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

31–40 of 94 posts

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#31

Post by mtgx »

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…

So what you're saying is that Tesla's battery solution is better than what Australia was already using?

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#32

Post by greglindahl »

icc97 wrote: post #27
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.

In Australia, being green or anti-green is a big part of politics. The party currently nationally in power is anti-green.

Interestingly, because of the combination of great solar conditions and long distances, if you want to build a house in the middle of nowhere, it's cheaper to buy solar and a battery than hook into the grid.

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#33

Post by shard972 »

Jedd wrote: post #20
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…

If you're including regulatory oversight (or lack of) under the 'management' heading, I'd definitely agree. "Since 2009, the electricity networks that own and manage our “poles and wires” have quietly spent $45 billion on the most expensive project this country has ever seen. Allowed to run virtually unchecked, they’ve spent vast sums on infrastructure we don’t need, and have charged it all to us, with an additional…

Nuclear is obsolete to what? As far as I understand, nuclear is the replacement for coal, nothing else comes close to being able to provide a stable constant supply in large quantities.

What else can take the role of supplying the bulk of electricity to grids that doesn't also have it's own environmental concerns?

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#34

Post by synicalx »

mtgx wrote: post #31
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…

So what you're saying is that Tesla's battery solution is better than what Australia was already using?

Tesla's battery is better at doing what it was designed for, compared to coal plant(s) that are better at doing what they're designed for. In conjunction with one another, both technologies work incredibly well.

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#35

Post by cube00 »

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…

Have you ever seen propaganda for a mineral before? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXyEfo27Z38

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#36

Post by ehnto »

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…

It's most likely news to most of the country that the battery would have this benefit to the whole grid. That was the target audience.

It's likely popular on HN because hey cool this entire country has a backup battery by Tesla and it's doing cool stuff.

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#38

Post by just_for_you »

synicalx wrote: post #34
mtgx wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what you're saying is that Tesla's battery solution is better than what Australia was already using?

Tesla's battery is better at doing what it was designed for, compared to coal plant(s) that are better at doing what they're designed for. In conjunction with one another, both technologies work incredibly well.

In addendum to this, I'd like to mention that things that are designed for a specific purpose are good for that specific purpose.

And in general, things that are made to work well together work better than things not made to work well together. This also applies to things that happen to work well together, despite not initially being designed to.

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#39

Post by thisrod »

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 aren't building coal or nuclear because there are outrageous political risks

This is a one sided way of putting it. The people who build coal plants in Australia say that they've stopped doing it because of climate change. The plants need to run for decades to pay off the cost of construction. The business people expect that, whoever is in charge of Australia, power plants will have to stop burning coal before then.

The people who build nuclear plants say that there aren't enough Australians to buy their electricity, so anyone who tried to sell nuclear power in Australia would lose money. Again, regardless of the politics.

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#40

Post by throwaway7645 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #5
tbabb wrote: post #2

The shortage was 560MW, and the Tesla facility provided 7.3MW, or 1.3%.

4 seconds faster (within milliseconds of the frequency drop event occurring) than the coal plant contracted to provide frequency response services. "But in reality, the response from the Tesla big battery was even quicker than that – in milliseconds – but too fast for the AEMO data to record. Importantly, by the time that the contracted Gladstone coal unit had gotten out of bed and put its socks on so it can inject m…

When a contingency happens (loss of equipment such as a generator), units respond pretty much immediately due to governor response in the unit itself (good ole' inertia). Most RTO/ISOs in the USA (I know AEMO is in Australia) have a very large amount of power already ready to go if a unit trips offline. Using batteries to help with this is being worked on. They already exist, but new market rules are being drafted in order to allow them to be taken advantage of and properly compensated. The term is stored energy resource. Google that term in conjunction with ISO-NE, PJM, MISO, SPP, NYISO, CAISO...etc.
Post reply on HN