Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Big Battery Outsmarts Lumbering Coal Units After Loy Yang Trips (reneweconomy.com.au)
The Tesla big battery is having a crucial impact on Australia's electricity market, far beyond the South Australia grid where it was expected to time shift a small amount of wind energy and provide network services and emergency back-up in case of a major problem. From a report: Last Thursday, one of the biggest coal units in Australia, Loy Yang A 3, tripped without warning at 1.59am, with the sudden loss of 560MW and causing a slump in frequency on the network. What happened next has stunned electricity industry insiders and given food for thought over the near to medium term future of the grid, such was the rapid response of the Tesla big battery to an event that happened nearly 1,000km away. Even before the Loy Yang A unit had finished tripping, the 100MW/129MWh had responded, injecting 7.3MW into the network to help arrest a slump in frequency that had fallen below 49.80Hertz.
It's almost 2018. I would have expected a space-based solar array to take over. You know, like Solaren promised us by 2016.
Oh well, time to leave the space fantasies 50 years in the past where they belong and look at present reality.
For the benefit of Americans reading: the nominal AC frequency in Australia is 50Hz, not 60Hz.
The resiliency of the power grid would be vastly improved if we put a battery pack (the size of a normal intermodal container) at each substation. These could act like your home UPS, fixing blackouts of a few minutes, when they occur. This also would make the grid much more able to use wind and solar sources, without so much need for standby diesel systems currently in place.
When is Musk going to stop making big promises and then following through?
He sure is a bad politician.
Shouldn't respond to trolls, but WTF.
The unabomber's manifesto was _incoherent_. Every piece of white space was a macro for 'then a miracle occurs'. If you think it makes sense, get on antipsychotics before you hurt someone.
Trying to remember why it wouldn't have worked. Because it might steal their market share? Yeah pretty sure that was their reason they didn't think it would.
I'm not sure how this is suppose to be amazing considering most computer folks at home who care about their systems use a UPS. I can see how not having a UPS and losing power at a key point might be a small disaster. Probably the only amazing part is that there are few systems that approach this size and scope but aside from that nothing new.
If a power source goes offline, wouldn't you see a slump in voltage? Why the decrease in frequency?
We had some fridge sized batteries to keep things up until the diesel generator kicked in. Two different jobs, fast response vs.prolonged heavy usage.
This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
It's brilliant literature.
The coal plant that failed was producing close to 600MW. The max output from the graph in the article showed the battery system inject less than 10MW max into the grid. Who pickup up the other 500+ MW? The other coal plant that came online within 6 secs. Basically all the batteries did was reduce the size of the brownout.
Lithium and Thorazine for you.
580 - 7 = ?
Then you should chew your food better, or if you prepared it, you should grind the corn before putting into the food, as a courtesy to your guests.
Corn kernels are made of cellulose, and the human body can't digest cellulose. That's why when you eat whole corn, it comes out in your doodie.
Most corn in the US is also GMO (Genetically Modified Organism), and intellectual property of (c) Monstanto Corporation (tm)(R), the creators of Agent Orange which have injured our US service members.
How do you figure it is incoherent? It's perfectly coherent.
UPS, that's not a UPS,
THIS is a UPS!
hehe
L'Idiot
Basically it's only a big deal to those who don't understand power systems design especially as it applies to industry and enterprise customers.
Most of the generators are of the asynchronous type (or induction type). This type or generatior produces no energy when the rotor runs at exactly the grid frequency. Not until the rotor of the generator spins faster than the grid, it produces energy to the net.
The difference between the rotor frequency and the net frequency is called slip, and is usually a few percent. For typical slips, the produced power is proportional to the slip.
So, if the load increases (or the generating power decreases), the (average) slip must increase for the (remaining) generators, and since the generators cannot run any faster, the only possible reaction is for the network frequency to drop.
Similarly, if you have an asynchronous motor and start to load it, its will spin slower (increase its slip) to provide more power.
The synchronous electric machines do not operate according to this principle. They always run with the same frequency as the grid (and compensate by increasing or decrasing the current production or consumption). If a synchronous motor is loaded too hard, it will finally break out of the synchronicity and stop working.
Schitzo logic. Point 1 has nothing to do with point 2 has nothing to do with point 3. Proof by 'then a miracle occurs'.
The whole thing is hung on a fallacy, that people had 'control/power' in primitive life. He than built a psychotic construct on top of that.
If it makes sense to you, seek help.
This kind of thing is pretty common with schizos. Every episode costs them about 1 IQ point. They were once smart, they remember it, now they are dumb. But they still 'sound smart' to dumb people. Crystallized knowledge of language.
...where it was expected to time shift a small amount of wind energy and provide network services and emergency back-up in case of a major problem.
No, the primary purpose of the battery was to help the grid ride through transients just as the one described, not for time shifting. Who is writing this stuff?
560 > 7.3.
Who cares if it beat the other large plant at responding by a few seconds. They "arrested" the slump about as well as tossing a bucket of water on a forest fire. It was another large plant that actually fixed the slump. The Gladstone coal generator in Queensland.
Look at how they try to overplay the impact with the 2nd output chart. The scale for the coal plant is 0-600MW. The Tesla pant is 0-9MW. Compare them on the same scale and the tesla plant would barely be a bump on that chart.
The UPS in my home can respond quicker in then giant mechanical 600MW power pant. Doesn't mean it's any good at propping up a power grid.
I also really doubt anyone in the industry is "stunned" a small solid state battery plant could respond quicker then a massive turbine that needs to wind up to adjust its output.
If the Tesla plant respond in some unexpected or surprising way then there is a problem.
The Tesla technology is amazing but this story is ridiculous.
I have to return some videotapes...
it was expected to time shift a small amount of wind energy and provide network services and emergency back-up in case of a major problem.
They had a major problem, and it did what it was supposed to do. How and why does this stun people?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
The narrative and conclusions are a big dodgy. Everybody knew beforehand that batteries can jump in immediately to supply power. And the batteries did not stop a complete collapse, electrical networks are thoroughly analyzed and simulated and braced against major consequences if any one unit trips out. Major outages are quite rare over the decades, and all done without a single battery. Gas turbines can come on-line within 60 seconds and other interconnected plants often have enough reserve capacity to tide over small outages. Batteries are welcome as an immediate source, but they are still awfully expensive and awfully small in GWH.
And "What happened next" did not stun electricity industry insiders. It was engineered to do the very thing it did.
Outsmarts Lumbering Coal Units???? Tell me what you really think there. Geez. BIAS.
Just another marketing ad masquerading as a serious article.
Well, it was done with Rey's sword which was unattended. I think attribution is tricky even though the film did suggest he was the one who did it.
Take off every 'sig' !!
The drop in frequency itself isn't the big problem, it's a gauge, an indicator.
The frequency tells you how fast the generators are turning. They are automatically throttled to try to spin at the right speed to produce 50Hz. If they aren't producing 50Hz, that means they are full wide open throttle and still can't keep up. It means they can't produce enough power.
No, the primary purpose of the battery was to help the grid ride through transients just as the one described, not for time shifting.
No, the primary purpose of the battery is to store excess energy generated when demand is low, for use when demand is high. I agree that calling it "time shifting" sounds stupid, but I'm having a hard time disagreeing that that is exactly what it is.
Worst case, they could probably do rolling blackouts to keep the grid stable at the cost of disconnecting some unlucky customers.
I know. Some of this is just sensationalist writing. All protection circuits and over-voltage as well as under-voltage is engineered.
We are all going to die /s
Luckily these batteries are amazeeng and they saved us
This performance is nothing special and really doesn't warrant a press release
^^^^^ Proof. It sounded smart to a dumb person.
I'm curious about what kind of control logic the massive battery must use to decide when to intervene. There must be some sort of dead-band, otherwise the battery would drain itself quickly, and the rest of the grid wouldn't have any signal that additional supply was needed.
It also has to decide when to recharge itself, which I assume would use a similar logic, except looking for excess frequency conditions.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Every article I have read on this battery implies, if it doesn't state directly, that its purpose is to time-shift through periods of low wind power. Not a single one stated that its purpose is to ride through transient outages. Not a single one stated how long the battery can meet the power requirements of the state - something around 30 minutes - which would detract from their implied (and false) thesis.
Actually, no, it wasnt engineered to back up a power plant in Victoria, it was engineered to back up power in South Australia. There was an entirely different coal power plant that was supposed to back up Loy Yang (which is one of Australia's largest) - a plant that ratepayers have to pay to keep running on standby, which is supposed to hold the grid up until downed power plants can be brought back up and/or more baseload elsewhere ramped up. But from nearly 1000km away, the Tesla battery did the standby plant's job for it during its 4-second wakeup time - stopping and reversing the decline in grid frequency so that there wasn't even a meaningful blink in power quality.
This is not what the Tesla battery was designed to do. It was designed to deal with situations with downed lines / plants in South Australia, to keep the lights on there. It wasn't supposed to take over the work from standby plants halfway across the country. That it technically can should surprise nobody. But that's not what it was purchased to do.
"This wallpaper is killing me. One of us has got to go." -- Oscar Wilde on his deathbed
The batteries supply to the grid via an inverter, which can be turned on and off, and also adjusted to vary frequency and voltage output (automatically). Frequency and voltage are monitoring at many points in the system, via sensors and protective relaying, either can trigger the required response.
And "What happened next" did not stun electricity industry insiders. It was engineered to do the very thing it did.
But we're talking coal man, the energy of the future! If those old fashioned batteries have to kick in to replace coal's failings, how is coal ever going to show it's superiority? I'll just show myself out now.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
No, the primary purpose of the battery is to store excess energy generated when demand is low, for use when demand is high. I agree that calling it "time shifting" sounds stupid, but I'm having a hard time disagreeing that that is exactly what it is.
This is a common mistake many have in understanding what this battery installation is for, which is to solve a grid reliability issue in this specfic region, which is supplied by inadequate long distance transmission lines that cannot make up a sudden local generation disruption or system fault. Those cause voltage and frequency transients which basically result in disconnection of sections of the system. The batteries help ride through the initial transient, keeping voltage and frequency in the range required for initial seconds and minutes after the event. Once things stabilize, the existing system can keep handle the demand. This is how the batteries solve the grid reliability issue.
Any use for time shifting renewable supply is secondary. In fact, only part of the battery capacity can be used for that purpose because they must remain mostly charged to handle the transient ride through requirements.
Every article I have read on this battery implies, if it doesn't state directly, that its purpose is to time-shift through periods of low wind power. Not a single one stated that its purpose is to ride through transient outages. Not a single one stated how long the battery can meet the power requirements of the state - something around 30 minutes - which would detract from their implied (and false) thesis.
That is because almost every author assumes such and does not understand how batteries are used for grid reliability. They can and will be used part time for time shifting, particularly when there is lower demand and less stress on the grid, but that is not the primary purpose they serve. They must stay charged enough to supply fast response ancillary support, so they can only discharge partially for time shifting depending on given conditions.
https://www.tesla.com/en_AU/te...
Grid Reliability
Ancillary Services; Charge or discharge instantly to provide frequency regulation, voltage control, and spinning reserve services to the grid.
It is likely a linear power response to frequency with a small dead band.
In the UK, battery backed frequency response is an important contributor to frequency stability, and is operated with a dead band of 0.015 Hz. The power injection is required to be proportional to the frequency deviation from outside the dead band, reaching 100% rated power at 0.5 Hz deviation from nominal. Response time is a maximum of 1 s.
Additionally, in the UK, the requirement is that the frequency response is symmetrical. If frequency rises, then the system must absorb power - up to 100% of maximum rated power at 50.5 Hz, for a minimum of 15 minutes.
I can't help but notice that "Ancilliary Services" is way down at feature #7 of 8 total on the list you link too. Meanwhile #1 is Peak Shaving and #2 is Load Shifting (aka time shifting), which are what most every article claims the SA batteries are for.
Of course that's Tesla's general-purpose PR page and says nothing about SA's actual installation goals, but it does undermine your argument rather badly.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Seriously guys, this is already done, what's the point ?
http://www.ulyces.co/wp-conten...
aaaaaaa
If you were to trace back the history of the grid issues this region of Australia has been facing, you'd find that the actual blackouts and brownouts they have been suffering come after faults or other sudden disturbances.
Its a bit complicated, in that the stress on the grid can be greater if demand is high and local wind is not producing. That is when the likelihood of a fault or sudden event will bring down a part of the grid is greatest. In that sense, the batteries offset low renewable production. But still, the primary thing that maintains reliably is the fast response voltage and frequency support.
I'm perfectly happy that Tesla's tech works, but this article is just low-grade and aimed at emotions.
Who was "outsmarted" here? Power plants have no emotions. Why would anyone be "stunned" by a giant UPS working? This post is phrased just like bad click-through ads ("One weird trick", "X hates you knowing about..."). ./ deserves better articles.
I'm glad its working, but 7 MW of power is just a drop of water in a puddle The coal station was pumping out 500 MW when it went down, so the battery made up less than 2% of the shortfall. Yes it did help, yes it did aid synchronisation, but only a little.. The article is sensationalist bullshit. Who are these 'stunned industry insiders'?
Thank you, those are very useful numbers.
There are many generating plants that support frequency response. The value of frequency response support is already recognized in some markets. Eventually the available ramp rate will become a component of the market price of frequency response. The ability to program static inverter power supplies to have a response that acts like high inertia generation with very fast throttle response+ is significant.
Here are some systems to compare.
Dinorwig Power Station Wales Hydro pumped storage
0 MW to 1800 MW load can be achieved in approximately 16 seconds
The starting loading capability is often quite different than the advertised ramp rate for gas turbines. Gas turbine ramp rates of 35 to 50 MW/min are achievable only after the unit has reached self-sustaining speed. The fastest loading gas turbine models produce 30% load delivery after 7 minutes and take nearly 30 minutes to reach full output under hot start conditions. Wärtsilä 34SG combustion engines have true quick start capability – an effective ramp rate of 50% per minute, reaching full load within 2 minutes. For a 200 MW plant, this equates to 100 MW/min.
Electrolysis is grossly inefficient for storage.
Instead, we pump water up a hill. Then let it flow down again later. There is a smallish plant near Brisbane that has been operating for decades. And there are plans to build something massive in the Snowies. And possibly a sea water driven one in SA.
Pumped Hydro is far more efficient for storing large quantities of power than batteries. But the max output is limited to the hydro generators. Li Ion batteries can produce huge power for a short time, thus good for grid stabilization.
That said, the price of Li Ion is falling, and may eventually compete with pumped hydro.
The other storage system is molten salt. There is another plant planed for SA that will do that, and thus be able to supply solar electricity at night.
Incidentally, the 7MW reported by the article is probably nonsense, that is too little to have much effect on anything, and the batteries can produce 100MW.
LOL.. You mean a rolling blackout in the middle of summer? Yea, Musk kept a few thousand homes with the lights on for 20 seconds or so for how many millions of dollars? I guess that's progress...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I think it's great it "pitched in," etc. Offering 10MW nearly instantly in response to 500MW of generation shed is not worthless, but it's not exactly "reversing" the reduction in frequency, either.
It's a puff piece bull crap article.
There battery "helped" the frequency shift by supplying 2% of the lost power for a few seconds. So it stopped the frequency dropping to 47.95hz from 48hz.
Amazing.....
This battery is incredible because it literally doesnt help the state do anything. It can power one twentieth of the state for about an hour. Yet it's got media attention and a media narrative, and that's all that matters.
SA will go down again this summer or the next.
It very demonstrably did reverse the frequency drop. See the graphs.
"This wallpaper is killing me. One of us has got to go." -- Oscar Wilde on his deathbed
7MW was all that was needed for reversing the frequency drop. The battery can output 129MW.
"This wallpaper is killing me. One of us has got to go." -- Oscar Wilde on his deathbed
Coal power shares a lot of strengths and weaknesses with nuclear. Nuclear power is "green" power. If batteries prove themselves as a means to address the weaknesses with coal power then they've proven themselves to address the weaknesses with nuclear.
It took me a while but I've come to realize that it's going to take more than some batteries to make wind and solar competitive. We just saw these batteries react well to an outage of a very large coal plant.
I can hear it now, what if we have another Fukushima disaster? Then we have the reserve batteries to keep the grid stable and keep the cooling pumps running at the nuclear power plant. Any arguments on things like the batteries not being big enough, too expensive, also subject to the flooding, or whatever, would also apply as if they were used to manage off shore windmills that just got taken out by a tsunami. The difference is that a nuclear power plant would be in a reinforced concrete dome while the windmills are out in the wind and waves. The nuclear power plant would likely be restored to operation in hours or days. The vast field of twisted up windmills would take much longer to repair.
Batteries work as backup for coal. We just saw it happen. That means it can backup nuclear. Batteries can backup anything. So then it comes down to things like CO2 output and costs. I've seen the numbers, they aren't hard to find. Nuclear is about the same price as hydro, cheaper than solar in any form, and cheaper than off shore wind. The only thing "green" that's cheaper than nuclear is onshore wind, and even that makes some assumptions on location. When it comes to CO2 output nuclear produce less CO2 per energy produced than solar, and on par with wind and hydro. These differences are small, I'll admit, but if the claim is that nuclear is not "green" then I've got sources that tell me otherwise.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
>but if the claim is that nuclear is not "green" then I've got sources that tell me otherwise.
are those the same sources that ignore the storage of wasted fuel for millenia ?
There is no radioactive waste that's a radioactive hazard for millennia. If you believe otherwise then please list the isotopes that pose this risk.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
No expert is even mildly surprised that technology worked as expected. Seriously, what is it with the demented stories?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Who is writing this stuff?
Clueless morons. I guess the author of this trash was one of those "stunned" by technology working as designed.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
"Orders of magnitude longer than any recorded civilization" is bad enough.
It was designed to deal with situations with downed lines / plants in South Australia, to keep the lights on there. It wasn't supposed to take over the work from standby plants halfway across the country. That it technically can should surprise nobody. But that's not what it was purchased to do.
Err no. From the onset it had 3 primary goals and even has a strategic reserve in it's capacity (30MWH of it's capacity to be precise) dedicated to frequency management. Heck it's first job was peaking a day before it was even put in service. The only thing that stunned people is just how quickly it responded. There's a good summary of what it was designed and purchased to do here: http://reneweconomy.com.au/wha...
As for your comment on powerlines, you misunderstand the original problem and the original tweet. South Australia didn't lose power because a major downed powerline. They lose power because the major downed powerline caused a sudden upset across the grid resulting in complete desynchronisation between major wind providers as well as interconnectors to Victoria. The power demand last year could have been met with the available supply even with the downed HV line to The battery simply isn't capable of keeping the lights on by itself nor was that the reason it was bought. It provides much needed stability on a grid that has rushed in full steam to adopt non-baseload power.
Demand and supply upsets are presented mostly via deviation from ideal frequency. When there is a slow increase in demand it can present loads on generators and overloads in this scenario is what causes those generators to trip on overload. The energy market can predict these loads quite adequately and the national regulator makes requests of the generators to intervene appropriately. The grid is stable because it can be predicted for small loads (people in large groups tend to do the same thing day after day), and for large loads the suppliers needed to be contacted (e.g. we needed to call the provider every time we wanted to start our 20MW compressor)
During a grid upset i.e. a major load suddenly starting or stopping without warning because something tripped, caught fire, etc, what you see is the generators with massive amounts of inertia taking their time to change. A large coal fired turbine could take several minutes to ramp up steam power to continue to spin at the same speed, likewise with ramping down. A small gas turbine can do it in a matter of several seconds. During these time there is a frequency fluctuation across the grid. If that is serious enough the grid could destabilise to the point where protection systems kick in and trip off the generators. This is needed because frequency response is generally much faster than power based responses for machinery protection.
We had a similar such event when our provider tripped an upstream substation and didn't send us an intertrip signal. Our pathetic little 40MW of generating power suddenly was left trying to power 2 suburbs, a refinery, and a busy international airport. There the turbines suddenly got really loud and tripped less than a second later on under-frequency. Had we had a reasonable size battery chances are we would have ridden through until the battery started failing and then tripped on overpower.
To get to the point: The Tesla battery will do a few things: 30% of it's capacity is dedicated to frequency management, likely control around 50Hz with a small deadband. The remaining 70% is on energy demand and lags much further behind (probably responding within seconds rather than milliseconds) and this is likely under the control of the national energy market as to when it comes in and doesn't.
Yes and no. The narratives are based on who bought something for what. In this case it was one state buying the battery to fix it's own grid stability issues, and inadvertently their system kicked in to protect the grid when a plant tripped on the far side of the next state over despite not actually being contracted to do so.
Whatâ(TM)s with all the Tesla hate?
Canâ(TM)t anybody just say good job and get on with it?
Fuck .... does everyone love coal plans that much? Or just random slashdot smart asses making comments that no one cares about just to prove they are smart asses?
Yeah, so I thought.
It is likely a linear power response to frequency with a small dead band.
I figure there has to be some sort of dead band, otherwise the other power sources on the grid wouldn't have an input to respond to, and the battery would be constantly active.
I find it interesting that you mention it's a linear response to frequency. That would make it proportional control only. Makes sense for a system that's designed only for rapid response. Let the battery correct large errors rapidly, and let the traditional power sources close the smaller errors (integral control).
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Certain radioactive elements (such as plutonium-239) will remain hazardous to humans and other creatures for hundreds of thousands of years. Other radionuclides remain hazardous for millions of years. Thus, these wastes must be shielded for centuries and isolated from the living environment for millennia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Primary source: http://www.nirs.org/radwaste/r...
Spent nuclear fuel commonly contains about 0.8% plutonium-239.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What the crap do you do with a 20 MW compressor??
Cool down air like a giant fridge so you can separate it into core components. Specifically we need the pure O2 and sell most of the rest. But frankly it's not that rare of a machine. Many petrochemical sites use 20+MW compressors.
The largest one I've seen is part of a polyester manufacturing process where a 30MW compressor, steam turbine, motor/generator, and energy recovery expander train (with a few gearboxes inbetween) will during the startup process go from nothing to drawing 30MW from the grid, to exporting 20MW back to the grid all within half an hour.
I remember during commissioning we got a nasty letter from the government after telling them we won't export during the test phase, unfortunately someone wired the power meter backwards (and operations and the electrical department didn't communicate very well) so 20MW actually was being exported to the grid. It wasn't until they increased the load on the compressor they noticed the number didn't move in the expected direction :-|
Tesla did good. Good good boy.
The article summary reads like spam. Spam bad. No clicky.
Pu239 is only 'waste' because of the lack of reprocessing.
Blocking reprocessing, then using Pu239 in the waste as an argument against nuclear power, is basically the "Erik and Lyle Menendez demand the court's mercy because they are orphans" argument.
I'm not arguing against nuclear power, I was just answering the question of what waste products are dangerous for thousands of years.
Actually, no, it wasnt engineered to back up a power plant in Victoria, it was engineered to back up power in South Australia.
And it was able to reliably transmit power all the way from Australia to Canada? That *is* amazing.
Clark Griswold strikes again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2I-_tIDV-4