from Hacker News

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

by seomint on 5/11/18, 10:03 PM with 134 comments

• by ggm on 5/11/18, 10:25 PM

  This outcome is in a particularly distorted badly operated market, one where for no very good reasons regulatory power is not being applied, and distorted bidding for FCAS and peak supply has been the norm. It's hugely politicised, and in the context of a rejection of carbon trading and an attempt by the ruling federal liberal-national government to wedge coal into the mix (it's basically uneconomic now, and won't get any better but the lib hats want it come what may)

  The battery couldn't have come at a better time. It's an initiative of a state labor government, now tossed out, and it's signals how much could have been achieved with decent capital investment in alternative power sources. That said, it's role here is frequency stabilisation not power: it's a tiny percentage of the states power burden. The states solar and wind was (alas) not required to have any associated storage capacity or supply FCAS services, both things which alter the economics in favour of more traditional coal, and gas peaked power supply.

  There are more batteries on the way. There are pumped hydro systems in design. Things are getting better.

• by boyter on 5/11/18, 10:27 PM

  It’s also a national embarrassment according to the government treasurer who likened it to Australia’s tourist stop big things such as The Big Banana.

  What I love about it is that it’s forcing the governments hand. They have vested interests in the coal industry but cannot continue to overlook this when electricity prices are so high in Australia.

• by vosper on 5/11/18, 10:23 PM

  For obvious reasons there's a lot of focus on Tesla's automobiles, but part of me wonders if these Powerpack grid batteries aren't the real innovation and killer product for the company.

• by mmanfrin on 5/11/18, 10:46 PM

  It is so obnoxious when a website immediately asks to send you notifications.

• by bassman9000 on 5/11/18, 10:41 PM

  Zero emmissions

  If nuclear has to include the costs of dismantling the plants, batteries have to include the cost of building them. And wind generators are massive aluminum structures, which are extremely costly to shape.

  Some day, maybe. Let's be fair in the meantime.

• by otalp on 5/12/18, 1:45 AM

  Their Q1 earning report revealed they lost money on the grid service.

• by _nalply on 5/12/18, 6:05 AM

  Which one is cheaper to build and operate: Pumped hydro or batteries?

• by _bxg1 on 5/11/18, 10:58 PM

  Good to hear. Hopefully the massive success they're having in this area can carry them through their car troubles until that becomes profitable too.

• by foobar1962 on 5/12/18, 6:52 AM

  The 90% cost reduction claim disturbs me because I find it quite ambiguous. The original quote in the article is:

  >it reduced the cost of the grid service that it performs by 90%

  Let's examine "the grid service that it performs". What does this mean? Which "grid service" is it performing?

  I imagine the "grid service" it performs is that of inputting energy: it's a source of electricity into the grid. So the claim can be re-written as:

  >[the battery] reduced the cost of <putting energy into the grid> by 90%

  Reduced, compared to what, a coal-powered steam turbine power station?