[mrtracy]

Peaker plants are considerably less efficient than base load gas energy, because the constantly running plants use a combined cycle. In both types of plants, the fuel is burned in a gas turbine to directly generate power; however, in the combined-cycle plant the waste heat from this is used to generate steam to run steam turbines, capturing additional power; this actually generates over twice as much useable energy per unit of fuel. Peaker plants cannot effectively use this mechanism as it has a much longer start-up time.

Combined cycle is a major reason that gas power plants are so attractive; the inability to use it in Peakers is a reason why they are so unattractive.

[crote]

A lot of it depends on the exact type of usage, does it not?

Currently a lot of peaker plants operate a bit like "A power line failed, we need extra power NOW!" They get essentially zero warning and are expected to be at full power within 30 minutes. Dealing with that obviously leads to some issues, but in 2024 we could also fill that niche with battery storage.

When it comes to the energy transition, it's a bit of a different problem. We can reasonably predict weather, so the rough output of solar and wind is known several days in advance. If the forecast is predicting an overcast day with zero wind, any "peaker" plant will have tens of hours to warm up. Combine that with minor changes to reduce startup time[0], and it seems far less of a hurdle to overcome.

[0]: https://etn.global/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/STARTUP-TIME-R...

[Dylan16807]

> Peaker plants cannot effectively use this mechanism as it has a much longer start-up time.

How much longer? If a plant is designed with a big priority to getting secondary generation up to speed quickly, how many hours will it need to warm up?