastien
Carson City