Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

reneweconomy.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 94 posts

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#21

Post by nl »

PinguTS wrote: post #14

This piece is clearly written by someone, who as no glue about the grid. (or wants to make a buzz out of nothing special) Battery power is always faster then generator power. That is the reason why every data center has battery backup for immediate reaction and generator power for the longtime backup. Normally, the battery size is designed that the minimum time is at least twice as long as to start the generator. Exa…

Of course this is obvious!

But - disappointingly - it has to be continually pointed out here in Australia. The coal lobby is strong.

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#22

Post by nl »

roenxi wrote: post #15

This response by the battery is really interesting. And it is certainly helping the Australian grid. However, it is worth noting that the Australian grid, South Australia's in particular, is so woefully mismanaged that almost anything goes. South Australia is in the running for the most expensive electricity in the world [1]. As far as I've been able to tell, we aren't building coal or nuclear because there are outra…

We are building plenty of gas fired plants.

And a fracking ban didn't cause the gas shortage (whoever told you that has a pretty serious agenda!). Australian gas reserves are the second biggest in the world and relatively easy to access. The "problem" is/was that they are tied up in long term export agreements.

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#23

Post by a4dev »

An early test of the battery control system and it responded!

What the article does not say is that the lumbering coal fired units also responded within milliseconds due to the enormous inertia of their turbo-generators. This happens before their throttles open purely due to the physics of the situation.

The energy involved is substantial.

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#24

Post by jermaustin1 »

jobu wrote: post #17
pwagland wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did you get the three minute response time number for Gladstone? It is not backed up by the article, it only mentions that it should respond within six seconds, but that "Data from AEMO (and gathered above by Dylan McConnell from the Climate and Energy College) shows that the Tesla big battery responded four seconds ahead of the generator contracted at that time to provide FCAS (frequency control and ancillary…

The article is a bit sparse, but take a look at the output of the Loy Yang 3 and the Tesla (HPR) in this graph: http://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/HPR-fr... Tesla ramps up as the LYA3 is dropping at 1:59am, then the Tesla drops off a bit before 2:02 am as the Gladstone generator kicks in (not in the graph)

There are two types of people in the world: those that can extrapolate meaning from an incomplete set.

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#25

Post by vvanders »

PinguTS wrote: post #14

This piece is clearly written by someone, who as no glue about the grid. (or wants to make a buzz out of nothing special) Battery power is always faster then generator power. That is the reason why every data center has battery backup for immediate reaction and generator power for the longtime backup. Normally, the battery size is designed that the minimum time is at least twice as long as to start the generator. Exa…

Something that was interesting and buried down in the comments is that they're supposedly contracted for 35MW of fast-response power to maintain grid stability based on engineering of current generators/etc.

If that's true then Tesla is already providing 1/5th of that capacity today.

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#26

Post by greglindahl »

vvanders wrote: post #25
PinguTS wrote: post #14

This piece is clearly written by someone, who as no glue about the grid. (or wants to make a buzz out of nothing special) Battery power is always faster then generator power. That is the reason why every data center has battery backup for immediate reaction and generator power for the longtime backup. Normally, the battery size is designed that the minimum time is at least twice as long as to start the generator. Exa…

Something that was interesting and buried down in the comments is that they're supposedly contracted for 35MW of fast-response power to maintain grid stability based on engineering of current generators/etc. If that's true then Tesla is already providing 1/5th of that capacity today.

I think the reason that the battery put out the amount it did was that that was size of the local shortfall, 1,000 miles away from the problem. You can see that at other times, the battery has put out its full 100MW rating.

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#27

Post by icc97 »

roenxi wrote: post #15

This response by the battery is really interesting. And it is certainly helping the Australian grid. However, it is worth noting that the Australian grid, South Australia's in particular, is so woefully mismanaged that almost anything goes. South Australia is in the running for the most expensive electricity in the world [1]. As far as I've been able to tell, we aren't building coal or nuclear because there are outra…

This is not the first time I've heard Australians complaining about the green lobby.

From what I understand one of the major problems Australia is the sheer distance the electricity has to travel and the infrastructure required for such a small population.

Solar power seems such an obvious choice, yet many Australians seem to be against it.

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#28

Post by barblovesnigs »

PinguTS wrote: post #14

This piece is clearly written by someone, who as no glue about the grid. (or wants to make a buzz out of nothing special) Battery power is always faster then generator power. That is the reason why every data center has battery backup for immediate reaction and generator power for the longtime backup. Normally, the battery size is designed that the minimum time is at least twice as long as to start the generator. Exa…

Dude doesnt know what hes talking about.

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#29

Post by grecy »

PinguTS wrote: post #14

This piece is clearly written by someone, who as no glue about the grid. (or wants to make a buzz out of nothing special) Battery power is always faster then generator power. That is the reason why every data center has battery backup for immediate reaction and generator power for the longtime backup. Normally, the battery size is designed that the minimum time is at least twice as long as to start the generator. Exa…

> (or wants to make a buzz out of nothing special)

It's important to note it is something special. The battery works, and it works better than the existing solutions.

This is very important and big news in Australia, because the coal lobby is so strong and powerful they have been telling the public for a year now the Tesla battery will not work and is a waste of money. Obviously some people such as yourself understand how the thing works, though I would bet a massive percentage of "people on the street" have no idea, and only understand what the coal lobby is telling them.

It's important to take every opportunity to educate the public about the real facts, and this event is a fact. The sooner the public learn the truth, the better.

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#30

Post by sov »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #6

Water is wet and using a battery to cover high speed changes in supply/demand works exactly the way you'd expect at the car, datacenter and grid scale. This is really just a fluff piece.

"This is obvious to me and therefore obvious to everyone" isn't the most compelling take on the article.
Post reply on HN