Modelling wind turbines and pumped-storage hydro for renewables-only 24/7 electrical power

[Kittamaru]

The most relevant quote from your source

is this

"is part of an AEMO trial into demonstrating that wind power can supply a baseload level of energy, known as frequency control and ancillary services or FCAS, to compete with traditional baseload sources like coal and gas."​

It seems to have escaped you but that is precisely what my modelling does demonstrate, that wind power can indeed supply a baseload level of energy to compete with traditional baseload sources like coal and gas.

Okay, I'm with you so far.

That's what this whole topic is all about!

Then why are you harping on about the battery storage for excess power and load balancing...?

The difference is that AEMO are doing a poorly planned, unscientific trial, no doubt by some engineers without much of an idea of how much energy storage is required - tacking on a silly little battery, sucking it and seeing what happens. So I guess maybe AEMO phoned up Telsa and asked how much their batteries were and they decided to buy the biggest one they could afford. It will be something like that. And no I don't have secret tape recordings to prove it. I know that AEMO don't know what they are doing because I know how to do it and they are not doing it right. Their trial will not succeed because the energy storage capacity of their battery is too small.

So... again, we are expected to take your word over the word of multiple people in the industry who have done this (successfully) on smaller scales and propose they can do it on this large scale... why? What secret knowledge do you have that they don't...

The difference is that I am a world-leading expert scientist who is leading research in this particular field of applied renewable energy science. I know that it will take something like 5 hours times the wind power capacity to achieve that stated aim of baseload power from wind.

Why? If the intent of the battery system is to provide power leveling and emergency power (as stated), and not replace the wind farm, then why would they need "5 hours times the wind power capacity" (and what does that mean? Do you mean they would need five hours worth of the wind farms output as storage?)

I know it because I have modelled exactly how to do it successfully using computers, graphed my results and published it all, here in sciforums and elsewhere, for other scientists to read (real "scientists" mind you, not any Tom, Dick or Harry who happens to show up in an internet forum who may skim read my post, but ignore it completely until they read the juicy bit where I criticise a person (Musk) whom they usually trust as untrustworthy in this context).

Hm, thinly veiled ad-hom wrapped in an appeal to authority.

I don't know you from Adam. your claim to be a "world-leading expert scientist" is great. Pleasure to meet you. I'm Kittamaru, the Queen of France, holder of the Sacred Chalice of Rixx, and heir to the Holy Rings of Betazed.

I'm sure you can see my point...

We won't get to 100% renewable energy by knowing Elon Musk.
We get to 100% renewable energy by knowing how to do it.

It's not who you know, it is what you know.

Agreed, and I reckon Musk and the intelligent folks in his company believe they can do this, and have put their money where their mouth is by saying either they will do it, or its free.

So, again, I ask - why the vitriol and gnashing of teeth? What, did Musk steal your sweetroll? Seriously, you have given precisely zero reason to think Tesla doesn't know what they are doing in this venture.

 

[billvon]

No Musk doesn't provide "the tools to do it". He has provided a tool which is much too small for the job.
To repeat again, what is required is an energy store of capacity of 5 hours times the wind power capacity.

No, that is not what is "required." That is what you want (which is fine.)

Tesla does not provide time-limited amounts of battery storage. They provide a modular ESS - and are in fact just one of many such suppliers. BYD, LG and AES also supply such systems. Utilities purchase the amount of storage they need, based on their needs and the state of their systems.

Such suppliers supply systems for many different applications, including:
Power factor correction
Frequency stabilization
Voltage stabilization
Ramp-rate control (most important for wind)
Peak shaving
Peak shifting
Microgrid power

Most of those applications do not require "5 hours times the wind power capacity." Indeed, the amount of storage will vary with application, available peaker power (and ramp rates of those peakers) and degree of generation margin required.

South Australia cannot afford to buy 80 batteries the size of the one they just bought from Musk. That would bankrupt South Australia and make Musk an even richer multi-billionaire than he already is.

So buy a nuclear plant, bankrupt South Australia and make GE an even larger multi-billion-dollar company than they are.
Or buy pumped storage, bankrupt South Australia and make construction racket multi-billionaires into even richer multi-billionaires.

 

[Scottish Scientist]

Okay, I'm with you so far.

But you won't stay with me, sadly.

Instead of staying with the renewable energy mission which is "to demonstrate, that wind power can indeed supply a baseload level of energy to compete with traditional baseload sources like coal and gas" you want to jump onto the Musk bandwagon with all the other fanboys boasting about the silly little nothings that Musk silly little battery can do.

So... again, we are expected to take your word over the word

Oh it's not just my "word". It's my computer modelling, it's my graphs, it is my calculations. It's everything that I have posted here in this topic but which you are too superficial in your approach to be bothered or even capable to apply yourself to studying. Yes "studying". You remember that hard thing you did at school? Yes that. It's a lot harder than watching a Musk news conference, fanboy.

of multiple people in the industry who have done this (successfully) on smaller scales and propose they can do it on this large scale... why? What secret knowledge do you have that they don't...

They've done nothing successfully on a smaller scale. I can't believe they are so stupid as to have made a mistake in scaling up so they can't have a model working either on any scale. This is a clear case of engineers trying to do something new by trial and error, not having done the calculations required, not having a working model.

Why? If the intent of the battery system is to provide power leveling and emergency power (as stated),

No the intent of those buying the battery is as stated above

"to demonstrate, that wind power can indeed supply a baseload level of energy to compete with traditional baseload sources like coal and gas"

so all Musk's and his fanboys' spin about the nothings that the battery actually does do are irrelevant if they don't demonstrate that, which they can't demonstrate because the battery energy capacity is 80 times too small for current needs, never mind what's needed for the future as wind power capacity is increased.

and not replace the wind farm,

The aim is not to replace "the wind farm" but to replace the gas power stations that South Australia uses now to provide 24 hours a day, 7 days a week baseload power whenever the wind is not blowing a gale.

then why would they need "5 hours times the wind power capacity" (and what does that mean? Do you mean they would need five hours worth of the wind farms output as storage?)

Yes.
Energy = power x time
MWh = MW x h

My modelling demonstrates that the energy storage capacity required is equal to the wind power capacity multiplied by 5 hours.

South Australia has 1600 MW of wind turbines today.

So to use those 1600 MW of wind turbines to provide baseload power will require
5 hours x 1600 MW = 8000 MWh.
Musk's battery is about 100MWh which is EIGHTY TIMES TOO SMALL!
That must be the third time that I have posted that sum.

Be sure to read my post number #20 about Australia pumped-storage hydro

No Musk doesn't provide "the tools to do it". He has provided a tool which is much too small for the job.

To repeat again, what is required is an energy store of capacity of 5 hours times the wind power capacity.

So South Australia with wind power capacity of 1600 MW requires an

Energy store of capacity = 5 hours times 1600 MW = 8000MWh.

Musk's battery is advertised as "129MWh" but on closer examination offers more like 100MWh of energy storage which is a factor of

8000MWh/100MWh = 80 times too small.

South Australia cannot afford to buy 80 batteries the size of the one they just bought from Musk. That would bankrupt South Australia and make Musk an even richer multi-billionaire than he already is.

To get 8000MWh and more of energy storage at low cost, South Australia and everyone else on the planet cannot afford to buy expensive batteries but we must use the tried and tested method of storing electricity for the grid which is pumped-storage hydro.

There’s very impressive and confidence-inspiring leadership to be heard coming out of Australia now on the potential for pumped-storage hydro to complete a 100% renewable energy grid system to serve at the heart of a transition to a renewable energy economy.

For example, here's web-page from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Online –

Pumped hydro storage ‘could make Australia run on renewable energy alone within 20 years’
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-...e-energy-sites-australia-anu-research/8966530

– includes a couple of great videos, a good review video from February this year

Pumped Hydro: Australia’s energy future?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-13/pumped-hydro:-australias-energy-future/8267126

Pumped hydro could be part of the solution to Australia’s energy instability problems. David Lipson explores the technology that’s been around for decades but is attracting new interest from the federal government.​

– and a new video of a TV News interview with world-leading expert in the field Professor Andrew Blakers

Australia could use pumped hydro for ‘100-percent renewable energy grid’ says ANU analysis
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-21/australia-could-use-pumped-hydro-for-100-percent/8966974

Professor Andrew Blakers from the Australian National University says Australia has the capacity to store up to 1,000 times more renewable energy than it could ever conceivably need.
​

 

[Scottish Scientist]

No, that is not what is "required." That is what you want (which is fine.)

Tesla does not provide time-limited amounts of battery storage. They provide a modular ESS - and are in fact just one of many such suppliers. BYD, LG and AES also supply such systems. Utilities purchase the amount of storage they need, based on their needs and the state of their systems.

Such suppliers supply systems for many different applications, including:
Power factor correction
Frequency stabilization
Voltage stabilization
Ramp-rate control (most important for wind)
Peak shaving
Peak shifting
Microgrid power

A whole load of not much more than putting a sticking plaster on the existing system which is 100% dependent on gas power stations.

Most of those applications do not require "5 hours times the wind power capacity."

This does require 5 hours x wind power capacity.

"to demonstrate, that wind power can indeed supply a baseload level of energy to compete with traditional baseload sources like coal and gas"

But Musk fanboys sneak away from that declared aim like murderers with blood on their hands. A disgusting act of dishonesty. Hang your head in shame fanboy!

Or buy pumped storage, bankrupt South Australia and make construction racket multi-billionaires into even richer multi-billionaires.

For decades pumped-storage hydro has been the cost effective energy storage method choice for electricity grids world-wide.

Wikipedia is your friend
Wikipedia Pumped-storage hydroelectricity

Read my post #20. There are some good Australian scientists who understand the role of pumped-storage hydro and Musk and his fanboys are not fooling them.

There’s very impressive and confidence-inspiring leadership to be heard coming out of Australia now on the potential for pumped-storage hydro to complete a 100% renewable energy grid system to serve at the heart of a transition to a renewable energy economy.

For example, here's web-page from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Online –

Pumped hydro storage ‘could make Australia run on renewable energy alone within 20 years’
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-...e-energy-sites-australia-anu-research/8966530

– includes a couple of great videos, a good review video from February this year

Pumped Hydro: Australia’s energy future?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-13/pumped-hydro:-australias-energy-future/8267126

Pumped hydro could be part of the solution to Australia’s energy instability problems. David Lipson explores the technology that’s been around for decades but is attracting new interest from the federal government.​

– and a new video of a TV News interview with world-leading expert in the field Professor Andrew Blakers

Australia could use pumped hydro for ‘100-percent renewable energy grid’ says ANU analysis
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-21/australia-could-use-pumped-hydro-for-100-percent/8966974

Professor Andrew Blakers from the Australian National University says Australia has the capacity to store up to 1,000 times more renewable energy than it could ever conceivably need.
​

I've had it with you two. I think you are just trolling me now.

 

[Kittamaru]

But you won't stay with me, sadly.

More ad hom... starting to see a pattern with you mate.

Instead of staying with the renewable energy mission which is "to demonstrate, that wind power can indeed supply a baseload level of energy to compete with traditional baseload sources like coal and gas" you want to jump onto the Musk bandwagon with all the other fanboys boasting about the silly little nothings that Musk silly little battery can do.

Actually, I just see the value in storing the excess energy produced rather than letting it go to waste. If you have a better, practical solution for this storage, then I'm sure you would be the one with that contract, not Musk.

The fact that your best retort is that I am a "Musk Fanboy" is rather telling.

Oh it's not just my "word". It's my computer modelling, it's my graphs, it is my calculations. It's everything that I have posted here in this topic but which you are too superficial in your approach to be bothered or even capable to apply yourself to studying. Yes "studying". You remember that hard thing you did at school? Yes that. It's a lot harder than watching a Musk news conference, fanboy.

Right. More insults and ad homs - and yet, again, all we have is your word that your modelling is accurate. For all we know, you could have flunked out of junior high.

For the record, no - studying was never "hard"... seems all you have is ad hominem attacks and pointless posturing... so much for being a "world leading expert" I guess.

They've done nothing successfully on a smaller scale. I can't believe they are so stupid as to have made a mistake in scaling up so they can't have a model working either on any scale. This is a clear case of engineers trying to do something new by trial and error, not having done the calculations required, not having a working model.

More baseless claims by an angry random internet guy...

No the intent of those buying the battery is as stated above

"to demonstrate, that wind power can indeed supply a baseload level of energy to compete with traditional baseload sources like coal and gas"

Funny, that statement doesn't actually mention the battery at all.

so all Musk's and his fanboys' spin about the nothings that the battery actually does do are irrelevant if they don't demonstrate that, which they can't demonstrate because the battery energy capacity is 80 times too small for current needs, never mind what's needed for the future as wind power capacity is increased.

Again, you are the one claiming it is "80 times too small" for current needs. Where are you pulling these numbers from? The point isn't to supply all of the state with power from just the battery array. As was stated, repeatedly.

The aim is not to replace "the wind farm" but to replace the gas power stations that South Australia uses now to provide 24 hours a day, 7 days a week baseload power whenever the wind is not blowing a gale.

Where was this stated? Surely you can source a quote that says that the battery farm is meant to replace the gas power stations, since your claim is so bold.

Yes.
Energy = power x time
MWh = MW x h

My modelling demonstrates that the energy storage capacity required is equal to the wind power capacity multiplied by 5 hours.

South Australia has 1600 MW of wind turbines today.

So to use those 1600 MW of wind turbines to provide baseload power will require
5 hours x 1600 MW = 8000 MWh.
Musk's battery is about 100MWh which is EIGHTY TIMES TOO SMALL!
That must be the third time that I have posted that sum.

Ok, so your claim is based on a fallacious false premise. You are assuming they want to run the place entirely on the battery power - that isn't an accurate statement in the slightest. The intent, as the articles I have seen (and even your links have said) is to use the stored energy as emergency power in times when the current generation capacity is insufficient. Why would they need to be able to output the same capacity as the Wind Farm if they are simply supplementing it?

Be sure to read my post number #20 about Australia pumped-storage hydro

You mucked up your quote... but if I'm sorting it right, my guess is you want them to use purely pumped hydro.

OK, so how long would it take to build these pumped hydro plants? Can they build what they need in 100 days for the same cost as the battery plant? What stops them doing the battery plant now, and then building pumped hydro later (or even in tandem)? You are making this a false dichotomy as well...

 

[billvon]

I've had it with you two. I think you are just trolling me now.

Can't keep up with rational arguments? Seeing lots of words you don't understand? Getting exposed to uncomfortable perspectives and new ideas?

We see that a lot here. Well, at least you have someone to hate!

 

[Kittamaru]

I've had it with you two. I think you are just trolling me now.

*shrug* Your choice, of course... seems odd that a "world leading expert" cannot stand up to scrutiny and is unwilling to participate in discussion.

That said, if you are abandoning thread, I'm curious to see if others have anything rational to add.

 

[Baldeee]

So Musk was asked to provide a solution to a specific problem (helping with the short-term load-balancing of the grid, an issue that recently resulted in major blackouts) and you are castigating him as a snake-oil peddler for not getting South Australia to 100% renewable energy???

The issue South Australia had was an immediate (and relatively cheap) need for a way of helping the load-balancing, else they might well face significant blackouts again.
The longer-term move to 100% renewables, or anything close to that, is not nor ever was part of what he was asked to help resolve.
It was never to get 100% baseload from wind with his battery farm.

I have no issue in people slagging off others, but do so for failing to do what was asked, not failing to do what they weren't asked.

 

[Scottish Scientist]

all we have is your word that your modelling is accurate.

It is not just my "word". It's my computer modelling, it's my graphs, it is my calculations. It's everything that I have posted here in this topic
Modelling wind turbines and pumped-storage hydro for renewables-only 24/7 electrical power
and most recently it is this.

I've extended my modelling to a include back-up generators and modelled some example working system configurations using scaled real world wind turbine generation data and demand data, from the UK grid during low wind conditions in September 2014.

Graph 8. Peak Demand (52,500 MW), Store – 0.6 days x peak demand (756 GWh), Wind – 2.7 x peak demand (141,700 MW), Back-up – 0.4 x peak demand ( 21,000 MW)

I've summarised the results in a table.

Table of wind, pumped-storage & back-up factors
The factors in the table are peak demand power multipliers. Each row triplet describes a possible system configuration for 24/7/52 reliable 100% renewable energy generation.

Using these results, I have written a web-page script on-line calculator -

Wind, storage and back-up system designer (my Scottish Scientist Wordpress blog post for documentation and discussion)

Wind, storage and back-up system designer (the actual calculator web-page which has to be hosted separately because it uses javascript which Wordpress, the blog host, don't allow).

Peak demand, wind and back-up power / energy usage and storage capacity calculator

For the specification and design of renewable energy electricity generation systems which successfully smooth intermittent wind generation to serve customer demand, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and 52 weeks a year.

Adopting the recommendation derived from scientific computer modelling that the energy storage capacity be about 5 hours [see note] times the wind power capacity, the tables offer rows of previously successful modelled system configurations - row A, a configuration with no back-up power and rows B to G offering alternative ratios of wind power to back-up power. Columns consist of adjustable power and energy values in proportion to fixed multiplier factors.

The wind power generation Capacity Factor (C.F.) percentage can be adjusted too.

Note: I should caution against unrealistic "green energy" expectations following news reports of commercial engineering companies peddling - "largest ever" batteries which can store only 10 or less minutes times the wind or solar power capacity. Such relatively small energy stores are grossly insufficient to design a power-on-demand system where energy is sourced in the main from wind and solar power generators.
At best, expensive energy storage from batteries can cobble together wind and solar generators as bit-part generators in a grid system where most of the power must still come from conventional dispatchable generators, usually fired by fossil fuels. Therefore "largest ever batteries" or other battery sales in this context are a commercial marketing deception and a fraud driven by the profit motive which trick and lock-in grid managers into continuing fossil fuel dependence. Such batteries offer no "100% renewable energy solution" at reasonable cost. The established technologies to expect to be deployed for wind and solar energy storage are pumped-storage hydro and power to gas. So Elon Musk is every bit the enemy of renewable energy as Donald Trump is. At least Donald Trump is honest about supporting coal.

but the only part of that which gets a fanboy's attention is the note at the end when his hero gets called out for dishonestly peddling a "green energy solution" that is no such thing but is merely a very expensive sticking plaster for the mostly fossil-fuel powered grid status quo that doesn't offer a cost-effective way forward to 100% renewable energy.

 

[Scottish Scientist]

Funny, that statement doesn't actually mention the battery at all.

Well I was paraphrasing from your quote from this source
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/07/all-the-details-on-teslas-giant-australian-batteryt/

So let's quote it again.

"Being a failover system in case of energy shortages in the region, the Tesla battery will provide emergency power -- at least for a short time, in the context of South Australia's power demands -- and has the side benefit of lowering the chance of brownout events. Horndale already exports its excess energy production into the national grid, and is part of an AEMO trial into demonstrating that wind power can supply a baseload level of energy, known as frequency control and ancillary services or FCAS, to compete with traditional baseload sources like coal and gas."​

What I said was

"It seems to have escaped you but that is precisely what my modelling does demonstrate, that wind power can indeed supply a baseload level of energy to compete with traditional baseload sources like coal and gas."

Again, you are the one claiming it is "80 times too small" for current needs. Where are you pulling these numbers from?

From the published results of my scientific research, details of which which I have posted and linked to in this topic but which you clearly cannot be bothered to study.

One of the major results from my research is a formula for the approximate capacity of energy storage that is required

Energy storage capacity required for 24/7 baseload from wind = 5 hours x wind power capacity
or
Storage in MWh = 5 hours x wind power capacity in MW

So to provide 24/7 baseload power from South Australia's 1600MW of wind turbines will require 5 hours x 1600 MW = 8000 MWh.

This tells me that Musk's effectively 100MWh is 80 times too small to demonstrate for South Australia "that wind power can supply a baseload level of energy, known as frequency control and ancillary services or FCAS, to compete with traditional baseload sources like coal and gas."

The point isn't to supply all of the state with power from just the battery array. As was stated, repeatedly.

The point of AEMO trial is -

"demonstrating that wind power can supply a baseload level of energy, known as frequency control and ancillary services or FCAS, to compete with traditional baseload sources like coal and gas."

but the tragedy is that South Australia politicians and green energy activists the world over have been led by the nose like idiots by Musk and sold a sticking plaster to fossil-fuel dependency that demonstrates nothing except Musk can take your money.

Where was this stated? Surely you can source a quote that says that the battery farm is meant to replace the gas power stations, since your claim is so bold.

The aim as stated in text that you quoted is to trial how wind power can "compete with traditional baseload sources like coal and gas"
yet Musk's battery is NOT "competitive" but is wholly dependent on gas-power back-up to continue providing most of the power.

Ok, so your claim is based on a fallacious false premise. You are assuming they want to run the place entirely on the battery power - that isn't an accurate statement in the slightest. The intent, as the articles I have seen (and even your links have said) is to use the stored energy as emergency power in times when the current generation capacity is insufficient. Why would they need to be able to output the same capacity as the Wind Farm if they are simply supplementing it?

The climate change agenda requires that we transition to 100% renewable energy, wind, solar, storage and renewable energy back-up.

That most important green agenda requires us not to settle for 30% wind power and 70% gas power, stuck together with batteries.

Musk's agenda is to make money selling his products and never mind anything else.

You mucked up your quote... but if I'm sorting it right, my guess is you want them to use purely pumped hydro.

Read my post #20.

There’s very impressive and confidence-inspiring leadership to be heard coming out of Australia now on the potential for pumped-storage hydro to complete a 100% renewable energy grid system to serve at the heart of a transition to a renewable energy economy.

For example, here's web-page from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Online –

Pumped hydro storage ‘could make Australia run on renewable energy alone within 20 years’
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-...e-energy-sites-australia-anu-research/8966530

– includes a couple of great videos, a good review video from February this year

Pumped Hydro: Australia’s energy future?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-13/pumped-hydro:-australias-energy-future/8267126

Pumped hydro could be part of the solution to Australia’s energy instability problems. David Lipson explores the technology that’s been around for decades but is attracting new interest from the federal government.​

– and a new video of a TV News interview with world-leading expert in the field Professor Andrew Blakers

Australia could use pumped hydro for ‘100-percent renewable energy grid’ says ANU analysis
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-21/australia-could-use-pumped-hydro-for-100-percent/8966974

Professor Andrew Blakers from the Australian National University says Australia has the capacity to store up to 1,000 times more renewable energy than it could ever conceivably need.
​

OK, so how long would it take to build these pumped hydro plants? Can they build what they need in 100 days for the same cost as the battery plant? What stops them doing the battery plant now, and then building pumped hydro later (or even in tandem)? You are making this a false dichotomy as well...

Typical build time for pumped-storage is 5 to 10 years but they can be built faster if there is a rush job required.
There is absolutely no point whatsoever in building a 100MWh pumped-storage hydro scheme, the same size as Musk's 100MWh battery.

What's needed for South Australia is 5 hours times wind power capacity - right now that's 8000MWh.

So the question is what technology can South Australia afford to build 8000MWh of energy storage? That'll be pumped-storage hydro, which is affordable, not batteries which are too expensive, unless they are, like Musk's 100MWh battery, far too small to help wind to do the 24-7 baseload job.

What stops them spending their money on pumped-storage is that Musk has taken a lot of their money for a tiny, useless battery that can't help wind to do the 24-7, baseload power job but sticks them with dependence on fossil fuel gas.

 

[Scottish Scientist]

Can't keep up with rational arguments? Seeing lots of words you don't understand? Getting exposed to uncomfortable perspectives and new ideas?

We see that a lot here. Well, at least you have someone to hate!

*shrug* Your choice, of course... seems odd that a "world leading expert" cannot stand up to scrutiny and is unwilling to participate in discussion.

That said, if you are abandoning thread, I'm curious to see if others have anything rational to add.

Sorry guys. Here's my olive branch.

 

[Scottish Scientist]

So Musk was asked to provide a solution to a specific problem (helping with the short-term load-balancing of the grid, an issue that recently resulted in major blackouts) and you are castigating him as a snake-oil peddler for not getting South Australia to 100% renewable energy???

The issue South Australia had was an immediate (and relatively cheap) need for a way of helping the load-balancing, else they might well face significant blackouts again.
The longer-term move to 100% renewables, or anything close to that, is not nor ever was part of what he was asked to help resolve.
It was never to get 100% baseload from wind with his battery farm.

I have no issue in people slagging off others, but do so for failing to do what was asked, not failing to do what they weren't asked.

I'm all in favour of sticking plasters. If a nurse comes along and applies a sticking plaster then it right to love her for being a caring person who would do such a kind thing. However she would not deserve the Nobel Prize for medicine for doing so.

My issue with the battery sticking plaster to a mostly fossil-fuel powered grid is that it has been hyped up to be more than it is and Musk has encouraged that hype at every turn to secure his deal. Profits before truth and that's dishonest.

 

[Baldeee]

Deleted

 

[Baldeee]

I'm all in favour of sticking plasters. If a nurse comes along and applies a sticking plaster then it right to love her for being a caring person who would do such a kind thing. However she would not deserve the Nobel Prize for medicine for doing so.

My issue with the battery sticking plaster to a mostly fossil-fuel powered grid is that it has been hyped up to be more than it is and Musk has encouraged that hype at every turn to secure his deal. Profits before truth and that's dishonest.

Simply put you have different solutions to different questions.
If they work, then all is well and good.
But I see no hype... I think both he and the Australians are quite clear in what he is doing.
Maybe he doesn't clarify every possible misunderstanding out there.
Why does he need to?

 

[Scottish Scientist]

Simply put you have different solutions to different questions.
If they work, then all is well and good.
But I see no hype... I think both he and the Australians are quite clear in what he is doing.
Maybe he doesn't clarify every possible misunderstanding out there.
Why does he need to?

The following text in bold is very clear and it is not my words but a quote from this source https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/07/all-the-details-on-teslas-giant-australian-batteryt/

"Being a failover system in case of energy shortages in the region, the Tesla battery will provide emergency power -- at least for a short time, in the context of South Australia's power demands -- and has the side benefit of lowering the chance of brownout events. Horndale already exports its excess energy production into the national grid, and is part of an AEMO trial into demonstrating that wind power can supply a baseload level of energy, known as frequency control and ancillary services or FCAS, to compete with traditional baseload sources like coal and gas."​

It is also very clear to me, at least, that Musk's battery will NOT be doing that.
It is also clear to me that he has purposefully misled many to assume that his battery does do something like that, when it won't because it can't because its capacity is far too small, like about 80 times too small for South Australia's needs.

 

[Baldeee]

The following text in bold is very clear and it is not my words but a quote from this source https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/07/all-the-details-on-teslas-giant-australian-batteryt/

"Being a failover system in case of energy shortages in the region, the Tesla battery will provide emergency power -- at least for a short time, in the context of South Australia's power demands -- and has the side benefit of lowering the chance of brownout events. Horndale already exports its excess energy production into the national grid, and is part of an AEMO trial into demonstrating that wind power can supply a baseload level of energy, known as frequency control and ancillary services or FCAS, to compete with traditional baseload sources like coal and gas."​

It is also very clear to me, at least, that Musk's battery will NOT be doing that.
It is also clear to me that he has purposefully misled many to assume that his battery does do something like that, when it won't because it can't because its capacity is far too small, like about 80 times too small for South Australia's needs.

So you know the details of the trial, how it's going to run, and what the test parameters are to be?
You dont think they would use his battery array to test a modelled baseload that it thinks it can handle... to show that if and when you have sufficient storage that the much larger production could then offer baseload supply?
Or do you honestly think that they would test it against the full capability of the farm?

Seriously?
Do you not think that if you are capable of pointing out that it is 80 times too small to handle the full farm that Musk and his engineers would also know that?
Do you not think that maybe they will test his array (or part of) with just, say, 1% of the generated power of the farm, and model how the battery array can maintain it as a baseload?

Use some common sense, Scott.
Please.

 

[Kittamaru]

Well I was paraphrasing from your quote from this source
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/07/all-the-details-on-teslas-giant-australian-batteryt/

So let's quote it again.

"Being a failover system in case of energy shortages in the region, the Tesla battery will provide emergency power -- at least for a short time, in the context of South Australia's power demands -- and has the side benefit of lowering the chance of brownout events. Horndale already exports its excess energy production into the national grid, and is part of an AEMO trial into demonstrating that wind power can supply a baseload level of energy, known as frequency control and ancillary services or FCAS, to compete with traditional baseload sources like coal and gas."​

​

So, they are demonstrating that wind power can supply a baseload level of energy to compete with traditional sources like coal and gas. How is that relying on the battery bank to supply all (or even the majority) of power for hours at a time?

My understanding of it is, the battery bank acts as an emergency reserve in times of peak load and a load balancing device the rest of the time. Emergency power, as in it can keep the lights on during what would otherwise have been a brownout/blackout while other sources are spun up.

Still not seeing the proverbial "snake oil" here...

What I said was

"It seems to have escaped you but that is precisely what my modelling does demonstrate, that wind power can indeed supply a baseload level of energy to compete with traditional baseload sources like coal and gas."

So then, what, precisely, is your issue with the Battery Bank? You keep harping on it not having the capacity to supply the entire grid... at no point do they claim this is there intent... so you are angry that it isn't going to do something it was never intended to do? Do you get pissed off that a Honda Civic can't pull a freight train as well?

From the published results of my scientific research, details of which which I have posted and linked to in this topic but which you clearly cannot be bothered to study.

Yes yes, I've read your links and pretty pictures, and they are really cool. I appreciate them, and they are why I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt right now that you are, in fact, an intelligent person rather than someone spouting nonsense.

One of the major results from my research is a formula for the approximate capacity of energy storage that is required

Energy storage capacity required for 24/7 baseload from wind = 5 hours x wind power capacity
or
Storage in MWh = 5 hours x wind power capacity in MW

So to provide 24/7 baseload power from South Australia's 1600MW of wind turbines will require 5 hours x 1600 MW = 8000 MWh.

Where do you come to the 5xwind power capacity equation? Are you assuming purely wind power as the supply, which does not seem to be the immediate goal? If so, then there is the issue - you are operating on a faulty premise.

This tells me that Musk's effectively 100MWh is 80 times too small to demonstrate for South Australia "that wind power can supply a baseload level of energy, known as frequency control and ancillary services or FCAS, to compete with traditional baseload sources like coal and gas."

Again, you are equating the battery bank to the wind supply, and I still have not seen anything to indicate that was what they intended.

The point of AEMO trial is -

"demonstrating that wind power can supply a baseload level of energy, known as frequency control and ancillary services or FCAS, to compete with traditional baseload sources like coal and gas."

but the tragedy is that South Australia politicians and green energy activists the world over have been led by the nose like idiots by Musk and sold a sticking plaster to fossil-fuel dependency that demonstrates nothing except Musk can take your money.

And now you are back to name calling and, honestly, have jumped on the hate bandwagon. You are attributing abject failures in design to a project that was never intended to serve the purpose you are presupposing.

The aim as stated in text that you quoted is to trial how wind power can "compete with traditional baseload sources like coal and gas"
yet Musk's battery is NOT "competitive" but is wholly dependent on gas-power back-up to continue providing most of the power.

So you are pissed that they aren't simply building everything needed to power everyone in a single swoop? Man, you must have gone ballistic when the Hoover Dam was built - that thing can't even supply 3% of the US populations power!

Do you see why your present argument is, well, ridiculous?

The climate change agenda requires that we transition to 100% renewable energy, wind, solar, storage and renewable energy back-up.

There are other green technologies as well, such as geothermal, and safe alternatives that can be used to stopgap while true-green efforts are spun up.

That most important green agenda requires us not to settle for 30% wind power and 70% gas power, stuck together with batteries.

I don't see anyone "settling" for anything. This is the single largest installation of its kind. We didn't go from the Wright Flyer to the Space Shuttle overnight, after all... why would you expect renewable energy to do the same?

Musk's agenda is to make money selling his products and never mind anything else.

Oh, so you puport to know the inner workings of Musk's brain? Clearly you have some latent psionic power we plebes do not have... /s

Guess what - the agenda of literally any business is to make money. I know, that might be a bit of a shock... but sit down, this next one is a doozy. Some people, like Musk, want to make money and make the world a little better. It doesn't have to be a zero sum game!

Read my post #20.

Non-answer to the question.

Pt 1.

 

[Kittamaru]

Typical build time for pumped-storage is 5 to 10 years but they can be built faster if there is a rush job required.

I don't know about you, but if I had someone building something meant to hold 40+ million cubic meters of water a few stories up... well, I wouldn't want that "rushed", catch my drift? (Bath County - currently the US largest pumped-storage hydro plant, has a near 44 million cubic meter upper reservoir). If something went tits up, and that much water broke free... I cannot imagine the effects on things downhill would be pleasant.

There is absolutely no point whatsoever in building a 100MWh pumped-storage hydro scheme, the same size as Musk's 100MWh battery.

Yet the 100MWh battery station can go up in 100 days (estimated). By compare, the Ludington Pumped Storage Power Plant took about four years (call it 1460 days to be easy) to build to its original 1872 MW output and cost 315 million USD in 1969 (adjusted for inflation using a quick online calculator, that comes to about 2.1 Billion USD today).

So, to compare:

Musk Battery Bank
Output - 100MW
Cost USD - 25 Million
Time To Build - 100 days
Cost per MW - 250,000 USD
Time per MW - 1 day

Ludington Pumped Storage Power Plant
Output - 1872 MW
Cost USD - 2.1 Billion
Time to Build - 1460 days
Cost per MW - 1,121,795 USD
Time per MW - about 3/4 of a day

Now, factor in the upgrade Ludington got in 2008 (800 million USD to replace aging components, expand, and increase generation to 2,172 MW). Adjusted for inflation, we're looking at about an additional 909.5 million USD 2017, and it is estimated to take six years from the 2013 start date (as far as I can find, it is still ongoing)

Upgraded Ludington Pumped Storage Power Plant
Total Output - 1872 MW
Total Cost USD - about 3 billion USD
Time to Build - 2190 days
Cost per MW - 1,602,564 USD
Time per MW - about 1.1 days

Obviously a ridiculously rough direct comparison (and Ludington has the disadvantage of maintenance and such, but those costs are not factored in at this time, though I imagine with all the moving parts and the corrosive nature of water, that cannot help it), it seems that, at worst, Musk's battery bank comes in at being on-par in terms of time per megawatt to build, and comes in substantitally under in terms of cost per MW to build. However, one should also account for modularity - Musk's battery plants can be readily and easily expanded, or built in sections so that each piece can come online when completed. By compare, I cannot envision a hydro plant being quite as simple to erect in such a manner, due to the nature of, well, water itself. Not to mention the hydro plant cannot do anything until the upper and lower storage solutions are in place (where as a battery bank can be largely constructed off-site and shipped in).

So... yeah, still not seeing any "snake oil" here, just a new idea that you, apparently, really dislike.

What's needed for South Australia is 5 hours times wind power capacity - right now that's 8000MWh.

So because we have no to-scale concept built, we should abandon the idea entirely? I guess we should all be thankful you aren't an aeronautical expert, or else we'd have never put mankind on the moon!

So the question is what technology can South Australia afford to build 8000MWh of energy storage? That'll be pumped-storage hydro, which is affordable, not batteries which are too expensive, unless they are, like Musk's 100MWh battery, far too small to help wind to do the 24-7 baseload job.

See above - the battery storage actually came in far cheaper than the pumped hydro I used as an example (and from what I've found, it's one of the more successful US pumped hydro plants, with an exceptional bit of terrain that helped make it so).

What stops them spending their money on pumped-storage is that Musk has taken a lot of their money for a tiny, useless battery that can't help wind to do the 24-7, baseload power job but sticks them with dependence on fossil fuel gas.

I don't think Auz considers twenty-five million to be "a lot of their money"... and if Musk doesn't follow through, the thing costs them nothing but three months time.

Again, it just seems you have a massive hate-boner for this guy. Quit with the fanboi rhetoric and bullshit and quit setting up strawmen to knock down. If you have an actual problem with the execution based on the intent of the plan, fine. But criticizing it for doing something it was never intended to do is just stupid.

 

[Kittamaru]

So you know the details of the trial, how it's going to run, and what the test parameters are to be?
You dont think they would use his battery array to test a modelled baseload that it thinks it can handle... to show that if and when you have sufficient storage that the much larger production could then offer baseload supply?
Or do you honestly think that they would test it against the full capability of the farm?

Seriously?
Do you not think that if you are capable of pointing out that it is 80 times too small to handle the full farm that Musk and his engineers would also know that?
Do you not think that maybe they will test his array (or part of) with just, say, 1% of the generated power of the farm, and model how the battery array can maintain it as a baseload?

Use some common sense, Scott.
Please.

Apparently Scott doesn't stress-test or load-test his designs... and when he does, it's in full-scale production. Hm... maybe he helped design and build Galloping Gertie?

Of course, there's also the consideration that this plant is going up in under 4 months, whereby the quickest decently scaled pumped-hydro I can find took three years... and the largest Pumped Hydro station that I can find, the Bath County Pumped Storage Station, had an original output of 2,100 MW, started construction in March 1977 and was completed December 1985 at a cost of 1.6 billion USD (roughly 6.5 billion USD adjusted for inflation). It was upgraded between 2004 and 2009 to add newer and more efficient turbines, bringing it to just over 3,000 MW total output.

Overall, it took 105 months to build, and another 60 or so to upgrade. And it would take THREE of these stations (so almost 20 billion USD) to generate the 8,000MW Scott is saying is needed... three stations each storing ten million or more cubic meters of water. Fresh water only, I believe, due to the corrosive nature of Salt Water... I hope Australia has an abundance of fresh water to spare!

 

[Scottish Scientist]

Do you not think that if you are capable of pointing out that it is 80 times too small to handle the full farm

I didn't "point out" any such wrong point.

I pointed out a formula
Energy storage required = 5 hours multiplied by wind power capacity

I pointed out that the wind power capacity of South Australia is 1600MW.
I pointed out that 5 hours x 1600MW = 8000MWh which is 80 times more than Musk's effectively 100MWh battery.

The "full farm", Hornsea is reported in that same source as "315 MW". The third stage of that wind farm is reported as "109 MW".

"The third partner in the Hornsdale renewable and battery consortium, French company Neoen, is fast-tracking the development of renewable power sources across Australia and is aiming for 1GW in wind and solar before 2020, including the third 109MW stage of the 315MW Hornsdale Wind Farm that the Tesla PowerPack will be installed alongside."​

So using my formula again,

The full 315 MW farm requires energy storage of 5 hours x 315 MW = 1575 MW, which is 15 times bigger than Musk's battery's 100 MWh.

The third stage 109 MW farm requires energy storage of 5 hours x 109 MW = 545 MW, which is 5 times bigger than Musk's battery's 100 MWh.

It matters not if the trial discovers, too late, that a 100MWh is suitable for providing 24-7 baseload power from a smaller wind power capacity which I can calculate now by rearranging my formula.

Wind power capacity = Energy storage divided by 5 hours

So Musk's 100 MWh battery can be used to provide 24-7 baseload power from

wind power capacity = 100 MWh / 5 hours = 20 MW

Musk's battery has been promoted as a solution for South Australia and its 1600 MW and growing wind farms and that's why Musk got his money.

Musk would never have got his money for a battery for a small 20 MW wind farm so he didn't sell it on that honest prospectus, but misled to make the sale on a false prospectus and that's what all the hype was about.