• Tesla to deploy ‘largest li-ion battery project in the world’ with 80 MWh in Powerpacks
    8 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Tesla announced today that it won a contract for the “largest li-ion battery project in the world”. It will deploy a 20 MW/80 MWh Powerpack system at the Southern California Edison Mira Loma substation. The company won the contract last week through what it described as a “competitive” solicitation process. [QUOTE="Tesla"]The Gigafactory’s ability to produce at a large scale will allow this system to be manufactured, shipped, installed and commissioned in three months. The system will charge using electricity from the grid during off-peak hours and then deliver electricity during peak hours to help maintain the reliable operation of Southern California Edison’s electrical infrastructure which feeds more than 15 million residents. By doing so, the Tesla Powerpack system will reduce the need for electricity generated by natural gas and further the advancement of a resilient and modern grid. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] [url]https://electrek.co/2016/09/15/tesla-to-deploy-largest-li-ion-battery-project-in-the-world-with-80-mwh-in-powerpacks/[/url]
No word on installed price?
[QUOTE=download;51064476]No word on installed price?[/QUOTE] Nope. The closest you get is this: [QUOTE]Tesla didn’t disclose the value of the contract, but extrapolating from the value from Tesla’s ‘Design Your Powerpack System‘ tool on its website, which stops at 54 Powerpacks, would add up to ~$38 million – though it’s safe to assume that Tesla offers a discount for the larger volumes.[/QUOTE] Plus it seems to be dependant on the Gigafactory cells, so costs will differ compared to those being installed today.
Hopefully this can help solve the issue of storing renewable energy, so we can shut down all these coal and natural gas power plants
[quote=Article]By doing so, the Tesla Powerpack system will reduce the need for electricity generated by natural gas and further the advancement of a resilient and modern grid.[/quote] Dumb question but how is this true? It's "buying power" when it's cheap and "selling power" when it's expensive, but those costs are just based off of demand for electricity. It's still using the same amount of gas/coal/pixie dust to run to generators regardless if the kWh is 0.75 or 1.25.
[QUOTE=Gnomical;51072985]Dumb question but how is this true? It's "buying power" when it's cheap and "selling power" when it's expensive, but those costs are just based off of demand for electricity. It's still using the same amount of gas/coal/pixie dust to run to generators regardless if the kWh is 0.75 or 1.25.[/QUOTE] Because it will kick in at peak loads, in place of those sorts of power plants, which are normally used to deal with peak load due to how quickly they can be powered on and off.
[QUOTE=Gnomical;51072985]Dumb question but how is this true? It's "buying power" when it's cheap and "selling power" when it's expensive, but those costs are just based off of demand for electricity. It's still using the same amount of gas/coal/pixie dust to run to generators regardless if the kWh is 0.75 or 1.25.[/QUOTE] Not exactly. Many types of power plants run at relatively fixed capacities. They have limitations that increase efficiency, or reduce emissions, but make their output inflexible. This is quite common with a lot of coal plants. By 'balancing' the load over the course of the day, you can utilize more power from these more efficient plants, and reduce dependency on things like gas plants, which while adjustable, are very inefficient. For some areas with variable rates, the packs can probably pay for themselves in 5-10 years, easily. Places like Indianapolis have peak rates of 25-30 cents/kwh, and off hour rates at low as 4 cents/kwh. If you call it 20 cent difference to account for some inefficiencies, and call it a full 100kw/h pack, that's 20 dollars generated a day. A bit on the ideal side of the calculations, but it's totally feasible to get 3-5 thousand a year out of a large pack in some locations. If you aren't in an area that offers variable power rates, and aren't interested in off the grid sustainability/redundancy, battery packs at home have no real practical purpose at the moment. I think there's some interesting fusions between tech to be had where you can use the packs to rapidly charge your car with DC power, but that still requires a lot of additional equipment, and if you are leaving the car overnight, is still largely redundant. Very few people are going to go home in the middle of their day, need to charge 60kwh worth, and then head back out. In theory, you'd just go straight to a supercharger if you needed that much extra juice.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;51073025]Not exactly. Many types of power plants run at relatively fixed capacities. They have limitations that increase efficiency, or reduce emissions, but make their output inflexible. This is quite common with a lot of coal plants. [B]By 'balancing' the load over the course of the day, you can utilize more power from these more efficient plants, and reduce dependency on things like gas plants, which while adjustable, are very inefficient.[/B] [/QUOTE] That's incorrect. Coal plants are inefficient (the very best do about 45% efficiency, most are in the 30 to 40% range) while combined cycle gas is most efficient (most do about 55 to 60%, the very best are doing 64%). The issue is cost; coal is the cheapest despite its low efficiency (hence why it's base load) but is very inflexible while combined cycle gas is reasonably flexible while open cycle gas (with a similar efficiency to coal) is very flexible.
I was attempting to use efficiency in terms of power per dollar. In retrospect, a very poor word choice on my part.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.