Slashdot Mirror
Giant Tesla Battery Project Now Proposed For Silicon Valley (digitaltrends.com)
Digital Trends reports:
Tesla's largest-ever Powerpack installation may be coming to Northern California. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) applied to the California Public Utilities Commission for approval for a utility-owned 182.5 MW energy storage farm using Tesla Powerpacks at the company's energy storage site in Moss Landing... The Tesla project, however, would have an expansion capacity of 1.1 GW. The storage projects' purpose is to help keep electrical power levels even for PG&E customers. The storage facilities would feed power to the grid when consumption exceeds normal levels and during blackouts or other service interruptions.
Tesla's giant battery in Australia has already reduced grid service costs by 90%.
And speaking of power sources, long-time Slasdot reader judgecorp writes: A disused Stanley Black & Decker factory in New Britain, Hartford County.CT, will get a 20MW micro-grid powered by fuel cells, according to the first phase of a plan unveiled by the State Governor. It's a big deal because it will be the largest indoor micro-grid in the world, and will help provide a reliable power source for a data center in the old factory. Along with the other phases of the project, Governor Dannel Malloy hopes the deal will provide 3,000 jobs and lots of tax revenue.
Tesla's giant battery in Australia has already reduced grid service costs by 90%.
And speaking of power sources, long-time Slasdot reader judgecorp writes: A disused Stanley Black & Decker factory in New Britain, Hartford County.CT, will get a 20MW micro-grid powered by fuel cells, according to the first phase of a plan unveiled by the State Governor. It's a big deal because it will be the largest indoor micro-grid in the world, and will help provide a reliable power source for a data center in the old factory. Along with the other phases of the project, Governor Dannel Malloy hopes the deal will provide 3,000 jobs and lots of tax revenue.
Everything looks like a nail.
Tesla batteries are getting tired and suggested for places with 0 need these days
There's nothing in the article that mentions Tesla. From what I'm seeing, they're (Stanley) not using any Tesla tech.
I'm confused, are these the Panasonic batteries Tesla uses, or are these produced by and is the IP owned by, Tesla? I'm trying to figure out which company owns what...
Your ad here. Ask me how!
The SECOND article about the fuel cells for Stanley Black and Decker has NOTHING to do with Tesla. It's uses fuel cells and NO Tesla tech.
Silicon Valley is a narrow stretch of the Santa Clara Valley, from Palo Alto to San Jose, where semiconductor companies were located during the 1980s. Moss Landing is a coastal area in Monterey County, which isn't even in the SF Bay Area.
One would have expected "news for nerds" to know the difference between effect and energy, between W (Watt) and Wh (Watt-hour), and editors with enough knowledge to correct obviously faulty submissions.
Editors, you don't earn your paycheck.
The Slashdot summary did not in any way suggest that Tesla was involved.
Seriously?
There's the headline with 'Tesla' featured predominately with two articles about Tesla installations and you're saying that the summary did not in any way suggest that Tesla was involved in the third one?
Seriously?!
When it comes to energy storage the usual number to quote is how much energy it stores. The rate you can drain energy from it, while not irrelevant, doesn't tell you much because it provides no idea of how long it can provide that power for: a few seconds to cope with surges, an hour or two while they start up a power station or 12+ hours to smooth out e.g. solar power.
Since the article appears to confuse MW with MWh at one point I suspect that this is yet another example of journalists not understanding the difference between power and energy.
Moss Landing is on the coast, between Monterey and Santa Cruz. It is not silicon valley.
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
I believe that Elon is actually dying. He's looking for businesses that make money for him. There are bad news for him.
You mandate renewables like solar and wind that have well known problems such as outages that happen whenever it gets cloudy or the wind has a lull. In solars case it also doesn't work at night, which is when most people will be plugging in the electric cars they were forced to buy.
So now the grid needs a giant set of batteries to cover the problems of the ill considered generating technology. Then with a straight face you have reporters that can't tell the difference between power and energy talk about how much of the costs that shouldn't have been there in the first place, the new project saves and what a wonder it is for grid stabilization when reliable power generation would have made the added stabilization unneeded in the first place.
Effing Brilliant.
Does anyone know if Tesla solar panels, Tesla batteries, or the micro-grid of fuel cells would withstand an EMP?
indecision and worthwhile. So I Whether you dFUCKING USELESS If I remain and the striking Exactly what you've I thought it was my and I probably overly morbid and are incompatible expulsion of IPF NIGGER ASSOCIATION I ever did. It can no longer be all along. *BSD around return it you need to succeed and building is our chances with the number simple solution baby...don't fear worse and worse. As volume of NetBSD *BSD but FreeBSD AMERICA) is the leaving core. I only way to go: Fortunately, Linux = 36400 FreeBSD we need to address continues in a rival distribution, to have to decide
The Australia battery plant does not reduce grid costs 90%. It reduces the cost of frequency correction, which is a tiny percentage of the total grid cost. We should also be aware that this is only a power storage system, it does not produce any electricity on its own. The point here is that if there is an excess of solar, wind, hydroelectric, or fossil-fuel generated power at one point, this can be stored and released at another point in time. This release happens almost instantly, where with a more conventional "peaker" power plant, run on fossil fuels, takes much longer to get started before it can contribute power to the network.
Unfortunately there are economic problems with energy storage. Because the battery can respond to demand so quickly, it performs service that the fossil fuel plants were formerly doing. So, the fossil fuel plants sit idle a lot of the time, but we still need them because a battery can't provide all of the power we need during high demand. So, what the fossil fuel peaker plants are now going to do is a bit of a mystery. Go out of business? We'll have a lot more blackouts. Charge more for energy? They're going to have to. And regulators are going to have to allow that.
Bruce Perens.
Except the battery is right next to a huge wind farm, placed there specifically to use excess output, so the combination does generate power.
Though gas power plants were taken offline, nuclear and coal plants can’t be quickly shut down, so they went on running and had to pay to sell power into the grid for several hours, while industrial customers such as refineries and foundries earned money by consuming electricity.
Or just shut them down and clean up the environment.
Since a car battery has to lug its own weight around, they're optimized aggressively for energy-to-weight ratio, at some expense in lifetime.
A stationary battery can be built a bit more robustly, e.g. thicker eletrolytes, and Tesla does that.
http://fortune.com/2015/05/18/... describes some other differences, in the chemistry of the cathode.
it does not produce any electricity on its own.
But maybe you can take it to a Supercharger and charge it for free?