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

41–50 of 143 posts

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

#41

Post by jessaustin »

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…

A human might average 100W per hour...

This seems like the wrong unit to use.

[EDIT:] I mean that power is already a "per time period" measure; there's no reason to say "joules per second per hour".

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

#42

Post by jessaustin »

zaroth wrote: post #38
dougmany wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also the electronic control systems, motors, suspension, and drivetrain. You know, everything but the fit and finish.

Isn't all that part of the skateboard?

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

#43

Post by basementcat »

jessaustin wrote: post #41
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…

A human might average 100W per hour... This seems like the wrong unit to use. [EDIT:] I mean that power is already a "per time period" measure; there's no reason to say "joules per second per hour".

A rule of thumb is a large hamburger with all the fixings is about one kWh.

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

#44

Post by acidburnNSA »

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…

Great and important points, thank you.

Regarding pumped storage, I recently discovered some studies pointing out the potentially massive greenhouse impact of certain reservoirs that we must keep in mind.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

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

#45

Post by tgtweak »

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.

Is this per mWh? That seems like a rediculous amount if true.

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

#46

Post by altcognito »

keltex wrote: post #31
ballenf wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

FYI this project wasn't built with Panasonic / Tesla / Gigafactory batteries. They were purchased from Samsung: https://cleantechnica.com/2017/09/30/tesla-using-samsung-sdi...

Wow, that's even more impressive in some ways. That was a huge gamble to rely on another company (though perhaps they already have a good relationship I'm not aware of) and it's great that the system was "easy" enough to build with different parts (though, again, perhaps they've always kept multiple vendors in mind)

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

#47

Post by wcarron »

basementcat wrote: post #43
jessaustin wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A human might average 100W per hour... This seems like the wrong unit to use. [EDIT:] I mean that power is already a "per time period" measure; there's no reason to say "joules per second per hour".

A rule of thumb is a large hamburger with all the fixings is about one kWh.

His point is that a Watt is a unit of power being equal to 1 joule per second. As an aside, this corresponds to an electric circuit with a potential difference of 1 volt and a current of 1 Ampere.

Saying a human produces 100W/hr is wrong. What I assume he meant is this:

A human can produce 100W for 1 hour, on average. This is reasonable, since humans produce about 1/8 Horsepower, on average; and 1 HP = 746W.

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

#48

Post by ggm »

krl02 wrote: post #25
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

Can you explain in this model, how any useful bipartisan investment happened, in the past wartime expediency aside?

I think its true this has always been a dimension of things, but the scale of this dimension set against other dimensions has substantially changed in the last two decades. Before this, there were some things that both (notional) sides were prepared to express some unanimity on.

For example: "soviet power plus electricity == socialism" did not actually stop anyone of a more rightist persuasion from investing in electic generation.. did it?

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

#49

Post by jazoom »

boyter wrote: post #10
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.

It’s particularly bad in Australia and South Australia where this battery is was the worst. Australia despite having abundant reserves of coal, gas and uranium as well as excellent solar and wind locations has some of their most expensive electricity prices in the world.

This is true and it blows my mind. It also makes me sad. We have some really smart and educated people in this country. What's the problem here?

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

#50

Post by ovao »

sxates wrote: post #28
ovao wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

An interesting question, actually. Presumably very, very large.
Post reply on HN