Tesla big battery saves the day -

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 23, 2017
Messages
1,116
Location
VA
There is no physical difference in the 7.5Kwh wall battery and the 10Kwh battery, both use the same type and number of LiFePo4 batteries, the difference is in the DoD to get to the rated power output and the warranty of doing so. Distributed grid (which is what this is) will work but only in certain climates and latitudes.
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Messages
10,666
Location
Canuck - moved to —> California —> Texas —> ???
I found this bit interesting:
Quote:
The details of that contract are not released, but it wouldn’t surprise if that contract allowed, or even encouraged, such intervention – just to rub in the message about a cleaner, faster, smarter grid to the technology dinosaurs in the eastern states.
Californa's power providers were purposefully running blackouts in the 80's (I believe) to get the changes they wanted to be approved by people. To this day Californians are happy to pay some of the highest energy rates in US.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
10,060
Location
Central Washington
Did the 8MW it put out really help avoid disaster or did it just raise the Frequency .05. Thats barely over 1% of the lost capacity. If this was really a catastrophic event I doubt thats enough to really save them from a cascading failure.
 

Shannow

Thread starter
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,703
Location
'Stralia
As per the article, the plant that tripped was in another state, Victoria, 600 miles away (+) from the battery. Energy USUALLY flows from Victoria to South Australia The unit that they blamed for slow response was two states further away, an additional 1,000 miles. So being middle of the night, there would have been a connected grid of 15,000MW of supply/demand, and I'm not sure that LY3 was likely at full load at that time of the night...looks like they used "available" capacity...in fact I'm sure...the Units are rated at 52MW, and registered at greater. Anyway, 560 (if it was that, and it wasn't) was about 5% of the grid at the time...8MW injected in SA was 0.05%, so consider how it contributed. At the time, there would have been 20 or there abouts thermal units running, with 200 tonnes per unit spinning at 3,000RPM...that's what they refer to as Inertia in the grid, 4,000 tonnes of spinning metal...decelerating them means that they pump more into the grid immediately, before their governor kicks in virtually instantaneously...that's the 6 second response that they refer to...then there's 60 second and 6 minute contracts that had to be met. When frequency drops, every motor driven load on the grid drops load as well, as it's operating speed has dropped also...burns out fridge motors ultimately. So nope, it did little to nothing...but we have no ideas of the secret contracts, nor payments that South Oz is grandstanding about after they blacked out the other year. The guys who model the markets are concerned at how these things work, as they have no inertia, and claim that they can respond in 1/3 of a cycle...the real risk is that they respond en masse (when there's enough of them), and the grid oscillated uncontrollably. Not buggy whip fears, just usual cart horse inversion by idealogues, who like the author in the link use facts loosely to create a sensational argument that's factually iffy.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
19,707
Location
Sunny Florida
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Not buggy whip fears, just usual cart horse inversion by idealogues, who like the author in the link use facts loosely to create a sensational argument that's factually iffy.
Yeah, .05% is a HUGE NUMBER! WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!
 
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
21,557
Location
Silicon Valley
Originally Posted By: Shannow
The guys who model the markets are concerned at how these things work, as they have no inertia, and claim that they can respond in 1/3 of a cycle...the real risk is that they respond en masse (when there's enough of them), and the grid oscillated uncontrollably.
From the motor controllers power supply I've used before, I see that the power output would have to be tied together with only 1 controller and N-1 booster to avoid such scenarios. This is easy if everything is 3cm apart, much harder to do on a real grid.
 
Joined
Jul 27, 2012
Messages
733
Location
Perth, Western Australia
Wouldn't this have all been a moot point if they hadn't removed tonnes of rotating machinery from the grid in the first place? So the battery is really only "saving" the State Government from another red face rather than adding anything they wouldn't have had if the incumbent hadn't slashed the amount of rotational inertia? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
54,594
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: Brad_C
Wouldn't this have all been a moot point if they hadn't removed tonnes of rotating machinery from the grid in the first place? So the battery is really only "saving" the State Government from another red face rather than adding anything they wouldn't have had if the incumbent hadn't slashed the amount of rotational inertia? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
That was pretty much my question as well.
 
Joined
Sep 25, 2004
Messages
9,562
Location
Marshfield , MA
Shannow, please give me (us) your assessment of the battery. Did its fast reaction stave off a cycle drop resulting in a brown out or mitigate a situation? I only sort of understand the way power grids are managed. For the 11yrs I spent at the ship yard, It looked out over a tank farm , a draw bridge, a power plant that converted from coal to oil de-commissioned, and a soap plant. A little pocket of heavy industry. Solar and wind or other power intrigues me, I also see how France uses nukes that are very well managed. Is this more smoke and mirrors from Elon Musk or what?
 

Shannow

Thread starter
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,703
Location
'Stralia
andyd, computer resources were limited, being on a portable device while on the cruise Family ducked down the street for 5 minutes...2 hours ago, so did some digging...the data is publicly available http://www.nemweb.com.au/REPORTS/ARCHIVE/Dispatch_SCADA/ that's the dispatch data from the market operator. reneweconomy have updated their article...
Quote:
Update: We just realised that a paragraph explaining the timings of the Tesla intervention went missing in the transfer from one document to another. To be clear, on the timing of the response of this generators, some did some minor adjustments (1MW) as part of regulation FCAS, the moment they dropped below 50Hz.
Here's the facts...and I've only included a handfull of generators, the station within spitting distance of the units that tripped, and mine, 500 miles or therabouts away...
Quote:
Unit 02:00 02:05 LYA3 559MW 0MW (so yes, it was at full noise before tripping) YW1 249MW 256MW YW2 338MW 352MW YW3 382MW 394MW (into reserve capacity margin...governor drives it, so no issues) YW4 382MW 392MW (same as above) MP1 414MW 460MW (can do 700, was turned down overnight at the time of the trip)
Rest of the connected generators all did similarly...that's how their governors respond to frequency in the short term, and the controls and firing in the longer. So far from "only 1MW minor adjustments" claimed by the "napping" generators, all of whom did the heavy lifting to get the frequency back up. AEMO try to keep a full two units worth of generation up their sleeve at any one time (N-2 contingency). Grid wasn't at risk really.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top