Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Unveils New Large Powerpack Project For Grid Balancing In Europe (electrek.co)
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.
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.
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
If the grid did this well already, then Tesla's batteries wouldn't be having such a massive impact on the cost of balancing.
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.