Jump to content

Gateway Generating Station

Coordinates: 38°01′03″N 121°45′31″W / 38.0175°N 121.7587°W / 38.0175; -121.7587 (Gateway Generating Station)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JPxG (talk | contribs) at 20:30, 20 March 2021 (ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Gateway Generating Station
A power station.
Map
LandVereinigte Staaten
Standort3225 Wilbur Avenue, Antioch, California[1]
Coordinates38°01′03″N 121°45′31″W / 38.0175°N 121.7587°W / 38.0175; -121.7587 (Gateway Generating Station)
StatusOperational
Construction began2001
Commission dateJanuary 4, 2009
Owner(s)Pacific Gas & Electric
Operator(s)Pacific Gas & Electric
Thermal power station
Primary fuelNatural gas[2]
Cooling sourceDry[3]
Combined cycle?Yes[4]
Power generation
Nameplate capacity530MW[3][5][1]
Annual net output2,872,858 MWh[6]
[edit on Wikidata]

Gateway Generating Station (GGS), formerly Contra Costa Unit 8 Power Project, is a combined-cycle natural gas-fired power station in Contra Costa County, California, which provides power to half a million customers in northern and central California. Gateway Generating Station is on the southern shore of the San Joaquin River, in Antioch, and is one of more than ten fossil-fuel power plants in Contra Costa County.

Construction, which cost $386 million, began in 2001; the station began delivering power to customers in 2009. Its nominal capacity is 530MW, with a peak capacity of 580MW. It generates electricity using two combustion turbines, paired with heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs) that power one steam turbine. The facility is owned and operated by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). In June 2015, a lawsuit was filed against Environmental Protection Agency to prevent the approval of the station's air emissions permit; the suit was dismissed in October of that year.

Bauwesen

The proposal to construct the project was filed with the California Energy Commission by Mirant Delta (now GenOn Energy Holdings) in January 2000, and certified in May 2001, at which point construction began. However, by 2002, Mirant Delta was experiencing financial difficulties, and construction was suspended.[7]

In July 2005, Pacific Gas & Electric acquired the partially-constructed plant from Mirant in a settlement agreement;[3] in 2006 it was approved as a co-owner of Unit 8, and the process of filing paperwork was resumed.[7]

PG&E wanted to change the name of the project from "Contra Costa Unit 8 Power Project" to "Gateway Generating Station"; this name was chosen to show that the "plant represents the "Gateway" to the future of electric power generation"[3] and was required to file a request for this. The Energy Commission approved this request five months later. During that time, in December 2006, PG&E became the sole owner of the project.[7]

Construction finally began in February 2007; it was expected to cost about $370 million, employ as many as 400 workers at its peak, involve approximately one million worker-hours, and to provide electricity to customers by 2009.[3] The engineering, procurement, and construction of the plant were managed by Black & Veatch.[8] It was expected that PG&E would pay approximately $1.5 million to Contra Costa County annually in property tax.[3] It was the first new plant built by PG&E in nearly twenty years.[3]

The work for underground piping and powertrain equipment included loading, setting and alignment of heavy haul items, in addition to installation of pipe supports, piping, in-line instrumentation, platforms and enclosures. This portion of the work, along with associated management cost, encompassed 152,000 direct man-hours of labor over 21 months.[9]

In July 2008, construction was "two-thirds" finished;[10] The gas turbines were first fired in November 2008;[7] commercial operation, supplying power to nearly 400,000 customers, began on January 4, 2009.[7][11] Randy Livingston, PG&E's vice president of power generation, said to the Brentwood Press that the project came "ahead of schedule, on budget, and we had no lost-time injuries during the entire construction of the plant".[11] The overall cost of the plant was $386 million.[11]

Facility

View of the air-cooled condenser. Fans and screens can be seen below the condenser tubes themselves (which are hidden behind corrugated steel walls).
At the bottom right, the large square intake vents can be seen.

The combined-cycle[4] facility is located at 3225 Wilbur Avenue in Antioch.[1][11] While it was constructed as a nominally 530MW facility,[5][1] an additional 50MW of low-cost peaking capability brings its overall capacity to 580MW.[4][12] The facility consists of a combustion turbine air inlet chiller system, two combustion turbines paired with heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs), one steam turbine, an air-cooled condenser system, generator step-up transformers, a plant substation, an interconnecting transmission line, an administration building, and a control building.[13][8][14]

The combustion turbine air inlet chiller system, made by Turbine Air Systems, uses aqueous ammonia to lower the temperature of air prior to being taken into the combustion turbines. While Mirant Delta had originally intended to use evaporative cooling for intake chilling, PG&E switched to an air-cooled design due to a desire to avoid drawing water from the nearby river.[15] The system is charged with up to 18,000 gallons of aqueous ammonia solution, or 35,000 pounds (16,000 kg) of ammonia;[5] the ammonia storage tanks are in a walled containment basin.[15]

The combustion turbines were made by General Electric, with the model designation PG7241FA[8] (the same as model designation 7FA.03, and the later re-designation 7F.04).[16] Each has a capacity of 1,872,000,000 British thermal units (1.975×109 kJ) per hour, and 2,227,000,000 British thermal units (2.350×109 kJ) per hour when combined with the HRSG.[17] Heat recovery is performed by two Vogt-NEM three-pressure reheat HRSGs.[8][18][19] The steam turbine, also made by General Electric, is a model D11 tandem compound reheat double-flow steam turbine generator. Its nominal rating is 240 MW;[18] as installed, its nominal rating is 190 MW.[8]

The air-cooled condenser system, made by SPX Dry Cooling (now SPG Dry Cooling), is designed for a maximum ambient temperature of 104 °F (40 °C) and back pressure of 5 inches of mercury (0.017 MPa). It consists of six "streets" of six fans each, for a total of 36 fans; each fan is operated at 4160 volts by a 250-horsepower motor.[13] A grid of 24 vertical screens installed beneath the fans shields them from wind.[20]

Emissions are abated by a selective catalytic reduction system using aqueous ammonia, which performs condensate hydrogen ion content (pH) control[5] and reduction of NOx emissions.[1][5] Additionally, there is an administration building and a control building, which contain the facility's control room, testing laboratories, and offices. These are both pre-engineered metal buildings, built by W. E. Lyons Construction.[14] Upon its initial construction, the facility was described by the Brentwood Press as "big, imposing, noisy, metallic, tubular, gray, and sculpturally magnificent" but "not sexy".[11]

Operation

The station, which is one of more than ten fossil-fuel power plants in Contra Costa County,[2] currently provides power to half a million customers in northern and central California.[21]

In its first year of operation, the plant emitted 942,028 tons of CO2, 5 tons of SO2 and 83 tons of NOx,[6] while consuming 17,224,258,000 cubic feet of natural gas in order to generate 2,490,205 megawatt-hours of electricity.[6] In 2010, the Trans Bay Cable was switched on, linking San Francisco's electrical grid with distribution infrastructure in the Contra Costa County. Gateway Generating Station was one of more than ten fossil fuel plants linked to San Francisco in this project.[2]

In June 2013, the Center for Biological Diversity submitted a legal notice of their joint intent (along with Communities for a Better Environment) to sue the Environmental Protection Agency for approving the project, claiming that its nitrogen emissions harmed local communities and "transform[ed] the chemical composition" of the nearby Antioch Dunes, causing hardship for several dozen endangered Lange's metalmark butterflies.[22][23][24] The goal of the lawsuit was to cause the EPA to reject PG&E's air emissions permit for the plant.[24] In response, PG&E said that Gateway was "state-of-the-art", and that it had entered a voluntary Safe Harbor agreement for 12 acres of its property to be used as dune habitat for the butterflies and plant species. PG&E spokeswoman Tamar Sarkissian said: "To our knowledge, we are not a party to this lawsuit".[24] Laura Horton, staff attorney at the Wild Equity Institute, said that this was "PG&E's last chance to do the right thing".[22][23] The suit was filed in June 2015; in October, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton dismissed the suit in October, pointing out numerous issues with the filing and denying Wild Equity leave to amend its complaint.[25] In July 2017, The New York Times identified Gateway Generating Station as an "investor-owned power plant" and noted that it was represented by the Edison Electric Institute trade association.[26]

Safety

In 2012, to avoid arc flash hazards to employees when racking in breakers, contactors, and grounding buggies, a racking system was installed which uses cameras and actuators to allow these tasks to be performed remotely.[27] In 2014, a steam-cycle performance assessment resulted in an update of the cycle-chemistry manual, upgrade of the chemistry logging systems, and purchase of new analytical equipment.[28] By January 2015, the station had operated for over 3,000 days without an injury, contractor-initiated plant trip, or contractor environmental issue.[29] As of 2015, the only recorded injury that had ever occurred was in April 2009, when an employee tripped and hit their face on a pump, chipping a tooth.[30]

A fall 2017 audit/inspection by Contra Costa Health Services Hazardous Materials Programs (CCHSHMP), to ensure compliance with California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) program requirements, found 12 corrective actions for PG&E to implement, and made 18 further recommendations. There had not been any incidents related to regulated CalARP materials in the five years prior to the audit.[31] The CCHSHMP concluded that, while the facility had a management system in place to oversee CalARP requirements, some timelines had not been met due to changes in site leadership. They also found that the facility's incident investigation, maintenance program, safety Information program, training program and self-audit programs were implemented sufficiently, but needed to be followed on schedule and kept current. Some revisions of standard operating procedures were inaccessible, but this issue was addressed during the audit.[31]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d e "MP - Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Gateway Station: Hazardous Materials Program". Contra Costa Health Services. Archived from the original on 2018-01-03. Retrieved 2020-12-02.
  2. ^ a b c Upton, John (2011-11-19). "San Francisco May Not Be as Green as Advertised, Energy Experts Say". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2021-01-27. Retrieved 2020-12-02.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g Pacific Gas and Electric Company (2007-02-05). "PG&E Breaks Ground on Gateway Generating Station in Antioch". ThomasNet. Archived from the original on 2012-08-02. Retrieved 2020-12-02.
  4. ^ a b c "Conventional Sources - PG&E Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Report 2017". Pacific Gas & Electric. Archived from the original on 2019-09-23. Retrieved 2020-12-02.
  5. ^ a b c d e Dempsey, Matt (ed.). "Gateway Generating Station". The Right-to-Know Network. The Houston Chronicle, Reynolds Journalism Institute, Missouri School of Journalism. Archived from the original on 2021-03-14. Retrieved 2020-12-02.
  6. ^ a b c "Gateway Generating Station". Electricity data browser. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Archived from the original on 2020-12-06. Retrieved 2020-12-02.
  7. ^ a b c d e "Gateway Generating Station (formerly Contra Costa Power Plant Unit 8)". California Energy Commission. State of California. Archived from the original on 2020-03-01. Retrieved 2020-12-02.
  8. ^ a b c d e Black and Veatch Construction. "Gateway Generating Station". Black and Veatch Construction. Archived from the original on 14 March 2021. Retrieved 9 March 2021.
  9. ^ "Gateway Generating Station, Antioch, CA". Performance Mechanical. EMCOR Group. Archived from the original on 24 November 2020. Retrieved 10 March 2021.
  10. ^ "PG&E wants to develop Tesla power plant for $850M". San Francisco Business Times. 2008-07-22. Archived from the original on 2021-03-14. Retrieved 2020-12-02.
  11. ^ a b c d e Roberts, Dave (19 February 2009). "New plant brings power to the people". Brentwood Press. Retrieved 10 March 2021.
  12. ^ "Clean energy solutions". Pacific Gas & Electric. Archived from the original on 2020-12-03. Retrieved 2020-12-02. Compared to older fossil-fueled plants, this 580 MW station produces dramatically less carbon dioxide for every megawatt-hour produced. "Dry" cooling technology means the plant uses 97 percent less water.
  13. ^ a b Stanley, Ben (November 2011). "Gateway Generating Station – Overview and ACC Operating Issues Discussion" (PDF). Air Cooled Condenser Users Group. Pacific Gas & Electric. Retrieved 9 March 2021.
  14. ^ a b "Gateway Generating Station, Antioch, California". W. E. Lyons Construction. Archived from the original on 22 August 2013. Retrieved 9 March 2021.
  15. ^ a b Turbine Air Systems (2 December 2008). "Gateway Generating Station: Air-Cooled Inlet Chilling, presented at POWER-GEN 2008" (PDF). Turbine Inlet Cooling Association. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 August 2019. Retrieved 9 March 2021.
  16. ^ "7F.04 Gas Turbine | 7FA Turbine | GE Power". General Electric. Archived from the original on 27 October 2020. Retrieved 9 March 2021.
  17. ^ Broadbent, Jack P. (3 September 2020). "Final Major Facility Review Permit" (PDF). Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Archived (PDF) from the original on 14 March 2021. Retrieved 10 March 2021.
  18. ^ a b Cox, Chloe (1 January 2010). "2009 Projects of the Year". Power Engineering. Archived from the original on 14 March 2021. Retrieved 9 March 2021.
  19. ^ Babcock Power. "Combined Cycle Systems | Heat Recovery Solutions & Equipment". Babcock Power. Archived from the original on 25 November 2020. Retrieved 9 March 2021.
  20. ^ Galebreaker Industrial (2013). "Galebreaker Customers" (PDF). Air Cooled Condenser Users Group. Archived (PDF) from the original on 14 March 2021. Retrieved 9 March 2021.
  21. ^ Sarkissian, Tamar (30 May 2017). "Antioch Names PG&E Large Business of the Year". Currents. Pacific Gas & Electric. Archived from the original on 8 September 2018. Retrieved 10 March 2021.
  22. ^ a b Clarke, Chris (2013-07-24). "Lawsuit Filed Over Power Plant Threat to Endangered Butterfly". Public Media Group of Southern California. Archived from the original on 2020-10-27. Retrieved 2020-12-02.
  23. ^ a b Horton, Laura; Evans, Jonathan; Lin, Roger (2013-07-24). "Lawsuit Launched to Protect Endangered Butterfly and Communities in Contra Costa County". Center for Biological Diversity. Archived from the original on 2021-03-14. Retrieved 2020-12-02.
  24. ^ a b c Burgarino, Paul (2014-03-26). "Lawsuit filed against EPA's non-response to PG&E's Antioch power plant permit". Mercury News. Bay Area News Group. Archived from the original on 2020-08-10. Retrieved 2020-12-02.
  25. ^ Proctor, Katherine (2015-11-25). "Greens Lose Case to Protect Rare Butterfly". Courthouse News Service. Retrieved 2020-12-02.
  26. ^ Ivory, Danielle; Faturechi, Robert (2017-07-11). "The Deep Industry Ties of Trump's Deregulation Teams". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2020-11-30. Retrieved 2020-12-02.
  27. ^ "Safety – Gateway Generating Station". Combined Cycle Journal. PSI Media, Inc. 23 April 2012. Archived from the original on 25 October 2020. Retrieved 10 March 2021.
  28. ^ "Cycle chemistry program for PG&E's Colusa and Gateway Generating Stations". Combined Cycle Journal. PSI Media, Inc. 8 December 2014. Archived from the original on 27 November 2020. Retrieved 10 March 2021.
  29. ^ "2014 Best Practices: Colusa and Gateway". Combined Cycle Journal. PSI Media, Inc. 22 January 2015. Archived from the original on 27 September 2020. Retrieved 10 March 2021.
  30. ^ Kligman, David (22 February 2012). "Antioch: Major Power Plant Safety Milestone: 1,000 Days and Counting". Currents. Pacific Gas & Electric. Archived from the original on 6 February 2016. Retrieved 10 March 2021.
  31. ^ a b Contra Costa Health Services Hazardous Materials Programs (August 2017). "Safety Audit Summary" (PDF). Contra Costa Health Services. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2018-01-03. Retrieved 2020-12-02.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gateway_Generating_Station&oldid=1013296935"