Company charges forward with large-scale power-storage building in Brighton
A Boulder, CO company last week filed plans for the two-story, 50-foot-tall big battery building it's proposing for, really, the best street in all of Boston for something like that: Electric Avenue in Brighton.
Flatiron Energy says its facility, which will replace a construction storage and staging concern on the 2.8-acre site, will store energy in ten "vaults" full of modular batteries to be fed back into the regional grid at peak times or other times when generators can't keep up with demand, for example, at night when solar panels stop working. Currently, utilities rely on "peaker" plants, which begin burning fossil fuels when demand exceeds supply.
The power will be pumped into the site and then fed back into the grid via an existing Eversource substation next door.
What a drone would see:
The company's otherwise detailed plans do not describe just what sort of batteries will be installed in the 62,000-square-foot building or how much energy they can store, because the facility will be classified as a "large generator connected to the Bulk Electrical System" and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission "classifies certain information related to the production, generation, or transmission of energy as Critical Energy Infrastructure Information and cannot be publicly distributed."
Clues, however, come in the form of filings from Flatiron for a similar plant it wants to build in Chelsea and from Hecate Energy, a Chicago company that originally proposed both the Electric Avenue and Chelsea plants before selling the projects - and a four-year purchase-and-sale agreement for the site - to Flatiron last fall.
In a May, 2014 hearing, Flatiron told the Chelsea Zoning Board of Appeal that:
The batteries are small and put into racks, almost like a server farm. The battery racks are modular and over time the batteries can be replaced.
Also, the batteries have an expected life of 35 years and would work in four-hour charging and discharging cycles.
When Hecate first proposed the Electric Avenue project, it cited the output of its proposal at 150 MW - compared to 250 MW for the larger Chelsea site - and 700 MW for an even larger proposed battery-storage system proposed by another company on the site of what used to be petroleum storage tanks in Everett.
In its filing, Flatiron did detail its proposed construction schedule:
Outdoor construction, including site preparation, grading, drainage, below-grade construction, foundations, and structural erection, is expected to take six months. Indoor construction, including mechanical and electrical work, and installation of the battery racks and electrical equipment, is expected to take eight months. Following that, commissioning and testing of the building is expected to take four months.
ISO New England - which oversees New England's electrical grid - reported that after a review of the proposal, it did not expect the interconnection between the plant and Eversource to be ready before June, 2027.
But if Flatiron left out the "how" in its filing for Boston Planning Department approval, it discussed the "why" in detail:
The Project is expected to deliver enhanced reliability in the Boston Metropolitan Area, which has been suffering in recent years from increasing winter reliability risks1 and the loss of Mystic Generating Station, which represented over a fifth of the Boston Import Zone's peak electrical demand. The Project is also expected to provide dispatchable power and load balancing capabilities as increasing levels of offshore wind energy interconnect into the region toward the end of the decade.
Building energy storage in Massachusetts is critical to meeting the state's ambitious climate law, the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA). The GWSA requires the Commonwealth to reach net zero emissions by 2050, with an interim goal of a 70% reduction in emissions from the electric sector by 2030. As part of the GWSA, the state is conducting large-scale renewable energy procurements, dramatically increasing the proportion of renewable energy serving the state and with it, the level of intermittent generation. As Massachusetts integrates a higher proportion of variable energy, energy storage will play a vital role in bridging the gap between energy supply and demand, ensuring a steady, reliable power supply.
Site map:
Flatiron has code-named the Electric Avenue development "Project Lite Brite."
In Chelsea, officials asked if Flatiron could hire local artists to decorate its building there. The Electric Avenue filing does not say if Flatiron would consider something like that in Brighton, let alone hire the local artist most closely associated with Lite Brites - Peter Berdovsky of Mooninite Lite Brite fame.
In addition to putting up a swirling edifice, Flatiron is also promising the planning department it will widen the sidewalks around the property and install a retention pond stocked with native plants good at "bioremediating" runoff from the site. It said the plant will mostly hum along without the need for human intervention, so it is only planning on five parking spaces for occasional visits by technicians - along with a loading dock for occasional equipment shipments. The company added this means that the plant will have much less impact on local traffic than the current construction facility.
Complete project notification form (36M PDF).
35 Electric Ave. filings and meeting schedule.
Ad:
Comments
Obligatory musical reference
Will I post this with every single story I write about this project? Still amped up about it, but depends how much resistance I get.
Why isn’t his version
Why isn’t his version available on Tidal, only the off-brand, higher-tempo cover? I know all his music was stolen with his luggage, but that can’t be it.
I applaud the jobs to be created by off-shore “wind-farms,” but also want to note the passing of our primordial ocean vistas. If there happen to be no ships passing one could stand upon the earth and look into the abyss with the same eyes of our ancestors. Timeless.
13:50, 09082024: is the Mystic Valley power-generating plant the same Mystic Valley power-generating plant from yesterday’s story about the Wynn/Kraft parcel purchase for their respective designs on it?
What a specious take
You can go to anywhere north of Eastham in the state and see that view.
The music may be decades old
The music may be decades old but it still feels current.
That pun Hertz!
That pun Hertz!
Can't resist!
Still gets me all amped up - ohm a dancing fool!
Resistance is futile
...but old Lucutus never said anything about impedance.
Don’t be a root mean square.
Don’t be a root mean square.
Ohm my
I won't revolt against you posting this. Watt a perfect street for this project.
AC volts and DC volts...
...and little ohms eat ivy...
I used to jog down the hill
I used to jog down the hill from the Hobart park just to make this joke.
GOOD GOD!!
GOOD GOD!!
I was talking from NJ guys at
I was talking from NJ guys at a lobbying conference who ran a trades program and they emphasized the importance of wind in the skilled trades ecosystem.
Oh, yeah, can you believe how everyone freaked out over those guerrilla art bridge displays on the heels of 9/11? Or the chic who walked into Logan with a similar work around her neck?
'we're gonna' rock down to electric avenue':
https://www.universalhub.com/comment/977742#comment-977742
monstrosity
A few weeks ago, I talked to Flatiron, I was a led to believe the building housing the batteries would be set further back from the street and not be as tall. Almost everywhere else in Brighton shiny new residential buildings pop up. But this corner of Brighton continues to be shat upon with towing yards, an electric substation, and now this monstrosity. An area that is, in my opinion, prime for much needed affordable housing remains designated as 'light industrial'. But Flatiron's co-founder told me no one wants to build housing, so.... I guess this isn't Oak Square, so who cares. This site is in the middle of a residential neighborhood that needs a more thoughtful approach from our Councilor and the city. No thank you.
Why are we building these
Why are we building these “shiny new” flimsy and temporary houses instead of brownstones? Hedging our bets?
Also, discharge remediation?
New brownstones or "affordable" housing, pick one
New-build brownstones would have to go for a cost circa $1M/BR to be worth it.
Basic red brick would be a little cheaper, but it's still a very labor- and materials cost-intensive method of construction.
I agree the cardboard-box 5+1s are ugly, but so were the tenement blocks that went up all over eastern cities in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Beautiful old affordable houses are most a thing that exists in cities that are in decline or coming out of it and not yet gentrified out of sight. Go down to Philly and you'll see plenty if you feel like doing a rehab project.
Am I sensing resistance?
n/t
While the opposition to this
While the opposition to this being light industrial is fair, I think it is a pretty reasonable use of the land. The area around there (Electric Ave and Goodenough St.) are already industrial uses, and this on the edge of the neighborhood next to the Pike, not haphazardly in the middle of it. The facility should also result in significantly less truck traffic, given that the batteries rarely need to be replaced.
As far as housing goes, I think the idea that no one wants to build dense housing here is likely correct. The transportation access to this part of Brighton is quite poor, with only the infrequent 64 and 86 busses providing any nearby service, making a parking-light development trickier. There's also the local neighborhood context of 2- and 3-story homes, meaning that anything over 5 stories could very well be viewed as too tall/dense. While I'd also prefer to see more housing here, battery storage really does seem like a reasonable use of this site.
That's the attitude. I live
That's the attitude. I live on Parsons St. I will see that monstrosity, just like I see the power substation, from my bedroom window. Yes, the turnpike sucks as does the commuter rail, and the 64 and 86 aren't the best, but writing off the neighborhood because of that strikes me as elitist. So, yea, sure, let's not build housing, let's put a bunch of lithium batteries in a box on land that was a vernal pond. You know where else was once zoned as commercial/light industrial, but which now is housing and served by the 86 bus? Every new building on Western Ave and Birmingham Pkway.
Western Ave has the 70, which
Western Ave has the 70, which runs much more frequently.
So what you're saying is, not
So what you're saying is, not in your backyard.
Batteries can be highly flammable and impossible to extinguish
Much more research is needed on this front before buildings filled with batteries are permitted.
Yes we need more power....
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/south-korea-begins-search-ans...
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-06-28/after-a-deadly-bat...
Meanwhile ...
Gasoline tankers destroy bridges when they crash and explode.
When it comes to concentrated energy, there is no free lunch.
Do you have a gasoline tanker as a neighbor?
Would you want one?
Yes
and no.
We all have them
They drive through on the regular on the two nearby state highways. There have been several incidents involving bad driving of fuels in the area - like the tanker load that went in the Mystic a couple years ago.
Were you around when that neighborhood of Malden/Everett got fried by a gasoline tanker speeding through a rotary? https://www.firehouse.com/home/news/10502650/gas-tanker-explosion-rocks-...
Then there are the heating oil trucks and your neighbor's/your heating oil tanks. Not nearly as potentially explosive disastrous but may be toxic AF if leaking or crashing.
You know what else is highly
You know what else is highly flammable? Natural gas and other fossil fuels. Would you prefer a fossil fuel power plant here?
It’s easy to say no to any power generation (windmills, gas power plants, nuclear) when the other option is nothing. What we need to be doing talking about which we will accept/approve near us. Like the Cape people who didn’t want windmills but were told they had to have a fossil fuel plant instead.
I don't recall other flammable uses being proposed.
Complaining about seeing windmills on the horizon is one thing. This is in the middle of a neighborhood. It's always easy to demand others tolerate it.
The filing also doesn't detail ...
Discussions with the Boston Fire Department, but one would hope they'd be brought into the process of reviewing what would be Boston's first large-scale battery-power system.
Zźzzzzzzap!
Sorry.
There have been fire issues elsewhere;
https://www.firehouse.com/operations-training/news/55138200/fire-at-esco...
Fire would be the main concern depending on the batteries used.
There is some housing within about 1/4 miles I think.
I haven't been down that way in years but the pictures look like little has changed.
Lead batteries, or lithium on
Lead batteries, or lithium on Elec-tek Avenue?
What would an industrial accident do to the watershed and neighborhood?
Will capacity drive consumption?
https://www.bostonplans.org/projects/development-projects/35-electric-av...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_energy_storage_system
Bulk storage is generally not lithium
From what I've read, bulk storage sites are not lithium because they have a large area and don't require a high-density device. Less expensive batteries are used.
Adjittedly, this is an assumption and I have no idea what they plan on using.
You can put a lithium-ion
You can put a lithium-ion battery fire, the rechargeable kind, out with an ABC extinguisher, CO2 extinguishers, or sodium bicarbonate
The Colossus of RODE
Put it in Savin Hill or the South End.
It's Electric!
But What About The Parking!?
N/t
Secrecy on battery is bogus & unwarranted
“…the facility will be classified as a "large generator connected to the Bulk Electrical System" and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission "classifies certain information related to the production, generation, or transmission of energy as Critical Energy Infrastructure Information and cannot be publicly distributed." “
This is BS. First of all, it’s a battery for storage, not a generator. Second, the public has a right to know what kind of battery they are using. It’s not only reasonable but essential to know, because, for example, if it’s lithium, then there are particular fire safety considerations. Other proposed battery sites are routinely up front about the nature of the storage, so what’s the huge federal security secret here? If it truly is something so dangerous it must be kept secret, then it should be opposed and denied. I’m an elected member of the ISO-NE Consumer Liaison Group and willing to take it up should ratepayers in the neighborhood wish:
www.iso-ne.com/committees/industry-collaborations/consumer-liaison/
What is a battery if not eventually a generator
When the batteries discharge into the grid, they will be generating power from their stored potential. That makes them a generator on the grid.
Love this, but they should be more transparent.
People in the area have a right to know what battery chemistry would be in use, because in the unlikely event of a battery fire, they would be directly affected.
There's no compelling national security reason to keep that (or the capacity) secret.
But... I would be very happy to see more of these facilities installed in the area. We desperately need more grid storage.
Battery designs
There are many kinds of batteries. My favorite battery is Northfield Mountain in western MA, a man-made lake on top of a mountain. Use electric power to pump water up there, and generate electric power when it flows down again. Flatiron could do that on Electric Avenue; just build the plant 60 stories high, with water tanks occupying the top 20 or 30. No risk of fire, no scary chemicals, just plain old water. What could go wrong?
This uses the same gravity principle
but is better for a few reasons: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/05/22/enel-energy-vault-build-18-mw-36-...
Even better
They could use molasses!
That drone shot is disappointing
I'd have loved to see a green roof but with an unstaffed building I get that's less doable - but it's a literal piece of power infrastructure and they couldn't slap some solar panels up there??
Also great they want to do a natives-heavy runoff pond but I don't know what wetlands natives are going to "bioremediate" runoff? They make it sound like they expect a bunch of wacky wild chemicals to pour into this thing. If it's just a standard runoff pond the language they're using is weird. Also natives take a WHILE to establish properly and Boston is under really bad pressure from the usual invasives, so hopefully the developer commits to using one of those five parking spaces to actually maintain the pond until it's working as designed.
Would've loved to see more imaginative landscaping around the building instead of the usual tiny arborvitaes that don't do fuckall. Some green walls or something to help the impact of the building, visually.
That said, this is important infrastructure, build it. Would love to see more of these going up in transit-poor, industrial, or otherwise contaminated sites not appropriate for housing.