Tesla Unveils New Large Powerpack Project For Grid Balancing In Europe (electrek.co)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tesla Unveils New Large Powerpack Project For Grid Balancing In Europe (electrek.co)

Posted by BeauHD on Tuesday May 15, 2018 @02:05PM from the teeter-totter dept.

Tesla has unveiled a new large Powerpack energy storage project to be used as a virtual power plant for grid balancing in Europe. It consists of 140 Powerpacks and several Tesla inverters for a total power output of 18.2 MW. Electrek reports: Tesla partnered with Restore, a demand response aggregator, to build the system and offer balancing services to European transmission system operators. Instead of using gas generators and steam turbines kicking to compensate for losses of power on the grid, Tesla's batteries are charged when there's excess power and then discharge when there's a need for more power.

Restore UK Vice President Louis Burford told The Energyst that they are bundling their assets like batteries as a "synthetic pool": "By creating synthetic pools or portfolios, you reduce the technical requirements on individual assets that otherwise would not be able to participate [in certain balancing services]. By doing so you create value where it does not ordinarily exist. That is only achievable through synthetic portfolios." For those interested, Tesla has released promo video on YouTube about the project.

99 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by darthsilun · 2018-05-15 14:27 · Score: 0

I'd couple them with some big batteries. Maybe Tesla's, or maybe someone else's. Tesla isn't the only battery maker. Then I could jump in instantly when the demand rises while my turbines spool up. And leave my turbines running after demand tapers off to recharge.
Why leave money on the table for someone else to grab with a battery only solution?
1. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by jroysdon · 2018-05-15 14:42 · Score: 2
  
  Sounds good in theory. Batteries aren't cheap, and these don't have huge capacity. The big deal is that they can instantly meet the drops or absorb the peaks. But guess what, they grid does this pretty good on its own already. All this does is reduce the need for idling "spinning reserve".
2. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by aaarrrgggh · 2018-05-15 14:55 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  A couple problems with that. The battery defeats the value of the gas turbine in providing "fast" response regulation up or down-- the turbine is no longer the go-to fast response source. Secondly, storage is generally most valuable close to demand, and not close to generation.
  Where batteries will help is plants that cannot be competitively spun up and down fast enough for grid "fast" response-- they can use the battery to achieve a better ramp rate. Unfortunately, prices need to drop nearly an order of magnitude for the value to stack there.
3. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by rtb61 · 2018-05-15 15:01 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The most logical solution is to fit out the existing power plant and interconnections. Solar panel every roof in the suburbs and double battery pack them and you are mostly done, by far the most competitive solution, especially financially speaking. This because the fit out can be financed in depth, for example some people who can afford it, can directly invest in it, by fitting out their own property to produce more electricity than they need, store the excess during the day and sell it at night. Others of course could lease to buy, still getting their electricity and selling the excess to help with the lease. The cheapest option, the home owner does nothing and simply allows it to be installed for a discount on their electrical price with an option to buy out the equipment in the future. For property investors, they can really effectively invest in their property by fitting it out, and selling electricity to their tenant at the market rate, whilst selling the excess back to the grid, a lot more people could become power plant operators.
  This only really works in some countries (AU and US lots and lots and lots of burbs) and for the EU only some cities, most are built up with close in rural, not much suburbia. So on the whole a larger installation makes sense but in the smaller cities with a higher proportion of suburbia, that distributed power generation and storage makes much more sense.
  Still the first company to jump and offer it, will win a decided lead in market share ie owning the solar system and batteries on other peoples properties and basically providing market access with collective bargaining. They can hit the market for a better price for their clients, a much better price and keep a percentage as ongoing sales, whilst of course generating much zero tax income. Zero tax because profits from sales of equipment would be covered by tax deduction by direct investment in equipment, poorer suburbs investment covering profits from middle class suburbs.
  The power companies will be slow threatens existing power plant investments. Manufacturers of course not so much, it really suits them, hell, even a corporation like Amazon could jump into distributed power generation and storage, using their global buying power to generate that investment opportunity. This is a real snooze and you lose investment, those who get in first, will basically lock up the markets (specific cities, the best ones) they gain a market share lead in.
  Coal is fucked.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
4. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-15 15:04 · Score: 0
  
  No - the batteries are alternatives for pumped hydro storage dams. A turbine is good for delivering instant power, or for when there is an excess of gas - to avoid flaring it.
5. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-15 15:31 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  The purpose of gas turbines is to create power. That's just not relevant. The purpose of the grid is to award certain companies with money for installing wind while getting politicians re-elected for greenwashing and destroying the nuclear infrastructure. Fortunately this gives Musk an opportunity to dig into your pockets, as destroying rotating mass and replacing it with wind destabilizes the grid.
  Yes, I know, wind has a lot of rotating mass, but it unfortunately serves to destabilize the grid, not stabilize it, as they generally use induction generators. So good for Tesla shareholders, and good for the greenwashing politicians, but sucks for the people who actually have to pay for electricity.
6. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Peter+P+Peters · 2018-05-15 15:45 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe Tesla's, or maybe someone else's. Tesla isn't the only battery maker
  True, but Tesla are the biggest, thus you would expect them to be able to supply more easily and more cheaply.
  
  Why leave money on the table for someone else to grab with a battery only solution?
  Also true, but Tesla is selling a complete end to end to solution of out box now. Any other option, while it may be better and cheaper, probably requires someone to design, build, test, project manage multiple suppliers etc which means risk and delays. A bird in the hand etc.
7. Re: If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-15 16:19 · Score: 0
  
  Dams. Thatâ(TM)s what they do - a kinetic energy battery. Europe is full of them. Electrical systems in continental Europe are already connected and synchronized.
8. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-15 16:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If the grid did this well already, then Tesla's batteries wouldn't be having such a massive impact on the cost of balancing.
9. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by BoRegardless · 2018-05-15 17:04 · Score: 0
  
  Data published in news articles within the last week or two indicated that Tesla's battery/inverter setups were very cost effective in saving large amounts of money in Australia recently.
  I can't speak from personal analysis of the savings quoted in the articles, but the numbers cited in the publicly released articles seemed to pass the smell test.
10. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by ravenshrike · 2018-05-15 17:32 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  In terms of responsiveness, coal and oil plants are like 7200 rpm 3Gbps SATA HDDs, Nuke plants are like 5400 rpm IDE HDDs in RAID 0. Gas plants are like SSDs. Batteries are like L3 cache. Solar and wind are network connections, the former giving a relatively fixed amount of data over the day which changes by the hour, and the latter shoving random amounts of data down the pipe.
11. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-15 18:01 · Score: 1
  
  "The company refers to its model as a ‘synthetic pool’. Burford said synthetic portfolios can unlock greater value from batteries by enabling other types of assets or load to deliver flexibility into fast response markets that they could not technically deliver by themselves."
  Yeah, they're a step ahead of you. That's what they're doing - having fast response from batteries
12. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by fatwilbur · 2018-05-15 18:54 · Score: 0
  
  As nice as that would be, you underestimate the amount of energy we use, especially for industrial uses. It would take almost 600 of these entire power plants to run my city FOR JUST AN HOUR in the summer or winter. The larger one in Australia would almost get us an entire minute of power.
  
  Cost and abundance are valid components of this equation for business and homes alike, and aren't going away. Coal, in providing a much larger and cheaper amount of power might not go anywhere soon. Some businesses rely on large amounts of steady power. I'd say if someone invents a way to reduce coal plant emissions to zero and recapture all the carbon, it may still dominate the market.
13. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-15 19:00 · Score: 0
  
  Nice idea - in theory.
  The problem is that the electrical network was built to be a distribution network of power being spread radially out in a top down fashion.
  The electricity network has not been designed to support many small producers at the tail ends of a feed. At best a house can contribute electricity to others in its local area (i.e. street) that are all fed from the same distribution transformer.
14. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by thegarbz · 2018-05-15 20:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Secondly, storage is generally most valuable close to demand, and not close to generation.
  That depends on the purpose of the storage. Storage designated for grid stability (e.g. batteries rapidly compensating a shift in frequency while peakers come online) is most valuable close to the generation. The lights stay on if the generators don't trip on load/frequency deviations.
  Storage for the purpose of dispensing energy continuously at regular intervals (e.g. batteries compensating for the peak demand after sunset) however is most valuable close to demand as there are less system losses.
15. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-15 20:20 · Score: 0
  
  >the latter shoving random amounts of data down
  actually, wind is a very predictable power source, geographically spreading them you can predict which ones will spin down because you know when the wind will 'stop blowing' and 'start' again. And because they are small enough in capacity, one breaking down doesn't have that much effect on the grid as a whole, in contrast to, say a nuclear power station.
16. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-15 20:23 · Score: 0
  
  The problem for nuclear is that it has long lead times before profit, and reducing cost for wind pushes that back, so in a free market few wish to invest in it. In the UK there are no longer subsidies for wind, but an assured price for output was required to get a nuclear plant built at all (i.e. a subsidy). A subsidy is not necessarily a bad thing, as it helps keep some lights on, should renewables be down, but I'd characterise it as government support, not hindrance
17. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-15 20:26 · Score: 1
  
  The first thing to do is insulate houses,
18. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Barsteward · 2018-05-15 20:29 · Score: 1
  
  Have a look at micro-grids, you might find that interesting in hooking up local solar/wind into a microgrid
  
  --
  "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
19. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-15 20:32 · Score: 0
  
  Remove emissions cheaply is the requirement. Already the marginal cost of wind is getting close (this neglects the economic cost of intermittency, but whether that means coal remains depends on contract structures). Current CC requires up to 30% of power to run, so would make coal much less competitive
20. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Stephan+Schulz · 2018-05-15 21:25 · Score: 1
  
  The purpose of the grid is to award certain companies with money for installing wind [...]
  No, the purpose of the grid is to even out supply and demand over a larger area, which means that changes are relatively slower and less extreme (see the "law of big numbers") and can be handled much easier and with a wider variety of gear. Without a large-scale grid (or a big pack of batteries), you need to produce exactly the power consumed, which in practice means you have to use a power plant that can gear up and down quickly (no cheap coal here) and still overproduce for a reserve - and then most of the time dump that reserve somehow via cooling. Indeed, some power-plants (e.g. nuclear) have basically no short-time control - adjusting their power output takes from hours to days (and is very cost-ineffective). Nuclear depends on the grid catching short-term fluctuations in demand. Wind and solar, of course, create fluctuations on the supply side, so they also depend on the grid.
  
  --
  Stephan
21. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-15 22:08 · Score: 0
  
  I am sorry. I need a car analogy.
22. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-15 22:40 · Score: 1
  
  Nuclear reactors have really slow startup and shutdown times if they want to operate economically.
  You can shut them down in about a week if there's a business case for doing so, and in doing so you'll waste fuel and labour. You can shut them down in hours if there's an emergency, but that's a destructive and wasteful process that will leave you shut down for months while you reset everything. If you want to run them at anything even approaching economically competetive, you schedule the startups and shutdowns about a year in advance.
  In this data transfer analogy, a fission reactor is a belligerent tortoise-riding courier who will turn up when he turns up, and won't take no for an answer in entering his data into your systems.
23. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by drinkypoo · 2018-05-15 23:21 · Score: 1
  
  The lights stay on if the generators don't trip on load/frequency deviations.
  Storage for the purpose of dispensing energy continuously at regular intervals (e.g. batteries compensating for the peak demand after sunset) however is most valuable close to demand as there are less system losses.
  Wouldn't it still make more sense to locate the storage near the point of demand? Providing it there still keeps the load off of the system that would otherwise cause the generators to disconnect.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
24. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-15 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  The value question is the hardest one to talk about in general terms. That is because not all battery use cases will be the same. For now, most are for fast response for frequency stabilization and then some momentary voltage support (ancillary services). The use case of storage for wind intermittence offset is a very different one.
  In any of those cases, the 'cost' and 'value' of the battery depend on the amount it will be used. If you install a battery an rarely use it, it become relatively expensive per kwh. If you use it a lot, then its value increases and cost per kwh decreases. Under certain conditions, ancillary That is why no two cases are easily compared on a cost/value basis.
  As far as Tesla's 'distributed' control of batteries. Well that's nothing new in principal. The grid operators already have distributed control of ancillary and generation assets. Treating all batteries as one asset is only needed because any single battery on its own is too small to bother with for a grid operator.
25. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-16 00:02 · Score: 1
  
  A couple problems with that. The battery defeats the value of the gas turbine in providing "fast" response regulation up or down-- the turbine is no longer the go-to fast response source. Secondly, storage is generally most valuable close to demand, and not close to generation.
  Where batteries will help is plants that cannot be competitively spun up and down fast enough for grid "fast" response-- they can use the battery to achieve a better ramp rate. Unfortunately, prices need to drop nearly an order of magnitude for the value to stack there.
  There certainly is interest in batteries by utilities and grid operators because of fast response characteristics. But lets not forget that we can operate large grid very reliably without them. The places they are needed aren't that widespread for most well established grids. There is however increasing stresses on grids as intermittent renewables are added. The systemic costs of adding them past a certain point may include expensive battery storage but more importantly transmission infrastructure changes.
26. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-16 00:15 · Score: 1
  
  If the grid did this well already, then Tesla's batteries wouldn't be having such a massive impact on the cost of balancing.
  They only have a 'massive impact' for short durations in very specific situations. South Australia case is unique and you'd have a hard time finding many similar ones in Europe.
27. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by aaarrrgggh · 2018-05-16 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  There are other variables— primarily in transmission lines, that constrain optimal placement. The only time they are really valuable at the source is with wind, and that is actually the transmission coupling point. Upstream, you hope the number of turbines provides limited smoothing.
28. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-16 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  Its true that nuclear reactors have slow start up and ramping times. But most people don't realize that large generators like nuclear and coal plants provide very short duration frequency and voltage support. They don't need to ramp way up and down, they are large and only need to slightly adjust their output. A nuclear plant is many thousands of Powerwall batteries. Only a 0.01 percent shift in output has a big impact compared to a battery. Nuclear (and coal) plants have voltage regulators that are constantly adjusting their output in both frequency and VARs, including absorbing VARs.
29. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-16 00:40 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Storage designated for grid stability (e.g. batteries rapidly compensating a shift in frequency while peakers come online) is most valuable close to the generation.
  
  Not true. Storage for grid stability is most valuable in the portion of the grid that is susceptible to instability. South Australia is a great example. They have instability due to the great distance of much of the generation supply over a inadequate transmission infrastructure.
30. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-16 00:51 · Score: 0
  
  Sentence repair, mid paragraph 2;
  Under certain conditions, ancillary services can be very valuable for short period of time."
31. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Barsteward · 2018-05-16 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  look it up then you'll find out what it is and how it works, it'll cure your ignorance.
  
  --
  "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
32. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-16 01:44 · Score: 0
  
  The pricing comparison in some areas is between the battery solution and a pumped storage facility. If such opportunities of utilizing gravity are not there, the battery, or some kind of huge super-capacitor based system might be economical in a smaller scale, like on an island which already generates its power on wave and wind energy. This particular Tesla facility can power a large computer center for an hour or two, for example.
33. Re: If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-16 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  You would do that except you woukd have no way to claim you had no load balance available in order to push up prices for the other plant ypu own. Operators game the system, Tesla are screwing with them.
34. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-16 02:32 · Score: 0
  
  Nuclear is used for baseload generation and cannot generally respond at all -- too slow.
35. Re: If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-16 02:38 · Score: 0
  
  The 20th century is over. While the engineers agrees with your add-on, the politicians view stability as the next election.
36. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by dj245 · 2018-05-16 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  The most logical solution is to fit out the existing power plant and interconnections. Solar panel every roof in the suburbs and double battery pack them and you are mostly done, by far the most competitive solution, especially financially speaking. This because the fit out can be financed in depth, for example some people who can afford it, can directly invest in it, by fitting out their own property to produce more electricity than they need, store the excess during the day and sell it at night. Others of course could lease to buy, still getting their electricity and selling the excess to help with the lease. The cheapest option, the home owner does nothing and simply allows it to be installed for a discount on their electrical price with an option to buy out the equipment in the future. For property investors, they can really effectively invest in their property by fitting it out, and selling electricity to their tenant at the market rate, whilst selling the excess back to the grid, a lot more people could become power plant operators.
  This only really works in some countries (AU and US lots and lots and lots of burbs) and for the EU only some cities, most are built up with close in rural, not much suburbia. So on the whole a larger installation makes sense but in the smaller cities with a higher proportion of suburbia, that distributed power generation and storage makes much more sense.
  Still the first company to jump and offer it, will win a decided lead in market share ie owning the solar system and batteries on other peoples properties and basically providing market access with collective bargaining. They can hit the market for a better price for their clients, a much better price and keep a percentage as ongoing sales, whilst of course generating much zero tax income. Zero tax because profits from sales of equipment would be covered by tax deduction by direct investment in equipment, poorer suburbs investment covering profits from middle class suburbs.
  The power companies will be slow threatens existing power plant investments. Manufacturers of course not so much, it really suits them, hell, even a corporation like Amazon could jump into distributed power generation and storage, using their global buying power to generate that investment opportunity. This is a real snooze and you lose investment, those who get in first, will basically lock up the markets (specific cities, the best ones) they gain a market share lead in.
  Coal is fucked.
  It baffles me that people still think distributed generation is a good idea. Putting up solar panels on individual residential properties, with a grid-tie inverter at each one, in a city, is expensive and inefficient. It simply can not compare to building a large array on flat land in a rural area and minimizing the ancillary equipment by optimizing the number of inverters and busbars.
  
  --
  Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
37. Re: If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-16 03:11 · Score: 0
  
  I'll tell you what you won't find on Wikipedia or anywhere else....
  A single case where a microgrid has solved the problems these batteries are intended for.
38. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by thegarbz · 2018-05-16 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  No. The same impacts that cause system losses in grids also cause time delays and affect transients that occur on the grid. For providing energy supply, low loss is king. For stability ... errr stability.... is king.
39. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by thegarbz · 2018-05-16 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  Storage for grid stability is most valuable in the portion of the grid that is susceptible to instability.
  Like the generators? I mean it's not like my toaster cares if the freqency isn't right.
  
  They have instability due to the great distance of much of the generation supply over a inadequate transmission infrastructure.
  The goal is keeping the lights on so to do that you stabilise the source of generation. The closer you locate batteries to the generating equipment the more likely it is to ride through a grid upset, the more stable the grid during a major disconnection event (both remote protecting the local generator and local reducing the effects of disconnecting the local generator on the rest of the grid). There's a reason the Hornsdale Power Reserve is located at the Hornsdale Wind Farm and not in Oodnadatta.
40. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-16 03:37 · Score: 0
  
  "Where batteries will help is plants that cannot be competitively spun up and down fast enough for grid "fast" response-- they can use the battery to achieve a better ramp rate. Unfortunately, prices need to drop nearly an order of magnitude for the value to stack there."
  I'm not so sure about that. Currently in the US, regulations aren't set up for batteries to be able to earn revenue for all of the services they are able to provide (aka energy storage revenue stacking). FERC recently issued order 841 in order to address that.
  I wouldn't be surprise if once the regulations catch up to the technology (during which time battery prices will keep coming down), batteries are able to out-compete other sources. Already in Arizona a solar+storage offer won an RFP, coming in at only $0.045/kWh.
41. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by b0bby · 2018-05-16 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, it seems to me (based on talking to friends in the industry) that the make or break financially comes down to how cheaply you can mount the panels. It's way easier to mount a bunch of panels in a field on the outskirts than on a bunch of different shaped roofs.
42. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-16 05:17 · Score: 0
  
  Storage for grid stability is most valuable in the portion of the grid that is susceptible to instability.
  Like the generators? I mean it's not like my toaster cares if the freqency isn't right.
  
  They have instability due to the great distance of much of the generation supply over a inadequate transmission infrastructure.
  The goal is keeping the lights on so to do that you stabilise the source of generation. The closer you locate batteries to the generating equipment the more likely it is to ride through a grid upset, the more stable the grid during a major disconnection event (both remote protecting the local generator and local reducing the effects of disconnecting the local generator on the rest of the grid). There's a reason the Hornsdale Power Reserve is located at the Hornsdale Wind Farm and not in Oodnadatta.
  Its not an instability of a given generator. The wind farm itself does not become unstable, it might not even be operating. It is the instability of the frequency and/or voltage in a section of the grid that matters. The reason the Hornsdale Power Reserve is located near the Wind Farm is that it is convenient location, accessible to transmission lines in the region of instability. There are other places in that region that would have served just as well.
  There is a reason the power reserve was not located near the sources at the other end of the transmission lines that wheel most power into that region, and that is because they would not help any from that location.
43. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by gman003 · 2018-05-16 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Modded -1: Not a car analogy
44. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-16 05:30 · Score: 0
  
  It baffles me that people still think distributed generation is a good idea. Putting up solar panels on individual residential properties, with a grid-tie inverter at each one, in a city, is expensive and inefficient. It simply can not compare to building a large array on flat land in a rural area and minimizing the ancillary equipment by optimizing the number of inverters and busbars.
  It is interesting that Utility scale solar farms cost about half as much as residential, yet we want to push the residential end. I'm more for the getting the most bang for our buck, particularly when it comes to incentives. I've got no problem with people wanting to put panels on their homes, and no problem with some tax break, but forcing full retail feed in guarantees just pushes prices for everyone skews the market in favor of the more expensive approach. Forced feed in should be at grid market prices, then we'll get more utility scale solar and more solar generation overall for our money (I'm speaking US situation here, btw)
  Some people just seem to like the idea of doing things that cause power companies to struggle, no matter what the overall impact is.
45. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by aaarrrgggh · 2018-05-16 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  At the load, a battery can serve as an internal cost offset, or an external cost offset-- providing a backup power function may have a "value" comparable to the cost of the unit and capacity is not required for rate arbitrage. Or, the internal offset in rate arbitrage might be more compelling. Or... the power quality opportunities could dominate. External offsets are revenue opportunities, which may or may not be part of the math.
  At the source, the only "internal" benefits would be in meeting whatever contracted requirements you have to the grid operator. Transmission would generally work the same way, although preventing an overload might also be an incentive.
46. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by aaarrrgggh · 2018-05-16 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the FERC changes will eventually make a market for just batteries; my point you referenced was that the batteries as part of a system can help a slow (say steam) turbine deliver the required ramp rate (up and down) that would otherwise require a gas turbine or gas recips.
47. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by newslash.formatblows · 2018-05-16 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  I think saying this isn't important b/c the grid already balances "on its own" is kind of like saying Y2K preparations were a waste of money because nothing really happened. There's a lot of capital and effort that goes into keeping the grid balanced. It's not some kind of Weeble that will take care of itself if we just ignore it.
48. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by apoc.famine · 2018-05-16 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Sure. But that's if you only compare direct energy generation prices, and ignore everything else.
  Would it be cheaper per watt if my parent's little town made a field of solar panels than them putting them on their house? Absolutely. Will there be revenue sharing with my parents if the town does that once the panels are paid off? Not likely. Maybe taxes will stay flat for a few years. And that's if you can get half the town to vote for the project, and willing to let it be town owned and run rather than privatized.
  Since that's not going to happen, my parents bought solar panels for the house. Granted it's only 9 months of extrapolation right now, but it looks like their ROI is going to be 5-7 years in the NE US. After that it's a profit maker for them.
  Why wouldn't they make that investment? It gives them a bit of independence from the grid and will make them money in a relatively short period of time. They can get neither of those benefits by the local town building a large array. Which it wasn't going to do anyway.
  
  --
  Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
49. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Dragonslicer · 2018-05-16 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  The lights stay on if the generators don't trip on load/frequency deviations. Storage for the purpose of dispensing energy continuously at regular intervals (e.g. batteries compensating for the peak demand after sunset) however is most valuable close to demand as there are less system losses.
  Wouldn't it still make more sense to locate the storage near the point of demand? Providing it there still keeps the load off of the system that would otherwise cause the generators to disconnect.
  In theory, sure, but also keep in mind that you would then have to deal with maintenance at hundreds or thousands of local sites instead of a single large power plant.
50. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by thegarbz · 2018-05-16 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  Its not an instability of a given generator.
  I didn't say it was. We're talking about the grid here. We're talking about the same thing here.
51. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Bryansix · 2018-05-16 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Nevah been done befoh. http://www.powermag.com/two-sc...
52. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-16 08:33 · Score: 0
  
  Its not an instability of a given generator.
  I didn't say it was. We're talking about the grid here. We're talking about the same thing here.
  Which is why they don't need to be right next to a generator. Now, in the sense that they typically connect at a similar hierarchical point in the grid , they would occupy a similar place on the grid as generators, so if that is what you meant then OK. But no reason to by physically near a generator. Often they will be just because availability of real estate near the right type of switchyard.
53. Re:If I owned Nat Gas Turbines.... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-16 20:13 · Score: 0
  
  The best location of batteries is determined more by regulatory and network issues than engineering.
  In the UK, batteries are best located behind the meter with industrial demand because by using the batteries and avoiding import at peak times the industrial energy user can save a lot of money on peak charges.
  Where batteries are installed as stand-alone assets it is generally on the MV network (11-33kV) which is effectively close to demand. This is the best solution just because a connection at this voltage is cheaper and the capacities being installed are 10MW so there is no need for an HV (275kV-400kV) connection like a power plant.
  Frequency is more or less system wide so the battery makes no difference from a frequency regulation perspective. Reactive compensation (e.g. STATCOM or SVC) is generally more effective for voltage regulation than active power regulation. This is quantified in the X/R ratio of the network.
Wow gouging on electricity by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-15 14:30 · Score: 0

Just like Enron.
1. Re: Wow gouging on electricity by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-15 14:37 · Score: 0
  
  Derp
Real goal of Tesla? by icejai · 2018-05-15 15:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

I have a hunch this is Tesla's true end game. I don't think Musk honestly believes he'll reach $650B market cap in 10 years by selling cars. I think he believes he'll reach $650B market cap by selling these. By turning his gigafactory into a "product" that can be mass-produced, he'll be able to scale up and deploy at a rate and cost that nobody else can match.
Leaving the gigafactory off as collateral in Tesla's last bond issue is pretty interesting as well.
Maybe making electric cars, and giving away patents, was the excuse he created in order to justify the creation of the gigafactory in the first place? It's like giving away lanterns to sell kerosene.
If this is the case, Tesla intends to be this century's Standard Oil -- a company that makes stored energy more accessible.
Hey may never have intended automobile production to be profitable. Maybe he just wants the world to demand his batteries.
1. Re:Real goal of Tesla? by haruchai · 2018-05-15 15:37 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  "I have a hunch this is Tesla's true end game"
  Tesla CTO JB Straubel in 2014 - "“We are an energy innovation company as much as a car company.....“Tesla wasn’t founded to make cars. We have enough cars. We have *too many* cars. Tesla was founded to change the game in energy.....I really love batteries, I might love batteries more than cars"
  https://electrek.co/2014/05/24...
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
2. Re:Real goal of Tesla? by Peter+P+Peters · 2018-05-15 15:51 · Score: 2
  
  I have a hunch this is Tesla's true end game. I don't think Musk honestly believes he'll reach $650B market cap in 10 years by selling cars. I think he believes he'll reach $650B market cap by selling these.
  One rule I live by is that smart people have thought of what you have thought of plus some. And since Elon Musk is clearly a smart guy, I would guess cars only form a small part of the strategy.
3. Re:Real goal of Tesla? by thegarbz · 2018-05-15 20:06 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I can't find the quote anymore but back in the 00s in Tesla's early life I remember a quite from Musk saying the ultimate goal of Telsa was to be driven out of business by major car manufacturer's extensive line of electric cars. Musk got into this game to change the world run by stubborn dirty companies, and he's on the way to doing just that.
4. Re:Real goal of Tesla? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-15 21:31 · Score: 0
  
  End game is still power technology needed in Mars and the funds getting there. Nothings else. There are lots of things between the Now and the Mars, and Tesla's ambitions fit right in there.
5. Re:Real goal of Tesla? by yaznaz · 2018-05-16 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Tesla does not have any technological advantage in this field. Unlike a car battery, grid storage does not need to be compact or lightweight. Traditional companies such as Siemens have considerable breadth of expertise with large scale implementations that only show up in industry publications: https://www.energystoragenetwo...
6. Re:Real goal of Tesla? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-16 03:27 · Score: 0
  
  If this is the case, Tesla intends to be this century's Standard Oil -- a company that makes stored energy more accessible..
  Except that Standard Oil used every dirty trick in the book to eliminate competition, and even invented a few of their own. So far, Tesla does not seem to be doing this. Even Steve Jobs, at the end of his life, ramped up the lawsuits to supress competition, and did everything he could to eliminate it, other than competing on progress. This isn't a criticism of your post, but I thought it was worth pointing out the differences.
Or not. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-15 15:37 · Score: 0

Sometimes the INTJ is just mad.
18MW does not exactly sound very large... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-15 17:20 · Score: 0

...given that e.g. Germany's peak load is about 70-75GW these days. Not even sure you can do much frequency control and the like with 18MW.
1. Re:18MW does not exactly sound very large... by lorinc · 2018-05-15 20:55 · Score: 1
  
  Peak load in Europe is over 500GW, so yeah, 18MW do not sound exactly game changing...
  https://docstore.entsoe.eu/Doc...
  
  --
  Video of some good progressive thrash music
2. Re:18MW does not exactly sound very large... by 91degrees · 2018-05-16 00:06 · Score: 1
  
  The article isn't clear about what the plan is. If this is a single component and the idea is to use dozens of hundreds of them as a power station, I can see how it's useful. Otherwise, it seems substantially less powerful than the existing installed plant mentioned in the article.
3. Re:18MW does not exactly sound very large... by jbengt · 2018-05-16 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  18 MW is the capacity of the emergency generators being installed at O'Hare airport. And they have enough diesel on site to power them for at least 48 hours (I doubt the batteries would last that long.), and can get more diesel delivered if needed.
  18 MW is large compared to the needs of a lot of buildings, but not much on the scale of a grid.
Re:Fail at one thing. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-15 18:50 · Score: 0

Claim to be something else.. BRILLIANT!
I doubt this will happen by Zorpheus · 2018-05-15 20:00 · Score: 1

The European grid companies have no reason to give this out of hands. They can buy their batteries and inverters elsewhere.
And grid storage is discussed since before the start of mass funding of renewable energy about 20 years ago. It wasn't worthwhile yet to build plants just for that, neither hydro (which was cheaper in the past at least) nor batteries. If Tesla found a way to make it work they will probably happily implement it themselves.
1. Re:I doubt this will happen by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-15 23:48 · Score: 0
  
  yes, Alfen is already doing it: https://alfen.com/en
  and Eurobat is pushing it: https://eurobat.org/sites/default/files/eurobat_batteryenergystorage_web_0.pdf
  And probably others as well
2. Re:I doubt this will happen by aaarrrgggh · 2018-05-16 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  Tesla’s advantage is they mass produce the batteries as well as the power electronics. That is also potentially a disadvantage, as chemistry-agnostic integrators can potentially select one chemistry for fast-response and another for bulk capacity to reduce costs.
  Tesla seems to have the biggest installations and the largest industrial footprint though.
3. Re:I doubt this will happen by Zorpheus · 2018-05-16 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  Really? I read about lithium producers saying that Tesla is not the biggest consumer in the market, they just bark the loudest
4. Re:I doubt this will happen by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-16 01:40 · Score: 0
  
  The European grid companies have no reason to give this out of hands. They can buy their batteries and inverters elsewhere.
  And grid storage is discussed since before the start of mass funding of renewable energy about 20 years ago. It wasn't worthwhile yet to build plants just for that, neither hydro (which was cheaper in the past at least) nor batteries. If Tesla found a way to make it work they will probably happily implement it themselves.
  Telsa doesn't generally sell to grid companies. They sell to governments, where politicians can get publicity for just saying 'Tesla'.
5. Re: I doubt this will happen by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-16 01:58 · Score: 0
  
  Tesla isn't even a pimple on the arse of power electronics manufacturers such as GE, ABB, Siemens, Emerson... Etc etc.
data metaphore... by DrYak · 2018-05-15 20:12 · Score: 1

Solar and wind are network connections, the former giving a relatively fixed amount of data over the day which changes by the hour, and the latter shoving random amounts of data down the pipe.
So shared connection over TV-cable network vs. 3G connection in an area with bad coverage, resp. ?

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Tesls, go sell the powerpacks to China & India by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-15 21:00 · Score: 0

Both India and China are large countries, with huge populations
Both countries need the Tesla Powerpacks to hook up to their national power grid to act as a buffer
Both countries got money
So, Tesla, what are you waiting for?
Go sell the powerpacks to India and China and earn some moolah for the U. S. of A.
That's not a grid balancer. by LordHighExecutioner · 2018-05-15 21:32 · Score: 1

This is a grid balancer.(it works better if said with Paul Hogan's accent).
This dam plant by itself is about 1TW, and there are many plants like this scattered around Europe since many years. They work by pumping water upside when there is too much electricity production, and reversing the cycle when needed. Elon Musk has nothing to teach here.
1. Re:That's not a grid balancer. by LordHighExecutioner · 2018-05-15 21:41 · Score: 1
  
  It is of course 1GW, not 1TW...sorry for the typo
2. Re:That's not a grid balancer. by Monoman · 2018-05-15 22:17 · Score: 1
  
  Basically, yes they seem the same. How do these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... compare to Tesla's solution in regards to efficiency, response time, environmental impact, etc?
  
  --
  Keep the Classic Slashdot.
3. Re:That's not a grid balancer. by drinkypoo · 2018-05-15 23:27 · Score: 2
  
  Elon Musk has nothing to teach here.
  A battery responds faster (sub-second response times), takes up less space, and potentially has less environmental impact depending on electrolyte chemistry. Sounds like you could learn something.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
4. Re:That's not a grid balancer. by jabuzz · 2018-05-16 00:54 · Score: 2
  
  Not sure how big a battery with a 1728MW power output and a capacity of 9.1GWh (33 TJ) is, but I suspect at least as large as Dinorwig is. The environmental impact of which is basically limited to arctic char going extinct in the feed lake. Though that might well be in part due to the fact they where mostly moved to other suitable lakes before it when live.
  However Dinorwig takes 16 seconds to go from nothing to full power and that requires the turbines are being spun in air prior to opening the valves. Otherwise it takes in the order of 90s to get to full power. I would expect a battery to be sub one second.
  Though a quick Wikipedia check shows that China alone has 6.6GW of pumped storage under construction. In Europe Ukraine is building 2.2GW of pumped storage.
  Batteries have a place for short term grid stability or places where pumped storage is not viable. However for Europe and North America at least pumped storage is probably more viable for grid stability at the ~1minute plus range than a battery pack.
5. Re:That's not a grid balancer. by dj245 · 2018-05-16 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  There is little or no reason to have sub-second response time on a grid. Maintaining exactly 60hz is not necessary, current grids do "well enough", and anyone with a use case for exactly 60hz power (I can't think of any) already has their own equipment to make that happen.
  
  I suspect that the main reason why some people are drooling over this is because it allows high-frequency trading on the energy market. The profit potential is very good, at the expense of all of the ratepayers, for something that isn't necessary.
  
  --
  Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Re:Tesls, go sell the powerpacks to China & In by mrwireless · 2018-05-15 21:44 · Score: 2

They just announced they are building a Giga-factory in China that will produce both batteries and cars: https://electrek.co/2018/05/14...
Re:Tesls, go sell the powerpacks to China & In by GuB-42 · 2018-05-15 22:32 · Score: 1

India and China have more than enough ability to make their own powerpacks for much less than Tesla is going to sell them. Most batteries are produced in China and they have no intention to stop here. Which means that even with the gigafactory, China is still expected to be the biggest battery producer.
The only way Tesla is going to sell stuff to the Chinese is if they do their manufacturing in China, and forget about their trade secrets too.
Re:Tesls, go sell the powerpacks to China & In by drinkypoo · 2018-05-15 23:25 · Score: 1

India and China have more than enough ability to make their own powerpacks for much less than Tesla is going to sell them. Most batteries are produced in China
Most everything is produced in China... but in partnership with the foreign companies that designed it. The world's biggest battery factory, however, is still the one owned by Tesla, and they also have the most battery production capacity in the world overall (though both these things may be changing shortly — but Tesla is also building a factory there, see sibling comment.)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Tesls, go sell the powerpacks to China & In by drinkypoo · 2018-05-15 23:34 · Score: 1

hmm, botched my supporting link.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
synthetic liquid credit default swaps by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-15 23:53 · Score: 1

"By creating synthetic pools or portfolios, you reduce the technical requirements on individual assets ...."
Sounds good
synthetic liquid credit default swaps
what could go wrong
Old hat by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-15 23:59 · Score: 1

I'm still puzzled about the hype here. This is nothing new, compare for example: https://www.younicos.com/case-studies/schwerin/
1. Re:Old hat by aaarrrgggh · 2018-05-16 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  Grid connected batteries have been around for a long time, but the current systems are more appropriate for addressing the “duck curve” caused by large solar contributions to the grid. It also can localize the solution to that problem and eliminate it as a grid issue.
  The grid’s big hope at this point is in EVs.
Yes Tesla is not strictly a car company by sjbe · 2018-05-16 01:05 · Score: 1

I have a hunch this is Tesla's true end game. I don't think Musk honestly believes he'll reach $650B market cap in 10 years by selling cars. I think he believes he'll reach $650B market cap by selling these. By turning his gigafactory into a "product" that can be mass-produced, he'll be able to scale up and deploy at a rate and cost that nobody else can match
It should be more than a hunch. Tesla is really a battery/power company and should be regarded as such. Yes they are trying to sell cars because they need to develop the market for their real products. Same thing with their roof and battery pack products. They have the unenviable task of trying to both build a market and build a company. I think their purchase of SolarCity is more than a financing play. I think it really speaks to their real goals which are more about electric power technology rather than any specific product.
In a sense it is like several other companies in that their core business isn't what you probably know them best for. Honda is really an engine company but they make products like cars and lawn equipment to sell their engines. Apple is really a software company but they make cool hardware to sell their software. Anheuser-Busch is (well, was) really an entertainment company (they own amusement parks) which uses alcohol as a key product to provide that entertainment.

Leaving the gigafactory off as collateral in Tesla's last bond issue is pretty interesting as well.
Bear in mind the gigafactory is a partnership with Panasonic and Panasonic is the one doing much of the heavy lifting there since they are the largest battery maker in the world. Tesla probably couldn't use it as collateral because they don't own it (Panasonic financed the majority of it) and Panasonic probably wouldn't agree to allow it to be used in such a fashion.
1. Re:Yes Tesla is not strictly a car company by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-16 02:03 · Score: 0
  
  Tesla is really a battery/power company and should be regarded as such.
  
  my condolences to your poor brain, incapable of complex thought. too bad for you.
Re:Tesls, go sell the powerpacks to China & In by apoc.famine · 2018-05-16 06:39 · Score: 1

India and China have more than enough ability to make their own powerpacks for much less than Tesla is going to sell them.
And it's generally assumed that Tesla makes their own powerpacks for less than they sell them for too. The difference between the two values is what we call profit. Perhaps you meant

India and China have more than enough ability to make their own powerpacks for much less than Tesla makes them for.

--
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor