Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 23, 2017, 12:18 AM UTC

wbhart wrote: post #80

leereeves wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and it works better than the existing solutions A few seconds faster, but with less than 2% of the required power. What are the claims from the other side about why "the Tesla battery will not work"? If the claims are "it won't provide enough power to matter", this data seems to support those claims, unless I misunderstand how the 9MW provided by the Tesla battery (the HPR) resolved the sudden loss of 560MW.

As I understand it, the article is about the frequency stabilisation market. The existing reserves are able to pick up the loss of energy eventually, but reliability of the grid depends on more than just total reserve power. That is why the frequency stabilisation market exists. As the article points out, no one was expected to lose power here. Power systems are highly nonlinear. At any given time there are power gen…

Post by throwaway7645 » Mon, Dec 25, 2017, 3:46 PM UTC

caf wrote: post #62

throwaway7645 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Market settings in the Australian NEM mean that generators tend to set their governors with very wide deadbands. http://www.escosa.sa.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/1047/20170208-I...