Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

Re:Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units by pwagland on Tuesday December 19, 2017 @03:34PM (#15963997)

Where did you get the three minute response time number for Gladstone? It is not backed up by the article, it only mentions that it should respond within six seconds, but that "Data from AEMO (and gathered above by Dylan McConnell from the Climate and Energy College) shows that the Tesla big battery responded four seconds ahead of the generator contracted at that time to provide FCAS (frequency control and ancillary services), the Gladstone coal generator in Queensland.". I would love to see more information on the actual impact that this had.

edit: Updated with the response time from the article

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units by jobu on Tuesday December 19, 2017 @04:03PM (#15964230)

The article is a bit sparse, but take a look at the output of the Loy Yang 3 and the Tesla (HPR) in this graph: http://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/HPR-fr...

Tesla ramps up as the LYA3 is dropping at 1:59am, then the Tesla drops off a bit before 2:02 am as the Gladstone generator kicks in (not in the graph)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units by jermaustin1 on Tuesday December 19, 2017 @04:53PM (#15964716)

There are two types of people in the world: those that can extrapolate meaning from an incomplete set.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units by leereeves on Tuesday December 19, 2017 @10:25PM (#15966782)

While we're extrapolating meaning, I noticed that the first graph shows the HPR kicked in a few seconds before the frequency stopped dropping. Does that mean that the HPR did little to nothing to arrest the fall in frequency, and that it was the Gladstone generator, which the article says activated four seconds after the HPR, which deserves the credit?

[ Parent | on HN ]