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

Tesla’s giant battery in Australia reduced grid service cost by 90%

electrek.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 143 posts

Re: Tesla’s giant battery in Australia reduced grid service cost by 90%

#21

Post by Retric »

sbov wrote: post #12
spodek wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This outcome is in a particularly distorted badly operated market, one where for no very good reasons regulatory power is not being applied . . . You described most energy markets on the planet.

Not to the point where it costs $14,000 per MW. At that pricepoint hiring humans to hand crank generators is not the laughably ridiculous proposition it should be.

A human might average 100W per hour over a workday at say 10$ per hour to keep the numbers clean (1$ = 10Wh). 14,000$ per 1,000,000Wh is 72wh per dollar so far cheaper. Except this is instantaneous power so they would need 1,000,000 people to sit around doing nothing most of the day and then occasionally have have some or all of them work, because again that battery caps at 100MW.

Really, people in AU don't pay 14$ per kWh making 14$ per MWh meaningless. They are really paying to keep generating capacity online not for actual power. A backup generator that's never used costs infinite dollars per W, that does not make it useless.

PS: Well under 1 million beause people can generate more power in short periods.

Re: Tesla’s giant battery in Australia reduced grid service cost by 90%

#22

Post by ballenf »

vosper wrote: post #2

For obvious reasons there's a lot of focus on Tesla's automobiles, but part of me wonders if these Powerpack grid batteries aren't the real innovation and killer product for the company.

Where's Tesla's secret sauce in this solution: the battery chemistry, the control circuits or well-engineered integration of the parts?

How much a threat is constrained lithium supply to the business model?

Re: Tesla’s giant battery in Australia reduced grid service cost by 90%

#24

Post by ovao »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #16
bassman9000 wrote: post #9

Zero emmissions If nuclear has to include the costs of dismantling the plants, batteries have to include the cost of building them. And wind generators are massive aluminum structures, which are extremely costly to shape. Some day, maybe. Let's be fair in the meantime.

No one has any way to dispose of nuclear waste (except reprocessing, which has significant cost and safety concerns). It sits in storage pools waiting for that day. Lithium batteries have no such issue.

While not cost effective in the slightest, jettisoning nuclear waste into outer space is one proposition.

Naturally, launching rockets filled with nuclear waste comes with its own safety concerns.

Re: Tesla’s giant battery in Australia reduced grid service cost by 90%

#25

Post by krl02 »

ggm wrote: post #3

This outcome is in a particularly distorted badly operated market, one where for no very good reasons regulatory power is not being applied, and distorted bidding for FCAS and peak supply has been the norm. It's hugely politicised, and in the context of a rejection of carbon trading and an attempt by the ruling federal liberal-national government to wedge coal into the mix (it's basically uneconomic now, and won't ge…

Life is hugely politicized

We think we’re boxing it off from that but if you look closer, through the abstract nonsense people peddle, you’ll see it comes down to a political yes/no process

You’re welcome to pretend otherwise. I’d rather just dispense with the notion life is anything but dialog back and forth, jockeying for acceptance and access into some clique or the “right” to build useful infra

Re: Tesla’s giant battery in Australia reduced grid service cost by 90%

#26

Post by the8472 »

bassman9000 wrote: post #9

Zero emmissions If nuclear has to include the costs of dismantling the plants, batteries have to include the cost of building them. And wind generators are massive aluminum structures, which are extremely costly to shape. Some day, maybe. Let's be fair in the meantime.

> decomissioning

You have to decomission nuclear plants unless you want radioactive waste in your ground water. You don't have to do such a thing with wind turbines. You could just let them turn into industrial ruins. It's probably more economical to recycle the materials, but that's a choice.

> construction

All plants require that. Nuclear or coal plants are not made from unicorn hair and dreams. And modern wind turbine blades are made of reinforced fiberglass composites, not aluminium.

Re: Tesla’s giant battery in Australia reduced grid service cost by 90%

#27

Post by imron »

Retric wrote: post #21
sbov wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to the point where it costs $14,000 per MW. At that pricepoint hiring humans to hand crank generators is not the laughably ridiculous proposition it should be.

A human might average 100W per hour over a workday at say 10$ per hour to keep the numbers clean (1$ = 10Wh). 14,000$ per 1,000,000Wh is 72wh per dollar so far cheaper. Except this is instantaneous power so they would need 1,000,000 people to sit around doing nothing most of the day and then occasionally have have some or all of them work, because again that battery caps at 100MW. Really, people in AU don't pay 14$ p…

> to keep the numbers clean

With Australia's minimum wage, it's likely to be at least double this.

Re: Tesla’s giant battery in Australia reduced grid service cost by 90%

#28

Post by sxates »

ovao wrote: post #24
toomuchtodo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one has any way to dispose of nuclear waste (except reprocessing, which has significant cost and safety concerns). It sits in storage pools waiting for that day. Lithium batteries have no such issue.

While not cost effective in the slightest, jettisoning nuclear waste into outer space is one proposition. Naturally, launching rockets filled with nuclear waste comes with its own safety concerns.

What's the carbon footprint of a thousand rocket launches?

Re: Tesla’s giant battery in Australia reduced grid service cost by 90%

#29

Post by dougmany »

vosper wrote: post #2

For obvious reasons there's a lot of focus on Tesla's automobiles, but part of me wonders if these Powerpack grid batteries aren't the real innovation and killer product for the company.

There was a link here recently with a video of a consultant talking about a Model 3 tear-down. He basically said the "Skateboard" was amazing, the rest of the car was sub par. The were most impressed with the battery pack, saying it was was above and beyond anything they had seen with cell to cell voltages being astonishingly close.

Re: Tesla’s giant battery in Australia reduced grid service cost by 90%

#30

Post by Retric »

imron wrote: post #27
Retric wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A human might average 100W per hour over a workday at say 10$ per hour to keep the numbers clean (1$ = 10Wh). 14,000$ per 1,000,000Wh is 72wh per dollar so far cheaper. Except this is instantaneous power so they would need 1,000,000 people to sit around doing nothing most of the day and then occasionally have have some or all of them work, because again that battery caps at 100MW. Really, people in AU don't pay 14$ p…

> to keep the numbers clean With Australia's minimum wage, it's likely to be at least double this.

Fair enough, I was thinking people might average more power and you might use someone outside Australia. On the other hand you need to pay for equipment so ~3W/$ may be more accurate but being generous does not change things much.

Anyway ~20$ /h * 24 h a day * 1 million people / -123 MW (Tesla capacity) = ~3,900,000 $ / MWh which is closer than I thought it would be.

Post reply on HN