By Bill Brand
AES Redondo's power plant could be reduced in size or possibly eliminated in the next decade. Photo by Chelsea Sektnan
Solution for Redondo power plant future
I’m the Redondo Beach city councilmember for the Harbor, Pier, power plant area on the waterfront of Redondo Beach. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity right under our noses and most don’t even realize it. How cool would it be to replace the smoke stacks and power lines that have blighted our waterfront since 1897 with new uses that will dramatically improve our quality of life?
San Francisco and Chula Vista recently retired their power plants because of community opposition and political pressure; so can we!
AES Redondo filed plans with the State of California almost a year ago to rebuild their power plant on the South Bay coastline. I say South Bay because while it may be located in Redondo Beach, what happens here will affect the entire South Bay for the next 50 years.
AES has testified that they’re going to build a new power plant – about half the capacity of their current one — and free-up a large portion of this 50-acre site for potential “other uses.” But this is no place for a new power plant of any size and here’s why:
We Don’t Need the Power
Everyone should be concerned about keeping the lights on. We all remember the blackouts 12 years ago when industry titans like Enron were gaming the power market in California by sending electricity out of the State, only to create artificial shortages that drove up prices and profits at the expense of public safety. The crisis was one of manipulation more than a capacity shortage.
But since then, 84 new facilities have been built in California for a total of 32,693 MW, or more than 50% of the total capacity in the State. And more than 7,000 MW have been retired with more retirements on the way. AES Redondo should be next.
Many people are shocked to hear that power plants are retired and decommissioned. But, it makes sense given that many new ones are being built outside of densely populated areas where the air pollution, even from natural gas-fired plants, is unhealthy for the public.
The South Bay is part of an area that is constrained by how much electricity it can import. But there is still significant excess capacity — enough that a large power plant can be retired. “There is sufficient capacity to retire a once-through cooled power plant in the LA area,” according to a senior policy analyst at the California Energy Commission.
In fact, there are numerous reports published by the California Energy Commission, the California Independent System Operator, and now two independent consultants funded by the State Coastal Conservancy that imply, or very specifically state, that power generation at the Redondo Beach AES facility is not required for grid reliability as far out as 2021, the furthest any responsible agency is willing to predict.
These studies all have growth rates, increased electrification of cars and the need to integrate renewables in their models. To quote from one report, “….a repowered Redondo Beach power plant is not a necessary element of the future electrical grid after 2018 when its current contract will expire…”
Fiscal Nightmare
Now that we know power production from this plant is not needed to maintain reliability, what about the loss of revenue to the City of Redondo Beach if AES Redondo is retired?
The reality is that this power plant, which rarely operates and mars 50 acres of our waterfront, only provided about $369,000 in revenue to the City over the last several years. This is almost a rounding error to our $100-million budget and $60-million general fund. But the negative impact it has to our local business climate in the form of reduced business revenues, lease rates, transient occupancy taxes, sales and property taxes is much greater. Because of the power plant, our own City report states, “Retail sales growth is less than one-tenth of that of other areas in Redondo Beach.”
Analysis of commercial property values adjacent to this industrial facility by another City study concludes, “This indicates a negative change of over 40% compared to the City as a whole.”
By eliminating the industrial blight, increased revenue to the City far outweigh the measly 369K lost from eliminating this eyesore.
As for the jobs AES provides to our local community, their current plant provides 50 jobs, and they stated in their testimony in November that their new plant will reduce that to 30. As a comparison, the Cheesecake Factory employs 261 and the Crowne Plaza 339.
Air Pollution Will Increase
Any new plant will operate much more often than the current plant, thus emitting far more air pollution.
In 2009, according to the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and even AES themselves, AES Redondo emitted 5.23 tons of particulate emissions operating at just 5.9% of capacity. A new plant, like the one currently under construction in El Segundo, operating at 60% capacity, will be permitted to emit 58.3 tons of particulate air pollutants – a tenfold increase. Being a chemical engineer myself, I found these levels alarming.
What are particulate emissions? They’re an odorless, invisible, silent type of air pollution that is hazardous to our health. According to the EPA and American Cancer Society, exposure to particulate pollution kills more than twice as many people in California than breast cancer every year.
Particulate matter, especially the smaller diameter ones, invades your lungs and even enter your bloodstream and can cause heart attacks. From the EPA regarding particulate exposure: “Short-term exposures to particles (hours or days) can aggravate lung disease, causing asthma attacks and acute bronchitis, and may also increase susceptibility to respiratory infections. In people with heart disease, short-term exposures have been linked to heart attacks and arrhythmias. Long term exposure to particulate pollution can cause heart and lung problems. The young, the elderly, those with preexisting heart and lung conditions and those who work out outdoors are especially susceptible.”
Those are just the particulate emissions: other pollutants like nitrous oxides will increase by 519%, sulfur oxides by 466% and ammonia by 344% at a 60% run rate.
Time Running Out
Is it any wonder that the elected officials of San Francisco, Chula Vista and Carlsbad have all opposed new power plants in their towns? Watch this short video to see how Carlsbad is fighting an NRG plant on their coast:
What should amaze everyone is the slow and meandering pace of Redondo and Hermosa Beach City officials, and the inability to mount the needed opposition. Both cities could have passed a resolution a long time ago opposing a new power plant here. We can’t wait any longer; time is running out. It’s time for the residents to take matters into their own hands.
I did not come to this decision quickly. I first made a motion to our City Council back in August of 2010 to simply explore our zoning options and how we could phase out power generation on our coast. After all, our own staff had recommended this in a 300+ page document years ago. No one seconded my motion and that was 18 months ago.
Because the City Council of Redondo Beach will not act, the residents must! We have the power to write an initiative to phase-out industrial uses on our coast. We can phase-out these operations by giving AES an amortization period to complete their current economic interests to the end of its useful life, most likely somewhere around 2018 when their current contract expires; and craft new zoning with a mix of commercial and open space that allows for significant economic use and benefit for the landowners.
A new power plant here is not only bad for our health, it will prevent the Redondo Beach waterfront and Harbor area from reaching it’s full potential. It’s time to redefine and redesign the character of our coastline for generations to come.
To help, please visit www.nopowerplant.com and consider a financial contribution that will go toward legal fees for the initiative. Measure DD was successful because of this type of grassroots effort, and we can do it again. We really have no choice. There is no other way. Doing nothing will result in a new power plant. Only strong, public opposition will stop it.
A new plant would have updated pollution controls and no smokestacks. It’s a win win. Give it a chance.
The current plant has the infrastructure (all the power lines and utilities attached to them) to give us the most efficient connection to power. Forcing us to get power from more distant plants would force us to utilize inefficient electricity from more distant sources. The new plant from what I read, will not have the large footprint nor the tall stacks. Its a chance to do it right with more modern standards. Let’s not kill the golden goose.
Why does the article use the revenue estimates from the past years, but the pollution estimates from an expected busier future? This makes it look like the numbers are manipulated to make the case the author wants. If the usage increases by a factor of 12 wouldn’t this have some effect on the revenue? Why does it only mention 5% usage revenue then?
This is not a news article but a political statement. The reports cited are published by organizations with their own agendas and cannot be trusted. Give us a real article with real facts and not a biased pile of political propaganda from a council person who’s rants unfortunately were published. Now I remember why I don’t subscribe to this rag and will delete it from my facebook account.
The transmission, distribution and pipeline / utilities can’t be scraped. I would like to see how the community reacts to the demolition of the transmission towers as well as the facility and it’s foundation system. Just think of all the air pollutants cutting up all that steel and braking up all that concrete. Additionally you need to demo 40′ high concrete walls and the sub surface structural elements. I guess we should put all power stations where the poor people live.
The emissions are the emissions. There are no air pollution controls that are going to eliminate the emissions. And the controls have been in existence for years. Its called selective catalytic reduction, or SCR system. I used to design them as an engineer for Fluor. They’ve been used for over 30 years. Inject ammonia into the off-gases and passes them over a catalyst and you get water and nitrogen: NOx + O2 + NH3 (ammonia) = N2 + H2O. The reason there will be so much ammonia emitted is because they have to inject enough to eliminate as much NOx as possible. Couple this process with ultra low-NOx burners and a combuster and that’s it. The biggest plus of the new plant is that it will be more efficient. More MWHr with less fuel, therefore less pollution on a per MWHr basis. But still much more pollution because it will operate more often.
It’s like comparing a Prius one put 50,000 miles on versus 10,000 miles on an Escalade. Sure, the Prius was more efficient, but it still burned more fuel and put our more pollution because you drove it 5x more.
No smokestacks? AES themselves showed pictures of 4 smokestacks 120 feet tall each. Were you not at their presentation?We already get our power from as far away as Canada. This plant rarely operates as it is – about 5% of capacity for the last several years.
Three power plants have been retired and there will be more. Do you want a new power plant in Redondo Beach?
The demolition is going to happen whether a new plant is built or not. I don’t want yet another plant to replace it, and neither does the majority of the community. Do you?
Plenty of power plants have been demolished and replaced by other uses all over the world. For a taste, check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPsnYrP2SFw
Power plants should be sited away from densely populated areas when possible regardless of the average income of the area.
The reports by the California Energy Commission cannot be trusted? Their agenda is to maintain the reliability of the electrical supply in California. Who do you trust, AES? They’re a for profit entity based in Arlington, Virginia. I have no problem with making money, but they have a conflict of interest when it comes to deciding on energy needs and supplies, and where it’s suitable for the generation to occur. Even the California Independent System Operator agrees over-procuring power plants will drive up rates to the consumer. We can build too many power plants and have to pay higher rates to fund idle capacity.
The other consultants don’t live here and don’t care where power gets produced. They’re independent experts with no agenda except to understand the complex base cases and 1 in 10 or 20 year scenarios with other units down. If Redondo was needed, they both would have said so. But both said it wasn’t. And the California Energy Commission said a large plant in this area could be retired. Not necessarily Redondo, but a large one in the area. I want it to be Redondo. Which plant in the Western LA sub-basin would you like to see retired?
Get the facts, South Bay. Start doing your homework on this issue. The CEC and ISO are hardly organizations biased in favor of Brand’s position. That’s silly, they are in the business of power and on the opposite side of Brand….yet these organizations have consistently come to the same conclusion every report they put out. AES Redondo is ‘not’ needed. The argument is simple. While the few posts below may support the thought that even if the plant isn’t needed, we should still permit tons of dangerous particulate pollution to spew out and harm our community and children, take note—- 2600+ residents across the Southbay DISAGREE with you. The movement is strong and the number of residents opposing a new polluting power plant on our waterfront continues to grow!
Usage has no affect on revenue to the City. The bulk of the revenue to the City is based on the property value. If the property gets re- evaluated because of a new tolling agreement, revenue may go up, but not for certain. Last time AES went before the State Board of Equalization (tax man for power plants), they presented an appraisal that showed the land was worth $25 million.
Don’t believe me? Go to Delahooke Appraisal of this document from 2004:
http://laserweb.redondo.org/WebLink/PDF/ppu5b1uj4eupzz554iplg2j2/1/AG%20PKT%202004-05-20%20PC%20Rpt%20_15.pdf
It shows a value of $25,670,000 after clean-up etc.
Impressive that you have the SCR stoichiometry correct. So I fail to understand your statement that “emissions are emissions”. The further implication that we get our power from Canada infers that you’d rather have the power produced somewhere else, as if there isn’t a penalty in long distance power transmission. Besides the myopia surrounding the not in my back yard logic, the location of one of the worlds best heat sinks is thermodynamically superior to most other locations, providing efficient power production potential with the minimum of water evaporation. Indeed, with some additional heat transfer, the plant could provide substantial additional pure water through flue gas condensation – CH4+O2 = 2H20 + CO2.
“Emissions are emissions” means there will be emissions no matter the equipment to try to control them. And we can get a very good idea what those are going to be by simply referring to the publicly available engineering analysis that was performed by the AQMD as part of the permitting process.
So AES could make water too? That’s a new one. How much and at what cost? Where is this being done already?
Btw, the stoichiometry is not correct. More something like this:
4NO + 4NH3 + O2 → 4N2 + 6H2O
But who cares? One doesn’t have to be a chemical
engineer to know you don’t want a new power plant on your waterfront
for another 50 years if it’s not needed, provides little revenue to the
city and will add more dangerous air pollution.
Two have been retired in San Francisco and one in Chula Vista. And
they WERE critical to the grid at the time before upgrades and changes
were made.
Do you want to see a new power plant here? Why not join the growing
chorus of residents that want it gone?
AES does not have to pay UUT. By their own disclosure they pay property taxes and sewer fees. The sewer fees may increase with run time and property taxes may go up with new infrastructure, but neither will be substantial. However, if we rezone the proerty for 30 % commercial, the revenue would be substantial. Plus you disregard the negative impacts the plan has on the surrounding community. The City has documented the negative fiscal impacts of the power plant on surrounding properties. If we eliminate the blighting impacts of the power plant, increased residential and commercial property values, the increased revenues from surrounding businesses and the new revenues from the commercial businesses on the power plant site would dwarf any revenues from a new plant.
But why consider the fiscal side in a vacuum? When you add in that the power is not needed and the ecological and health impacts, this becomes a no-brainer.
Brent, unless they abandon the old plant in place, we are going to have the demolition either way. No one said move the plant – we said retire it…so no one here (except Councilman Diels) has advocated moving the plant to “where the poor people live.” The current plant only runs at 5%. It’s not needed. And State reports show it’s not needed as long as they project into the future. The AES substation has no connections to the local grid. We may actually be able to get rid of the big power lines coming down 190th with minor mods to the substation inland.
Economist -
How is a blighting, polluting, unneeded eyesore a “golden goose”? We don’t need the power. It will produce more pollution because it will run more, even by AES’s admission. The pariculates it will produe in greater qualities have been proven to be unhealthy. It will be 80 feet high with 120 foot high smokestacks, so it will still blight surrounding properties.
Doesn’t sound like a golden goose to me… where’s the gold?
However, if we rezone the power plant site to 30% commercial/70% park, it becomes a win/win/win/win. Win for AES because they can sell or reuse their pollution exemption and make money on the commercial zoning by the waterfront. Win for Redondo because city revenues will go up from the new commercial and the increase in surrounding property values and business revenues. Win for surrounding businesses because their revenues and business values will go up. And a win for residents because they get cleaner air, new open space, better views, and increased property values.
I think a west coast “Central Park” like we see in modern New York would be a huge income stream for the city, while allowing us to become the voice for those who don’t have a voice (Birds and butterflys). A native beach garden would dazzle the sense and soothe the soul.
I support removing the AES power plant
completely. I’m not a politician or a scientist and can’t make the
arguments for either side any more eloquently than already stated, but to me it
comes down to common sense and a simple question:
If you had a choice between living in a beach
community with an unsightly power plant that emits pollution (regardless how
much or little) or a beach community without such a power plant, which would
you choose?
Removing the power plant will increase our
health (no pollutants at all), our wealth (increased property values) and
quality of life (nothing big and ugly to look at, no unexpected loud noises, the
potential for a better recreational space, etc.).
I don’t understand how anyone can say Redondo
Beach is a better community with a power plant in it. Do you
think the residents of Manhattan or Hermosa sit around wishing they had a power
plant in their back yard?
I believe getting rid of the AES power plant
is in my best interest as a resident of Redondo Beach. The politicians we elect are supposed to
represent our best interests.
Kudos and thank you, Mr. Brand. You are the only member of our city council I
will be voting for in the future.
No the demolition of the footprint of the facility as well as the transmission towers running up 190th would not take place if re powered. Locating power stations away from populated areas is more complicated than you think. In order to operate a gas fired power plant you need a large gas pipeline. Almost always located near a refinery. You also need a large supply of water (ocean, lake, reclamation plant). You also need the transmission lines near all of this infrastructure. When you move somewhere where a large pice of power, transportation or other large piece of infrastructure exists you should be able to figure out it is not just going to move away.
As far as not needing the power, well yes we can buy power from other states like Utah where they generate
where they generate power from cole.
Those were nice comments Tony, and I couldn’t agree with you more. I feel compelled to write as a concerned mom and new volunteer to this cause. Over the years as a Redondo resident, I was so busy with my career, I never gave much thought to all those that advocated improvements to our city and worked so hard to accomplish good things. I often read statements in the paper about both Bill Brand and Jim Light, but I never had any idea of how hard they work (and have worked) to better our community. It wasn’t until the past 9 months that I really got to see who these guys are and what sort of character they have. I say this because it is so rare today (unfortunately) to meet people that do so much to serve and benefit many in a community and have no hidden agenda. It is a priviledge to have bold leaders that are not only extremely intelligent but also have enormous integrity. I feel like I am a harsh critic and usually suspect of those in office, but wow, we sure are fortunate to have Bill Brand on our council. To all those that do not personally know either of these men, I don’t blame you for being suspect, but I can assure you they are worthy of our trust. Come volunteer and see for yourself how many hours they spend researching and pushing to do the ‘right’ thing for our city. Our community is really fortunate to have them fighting on all our behalf. THANK YOU Bill and Jim for all you do. My family is very grateful.
So not a single violation by a regulatory agency but you think there is some wrong doing except for generating power? And for not needing the power then AES would not be contracted to sell the power.
it runs at 5% because of the water board permit restrictions and people like you that oppose the basic idea of needing more power. The thought that we don’t need more power generation is so stupid that I can’t believe any one would think that. You would need to be in the 19th century.
Build that power plant clueless Redondo pols. Even more taxpaying 40 year plus residents of town such as myself will flee. A year ago I fled to a small city in a neighboring state only to discover my neighbor across the streetwas a former third generation Redondo resident & another down the block is likewise.
It takes fools such as a majority of the Redondo Beach city council members supporting the build a power plant & concrete over the town with more condos & mc mansions meme assisted by bought off by real estate developers city bureaucracy to make the deserts of Nevada & Arizona a more attractive place to live than Redondo Beach.
Our plant runs at just 5% other plants could pick up the load easily for the few days a year it runs. Both units have been down at San Onofre unexpectedly. Is AES running? No. That is because we have excess capacity. Here is what the CPUC said about new power generation contracts in February of this year:
“The record clearly supports a conclusion that no new generation is needed by 2020, and the record does not clearly support a conclusion that new generation is needed even after 2020.”
Be careful of calling names Brent. While I won’t return the favor, your statement here is wrong. The plant can run as much as the grid needs it until 2020. Then the state requires they reduce ocean water cooling by 93% because that form of killing kills billions of sea creatures each year. I had nothing to do with that.
The plant runs at just 5% because it is not needed. You misstated my statement. I never said we don’t need new power generation. I said AES Redondo is not needed. Ten state reports now confirm that. Here is the statement from one report:
“Examination of LCRs [Local Capacity Requirements] and existing generation capacity in the Western LA Basin sub- area shows … that if the existing units at the Redondo Beach Generating Station were retired in any year after 2012, with no other retirements…, there would be enough remaining existing generation in the Western LA Basin sub-area to satisfy the projected LCR at least through year 2020. ”
The report was amended in December to go to 2021, which is as far as power requirements are projected.
According to the CEC, between 1998 and 2011 there were 48 power generation projects adding over 16,000 MW of power. There are 26 more projects approved or in construction that will add another 10,000 MW. Here is what the CPUC said about letting contracts for even more:
“The record clearly supports a conclusion that no new generation is needed by 2020, and the record does not clearly support a conclusion that new generation is needed even after 2020.”
I suggest you do your homework Brent before you call people names.
This is a great commentary on the unique opportunity for residents to rid themselves the AES plant once and for all. Not only is this plant a health hazard, it is a blight on the community. Home values will increase with the demolition, and health will improve. What more can you ask? Support Bill Brand and help take down this plant! Joan Davidson
Brent,
Do you want to see a new power plant in Redondo Beach? If you do, you need do nothing. If the South Bay waits long enough – continues to fail to send the strong message that we don’t want a new power plant here – then the Energy Commission will award AES Redondo a license and they will eventually get a contract and become an integral part of the grid. This is why El Segundo is getting a new power plant. Remember, two power plants have been retired in San Francisco and one in Chula Vista because of public opposition and political pressure. And other plants are going to retire as well. Since other plants are going to retire, I want Redondo to be one of those. Do you?
Brent,
It’s NOT more complicated than I think. I used to be a process engineer for Fluor Corp. and designed various chemical processes in large, complex facilities like Chevron, El Segundo, what used to the UNOCAL refinery on Anaheim St. and the Arco facility in Carson. I even designed a 36″ off-gas line to a large distillation tower at the Texaco refinery in Wilmington. So I understand what has to happen.
Power stations are moving away from population centers when possible for a variety of reasons depending on the situation of the plant being retired, and whether the energy they’ve been producing can be produced and imported from elsewhere. Why should a power plant be re-built in a densely populated community that is surrounded by numerous incompatible uses such as a senior living facility, when it is no longer needed? Answer: It shouldn’t be rebuilt. It should be retired!
You seem to be holding on to the belief that Redondo is needed, or that our rates will go up or the lights will go out if it’s not rebuilt. In reality, after studying dozens of very recent reports, studies, and meeting with top officials, it has become quite clear that a power plant in Redondo is not needed for grid reliability, now or in the future. That’s not my opinion, that’s the opinion of the experts in the field who could not care less if Redondo is rebuilt or not.
Again, more power plants are going to retire, just like the ones in San Fran and Chula Vista. Since that is the case, I want Redondo to be one of them.
Summary: NIMBY
Certainly a quick buck can be made by purchasing a home or condo next to a power plant then petitioning local authorities like Brand to remove the plant. Support can be fomented by circulating yarns and fairy tails about “toxic” emissions from the plant, killing kids.
The Redondo steam station, like many others along the coast, are a beautiful display from the greatest generation of their technological excellence. Place along the coast to take advantage of the largest and best heat sinks known, their huge spinning reserves and thermal mass providing electrical reliability that, up till the recent events in San Diego, should give new appreciation of these marvels of mechanical engineering. As a greater portion of power is produced by solar and wind, the importance of these Rankine cycles in maintaining system reliability is going to be magnified.
While some like Brand suggest these plants are inefficient, their 35 to 45% thermal efficiency less than the newest combined cycle efficiency exceeding 60%, these plants inherent part load efficiency is unmatched. The steam flow versus power production of these plants is the same regardless of running at 10 to 100%, meaning that these plant provide critical importance in maintaining system reliability, especially considering the widely fluctuating power from solar/wind. The old rankine cycle plants provide spinning reserves for when the sun doesnt shine or the wind don’t blow, a cloud bank capable of knocking out nearly all solar generation within a 15 second time frame. The recent blackout in San Diego was attributed, in part, to the inability to start peaking gas turbines and the off line status of large rankine cycle power plants. One can imagine a much different view from those against the power plant when there is nothing to power their hair dryer. But the huge thermal and spinning inertia of these plants can absorb large fluctuations in load.
While these Rankine cycle power plants are of a very old design, some having designs originating in the 40′s this doesn’t infer they are not needed. They are a mechanical engineering marvel which through proper maintenance and upgrades can provide unmatched reliability in a grid with a very different power supply. Long live the Redondo Steam Power plant!
the power plant isn’t hurting anybody and actually i think it gives some character. also how is this politically charged opinion considered a news piece? disappointing.
“If the South Bay waits long enough…then the Energy Commission will award AES Redondo a license and they will eventually get a contract and become an integral part of the grid.”
So if the energy “isn’t needed” how is it that the energy produced will nevertheless become “an integral part of the grid?” Seems to me that if they couldn’t sell the electricity they wouldn’t repower.
I think it far more important to be prepared as a community for whatever disaster of the decade may come – locally generated electricity and water seem like huge assets for local residents….