Tesla quietly adding massive 100 megawatt battery to Texas' power grid

[RV_]

4 hours ago, jcussen said:

Looks like a the 100 megawatt battery is actually 100 megawatt hours. So will empty in one hour at that rate, but for lesser draws, could last long enough to get some other power sources online. eg 250 megawatt hours for 4 hours. And if it has its own solar panel farm feed, even longer. Appears to be well worth it. 

https://www.cnet.com/news/worlds-biggest-solar-and-battery-storage-farm-coming-to-south-australia/

Jcussen, Yep, I agree. Good link on SA solar, thanks. I hadn't checked up on Oz since the battery debuted in SA.

Edited March 9, 2021 by RV_

[RV_]

22 hours ago, mptjelgin said:

I DID read the entire article, and whether it is done deliberately or not, they are only discussing one aspect of the battery (maximum output) without discussing the other (how long it will last).  I have a large UPS on my computer, not because I need the max output, but rather because I want a lower output for a longer period of time. 

Presenting only max output without discussing length of time it can be utilized is only part of the story. 

Don't know off the top of my head. I'd have to look it up too.

[RV_]

20 hours ago, Pappy Yokum said:

 

.....and maybe 2-3 replies "accepted" by agesilly before *he* melts down!!

😉

 

 

[RV_]

22 hours ago, Dutch_12078 said:

It looks to me like the mega-battery is the modern version of the "pumped storage" concept. Both are drawn down as needed during peak times, and recharged during off -peak times. The mega-battery doesn't need the big hill and water source though...

Perzactly Dutch

[RV_]

3 hours ago, agesilaus said:

How much did they pay for the electricity that went to charge the battery, and how much in government subsidies.

 

I would have to look that up, why don't you?

[noteven]

3 hours ago, agesilaus said:

How much did they pay for the electricity that went to charge the battery, and how much in government subsidies.

 

My guess would be they paid whatever their cost is for operating their adjacent wind turbines that charge the battery? 

[jcussen]

I believe batteries that are rated in watts, kilowatts or megawatts are what they can supply for 1 hour, or in a batteries case kw/h. My 21 kw battery will supply 21 kw for 1 hour so is actually a 21 kw/h battery.   The 1000 MW South Australian Tesla battery is fed from a 330 megawatt solar array. So once the original cost of the solar panels and installation are meet, it will be free power.

[Lou Schneider]

An energy company broke ground last October on a 50 Mw, 15 minute energy storage peaking facility near Pahrump, NV.  Instead of using pumped water or batteries for storage, they'll use electric railroad cars loaded with rocks to go up and down the edge of an existing gravel mine southeast of Pahrump, consuming power from the grid to climb the grade and releasing it via regenerative braking on the downhill run.  They claim it can supply up to 50 Mw of power for 15 minutes at a time.

https://aresnorthamerica.com/las-vegas-business-press-deal-watch-ares-nevada-builds-energy-storage-facility-in-pahrump/

Edited March 10, 2021 by Lou Schneider

[Dutch_12078]

3 minutes ago, Lou Schneider said:

Here in Pahrump we had a company submit a plan for pumped storage a couple of years ago, about the same time Elio was promoting his three wheel car.   Instead of pumping water up and down between a couple of reservoirs they proposed building a low speed electrified railroad on the alluvial plain east of town.  The plain has a constant grade for 10-12 miles.  Each of the powered rail cars would be loaded with pig iron and under automatic control.  They'd take power from the grid and move uphill when there was surplus power, then coast down using regenerative braking to inject power back into the grid when needed.   The advantage was near instantaneous turnaround between consuming and generating power.   They got the necessary permits from BLM and the county, but so far hasn't started construction.

Interesting! I hadn't heard about that concept. I wonder how they proposed transferring the power back and forth from the moving train. I can think of a few ways to do it, but I wonder what they decided on... 

[Lou Schneider]

Looks like they changed the parameters of the gravity project, which is why I edited my post.  Originally it was to be a long, single track railroad with a 3 phase catenary electric feed running several miles up and down the alluvial plain east of town.  The gravity mass cars would climb the grade when there is surplus power, then wait at the top and be released as needed to coast downhill, providing several hours of regenerative energy as they rolled down the track.  Now they're using multiple short tracks on a steeper grade along the edge of a gravel pit to get up to 5 Mw per track for 15 minutes.  The cars will receive and output power using a third rail, like a subway train.

Here's a link to the original 5 mile project design paper:

https://energy.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/energynvgov/content/Programs/4 - ARES.pdf

Edited March 10, 2021 by Lou Schneider

[ms60ocb]

3 hours ago, RV_ said:

 I agree with all of the above except saying real generation, renewable energy isn't real power production?

Distributed power production is also less susceptible to hacking. Oh sure one residential or small town renewables could be hacked but it would be much harder to hack a million distributed power plants however large or small. That is way oversimplified but eliminates the drawbacks of current power production.

My definition of Real Generation is Generation that can run anytime. We don't have to wait the sun to shine, snow to melt or the wind to get above 7 MPH.

Centralized power plants vs Distributed power plant are both important. I like to think of the Electrical System being like the Railroads. Centralized power is like the railroads 100 years ago Distributed power is the Future. We aren't there yet but have most of the building blocks. Railroads carries a lot of freight, the distributed moving of freight and people is the individual planes and trucks.

Electricity has come a long way since about 1879 when George Westinghouse and LL Nunn attached a Hydro Generator to the mine.  The AC power was 133 cycles. The 2.3 (?) mile  power line was supported by tree holding bottles as Insulators. This distance was not possible with Edison's DC generation. 

Clay

 

 

[Dutch_12078]

2 hours ago, Lou Schneider said:

Looks like they changed the parameters of the gravity project, which is why I edited my post.  Originally it was to be a long, single track railroad with a 3 phase catenary electric feed running several miles up and down the alluvial plain east of town.  The gravity mass cars would climb the grade when there is surplus power, then wait at the top and be released as needed to coast downhill, providing several hours of regenerative energy as they rolled down the track.  Now they're using multiple short tracks on a steeper grade along the edge of a gravel pit to get up to 5 Mw per track for 15 minutes.  The cars will receive and output power using a third rail, like a subway train.

Here's a link to the original 5 mile project design paper:

https://energy.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/energynvgov/content/Programs/4 - ARES.pdf

Thanks for the update, Lou. I wonder what the ROI numbers look like for the revised project...

[RV_]

Lou I hadn't seen that Thanks.

 

[RV_]

2 hours ago, ms60ocb said:

My definition of Real Generation is Generation that can run anytime. We don't have to wait the sun to shine, snow to melt or the wind to get above 7 MPH.

Centralized power plants vs Distributed power plant are both important. I like to think of the Electrical System being like the Railroads. Centralized power is like the railroads 100 years ago Distributed power is the Future. We aren't there yet but have most of the building blocks. Railroads carries a lot of freight, the distributed moving of freight and people is the individual planes and trucks.

Electricity has come a long way since about 1879 when George Westinghouse and LL Nunn attached a Hydro Generator to the mine.  The AC power was 133 cycles. The 2.3 (?) mile  power line was supported by tree holding bottles as Insulators. This distance was not possible with Edison's DC generation. 

Clay

 

 

I disagree Clay. As I mentioned earlier I would put hydro like Hoover dam to be real and more reliable than anything that needs reloading of fuel or fuel rods. Then I would agree that without storage Renewables can be less than ideal. Whether gravity or battery storage we need storage for renewables except hydro, Geothermal like used in Iceland, (Can work in places like Yellowstone and other active sources here too) Electric power generated from fossil fuels was in the same state when Edison and Nikolai Tesla were battling over AC or DC. There was no infrastructure and today we have a helluva power line infrastructure.

You avoided addressing the only thing I said, you forgot the Hydro and geothermal energy. They do not use fossil fuels, and create no pollution from operating. That was all.

We are transitioning to renewables and electric cars .

There are many alternative methodologies on the table and from Lou's ARES project to the many distributed energy solutions. And lots of folks working on them. Like here, lots of folks thinking about them.

[RV_]

I would love to see Fusion become a reality. From The Motley Fool, October 2020

Excerpt:

"In 2014, Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) shocked the world with the announcement that it was building a nuclear fusion reactor and planned to have it online "in as little as ten years." Five years later, Lockheed confirmed that it is still working on the project -- but had made very little progress in nuclear fusion energy.

Now it sounds like MIT may beat them to it.

On the opposite side of the country from the fabled Skunk Works, which is working on LockMart's version of the reactor, scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Plasma Science and Fusion Center are working on a compact fusion reactor of their own, reports The New York Times. Within the next three to four years, working in cooperation with a company spun off from MIT in 2017 to commercialize the idea, "Commonwealth Fusion Systems LLC," MIT hopes to have a "SPARC" test reactor built to prove their concept. 

MIT and CFS intend to use "yttrium barium copper oxide (YBCO) high-temperature superconducting magnet technology" to form a magnetic field to contain a reaction in which deuterium and tritium (both isotopes of hydrogen) will be forced to fuse together under high pressure and temperatures of "tens of millions of degrees." The entire donut-shaped reactor should be "about the size of a tennis court," says CFS CEO Bob Mumgaard. But if it works as promised, the reactor should produce about 10x more energy than is required to ignite and maintain the fusion reaction within it, paving the way, says CFS, for "carbon-free, safe, limitless, fusion power." 

At that point, MIT and CFS will begin constructing a full-scale "ARC" -- which stands for "affordable, robust, compact" -- power plant, possibly as early as 2025. 

A better nuclear future?

MIT and CFS are planning for their prototype ARC reactor to put out about 270 megawatts -- about one-quarter the output of a standard fission reaction nuclear power plant, and enough to power 100,000 homes."

Much more here from Motley Fool:

https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/10/11/americas-first-nuclear-fusion-reactor-online-2025/

Edited March 10, 2021 by RV_

[packnrat]

pie charts are funny.

the best way to make electricy these day is by building nuke plants. in the end they produce the least amount of toxins for the environment to handle. and produce the greatest amount of electric power.

right now just northern ca alone needs to build four (4) nuke reactor units. two south west of fresno, two at the old rancho seco location. these two locations are due to bad soil and existing infrastructure. future north of yuba city... but that is  generation away.

as to southern ca.. they are on there own to build a couple - six new nuke plants.

NO amount of the so called "green" generators will do any good. except to over fill the pockets of the filthy rich.

batteries, what a cock.they still need a power source to charge them up. and that power is needed for use right now.

[packnrat]

2 hours ago, RV_ said:

I would love to see Fusion become a reality. From The Motley Fool, October 2020

Excerpt:

"In 2014, Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) shocked the world with the announcement that it was building a nuclear fusion reactor and planned to have it online "in as little as ten years." Five years later, Lockheed confirmed that it is still working on the project -- but had made very little progress in nuclear fusion energy.

Now it sounds like MIT may beat them to it.

On the opposite side of the country from the fabled Skunk Works, which is working on LockMart's version of the reactor, scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Plasma Science and Fusion Center are working on a compact fusion reactor of their own, reports The New York Times. Within the next three to four years, working in cooperation with a company spun off from MIT in 2017 to commercialize the idea, "Commonwealth Fusion Systems LLC," MIT hopes to have a "SPARC" test reactor built to prove their concept. 

MIT and CFS intend to use "yttrium barium copper oxide (YBCO) high-temperature superconducting magnet technology" to form a magnetic field to contain a reaction in which deuterium and tritium (both isotopes of hydrogen) will be forced to fuse together under high pressure and temperatures of "tens of millions of degrees." The entire donut-shaped reactor should be "about the size of a tennis court," says CFS CEO Bob Mumgaard. But if it works as promised, the reactor should produce about 10x more energy than is required to ignite and maintain the fusion reaction within it, paving the way, says CFS, for "carbon-free, safe, limitless, fusion power." 

At that point, MIT and CFS will begin constructing a full-scale "ARC" -- which stands for "affordable, robust, compact" -- power plant, possibly as early as 2025. 

A better nuclear future?

MIT and CFS are planning for their prototype ARC reactor to put out about 270 megawatts -- about one-quarter the output of a standard fission reaction nuclear power plant, and enough to power 100,000 homes."

Much more here from Motley Fool:

https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/10/11/americas-first-nuclear-fusion-reactor-online-2025/

stop giving them unlimited tax moneys, and maybe they could build something, but keep supplying unlimited cash and there is NO reason to ever make it work. jobs for life with a great pay and bennys, and never having to show anything thing for it.

Edited March 10, 2021 by packnrat

[RV_]

Packnrat,

You seem pretty sure tax dollars are paying for my favorite in the fusion race. Could you show where you got that with a link?

My favorite in the fusion race is privately funded, SPARC from MIT now working with Commonwealth Fusion Systems, a commercial entity. The funding is there because if it gets done, there will be trillions in profits possible.

"SPARC

The MIT Plasma Science & Fusion Center in collaboration with private fusion startup Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS). is developing a conceptual design for SPARC, a compact, high-field, net fusion energy experiment. SPARC would be the size of existing mid-sized fusion devices, but with a much stronger magnetic field. Based on established physics, the device is predicted to produce 50-100 MW of fusion power, achieving fusion gain, Q, greater than 2. Such an experiment would be the first demonstration of net energy gain and would validate the promise of high-field devices built with new superconducting technology. SPARC fits into an overall strategy of speeding up fusion development by using new high-field, high-temperature superconducting (HTS) magnets."

Source: https://www.psfc.mit.edu/sparc

Additionally they are, or can be, very small compared to fission or fossil fueled plants, cannot melt down, or irradiate the countryside like Chernobyl and Fukushima:

"Only one reactor exploded at Chernobyl, while three reactors experienced meltdowns at Fukushima. Yet the accident at Chernobyl was far more dangerous, as damage to the reactor core unspooled very rapidly and violently, said Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist and acting director for the Union of Concerned Scientists Nuclear Safety Project. Volume 0%"

Source: Chernobyl versus Fukushima 

"Accident potential

Unlike nuclear fission, fusion requires extremely precise and controlled temperature, pressure and magnetic field parameters for any net energy to be produced. If a reactor suffers damage or loses even a small degree of required control, fusion reactions and heat generation would rapidly cease.^[90] Additionally, fusion reactors contain only small amounts of fuel, enough to "burn" for minutes, or in some cases, microseconds. Unless they are actively refueled, the reactions will quickly end. Therefore, fusion reactors are considered immune from catastrophic meltdown.^[91]

For similar reasons, runaway reactions cannot occur in a fusion reactor. The plasma is burnt at optimal conditions, and any significant change will simply quench the reactions. The reaction process is so delicate that this level of safety is inherent. Although the plasma in a fusion power station is expected to have a volume of 1,000 cubic metres (35,000 cu ft) or more, the plasma density is low and typically contains only a few grams of fuel in use.^[91] If the fuel supply is closed, the reaction stops within seconds. In comparison, a fission reactor is typically loaded with enough fuel for several months or years, and no additional fuel is necessary to continue the reaction. It is this large amount of fuel that gives rise to the possibility of a meltdown; nothing like this exists in a fusion reactor.^[92]"

Source:^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Accident_potential}

[bruce t]

RV you are quoting figures 're the South Australia battery from the Gardian. You do realise that it's a far left, biased publication don't you? Figures 're the first year income from the SA battery have already been disputed. SA has a real power issue. It has gone 'green' with wind, solar and a battery. If you read about power prices you will also see that SA consumers pay the highest power bills in the world. SA has constant black and brown outs. Is that the future you want? (I pointed out your biased link in a previous thread). 

Before you get all excited and try to dispute the facts, know one thing. I'm currently camped in SA. It's raining, dark and no wind. So no wind turbines. No solar. The battery lasts less than an hour. Oh yeah SA relies on diesel generators, natural gas generators and a network grid taking power from Victoria that comes from brown coal via the Heywood connector. Industry in SA has all but collapsed. It's referred to here as the rust state.

Just let me know when you need real facts about the SA experiment. 

 

 

[RV_]

Hi Bruce, how about some links for my reading. I really am asking and interested in sources you have. That is not a challenge.

Why would you say this? "Before you get all excited and try to dispute the facts, know one thing. "

I have usually asked for links when the facts are people here just disputing without any support. You don't accept my opinions, based on facts with the link to my source/s. Yet Your just saying so without some expert corroboration and a link I'm supposed to accept?  Or Faux News acceptable sources like "people are saying" or "I heard" or "My friend's friend/brother/cousin. I'm interested in your research, not your politics.

If you don't like my posts don't read them Bruce.

[RV_]

Forgot, you said "Just let me know when you need real facts about the SA experiment."

Bruce, how many times have you seen me solicit others, and now you, to show links so we can get context. That goes for you too. I already asked by starting this discussion.

But c'mon man. You guys. You question sources yet offer none at all. Wowza!

I was born at night but it wasn't last night.

[Lou Schneider]

20 hours ago, Dutch_12078 said:

Thanks for the update, Lou. I wonder what the ROI numbers look like for the revised project...

I would guess it's pretty good.  It's using 40 acres of otherwise useless desert land so I would think there's minimal investment there, maybe a percentage of revenue to the owner of the gravel mine who's already harvested his ore from the area.  They went with multiple short tracks instead of a longer railroad because Cal ISO is looking for 15 minute generation and absorption blocks to smooth out solar production variations, not the longer term peak generation the original project would have supplied

Edited March 10, 2021 by Lou Schneider

[Lou Schneider]

18 hours ago, RV_ said:

I disagree Clay. As I mentioned earlier I would put hydro like Hoover dam to be real and more reliable than anything that needs reloading of fuel or fuel rods.

Hoover Dam is in trouble.  The extended drought over the past several years has caused the lake level to drop drastically and may make the Feds begin water rationing next year.  A byproduct is the lake level is close to dipping below the level of the powerhouse intake penstocks.  When I was there a couple of weeks ago only one of the 8 turbine outlets had visible flow into the pond below the dam.

Edited March 10, 2021 by Lou Schneider

[RV_]

I know that Lou, but that has happened before and will again. Hydro remains  reliable worldwide when they don't displace millions. We won't have many new ones. You did not agree or disagree on geothermal like Iceland either. I have no source for future plans but I sure would like to see some changes there.

I also don't paint all Fission plants with a broad brush as bad because of past meltdowns which are not limited to the most recent. I like fission too. But earthquakes and foreign hackers are a threat there.

Like I started hoping for EVs I could afford and got, i really would like to see fusion go over the top in the next three years as projected by MIT and Commonwealth Fusion.

We are arid here too. And our snowfall is about to dump loads of moisture this weekend here.

But then again we might have earthquakes where we never had them take out some fission plants as has happened and the all water sources dry up worldwide. Nah, probably not. If that front goes east from Hawaii they may get more water than they wanted. It is feast or famine lately.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/joannaallhands/2020/11/24/warm-dry-winter-could-spell-trouble-lake-powell-mead/6393145002/

Edited March 10, 2021 by RV_

[bruce t]

RV I'm living in the SA experiment. I don't need a link. Besides last time I gave you a link you simply ignored it.

Can I send you figures on the tens of thousands of homes without power because they can no longer pay their power accounts. How about talking to folks who have given up resetting their clocks every time the power goes off?

You don't need a link to see SA has interconnectors to other state's power supply.