Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday March 10 2017, @09:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the no-such-thing-as-bad-publicity dept.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/10/elon-musk-i-can-fix-south-australia-power-network-in-100-days-or-its-free

Elon Musk, the billionaire founder of electric car giant Tesla, has thrown down a challenge to the South Australian and federal governments, saying he can solve the state's energy woes within 100 days – or he'll deliver the 100MW battery storage system for free.

On Thursday, Lyndon Rive, Tesla's vice-president for energy products, told the AFR the company could install the 100-300 megawatt hours of battery storage that would be required to prevent the power shortages that have been causing price spikes and blackouts in the state.

Thanks to stepped-up production out of Tesla's new Gigafactory in Nevada, he said it could be achieved within 100 days.

Mike Cannon-Brookes, the Australian co-founder of Silicon Valley startup Atlassian, on Friday tweeted Elon Musk, asking if Tesla was serious about being able to install the capacity.

Musk replied that the company could do it in 100 days of the contract being signed, or else provide it free, adding: "That serious enough for you?"


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday March 10 2017, @09:53PM (11 children)

    by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Friday March 10 2017, @09:53PM (#477554)

    Though the article is sloppy by using MWh and MW interchangeably.

    The article the article references is not sloppy in that manner, but also does not list the actual capacity in MW. Apparently a 1600MW plant is being closed down. 300MWh over 4 hours is only 75MW.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @10:12PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @10:12PM (#477560)

    Isn't that just 1.6 jigawatts?

  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday March 10 2017, @10:16PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Friday March 10 2017, @10:16PM (#477564)

    > 300MWh over 4 hours is only 75MW.

    It could be 100MW peak output, 75MW continuous over 4 hours, or even 100MW initial, sloping down to 50 or less in the last minutes of the 4 hours...

  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday March 10 2017, @11:02PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday March 10 2017, @11:02PM (#477579) Journal
    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday March 10 2017, @11:03PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday March 10 2017, @11:03PM (#477581) Journal

    Part of the confusion could stem from a tweet by Mike Cannon-Brookes that uses MW instead of MWh.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday March 10 2017, @11:25PM (6 children)

    by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Friday March 10 2017, @11:25PM (#477588)

    One of the commentors under TFA has an interesting point:
    Kickthismobout

    Duetcher Bank says that by the end of 2017 solar will be same price to generate as fossil generation in 80% of the world market.

    By 2020 no matter where you are rooftop solar unsubsidised will become cheaper than the cost of transmission, so even if cost of power is zero solar will be cheaper because it will be cheaper to generate than for companies to send it to you.

    Solar plus storage will be cheaper than transmission in 2022 - this in fact is how costs stack up in Australia right now if only our leaders would acknowledge this.

    This means in 2022 solar will be the same as oil at $10 a barrel and gas at $5, uncompetitive!

    What this means is we are seeing the last rem ants of greed by oil companies, they are milking us for the last few dollars they can squeeze before they are destroyed.

    I kind of believe it. We already pay more for transmission than generation.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11 2017, @02:33AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11 2017, @02:33AM (#477631)

      I believe the numbers too.
      But I wish there was a link to the actual report.
      It seems like it is only available to paying customers of the Deutsche Bank.
      Here's confirmation though:

      http://reneweconomy.com.au/carbon-crash-solar-dawn-deutsche-bank-on-why-solar-has-already-won-51105/ [reneweconomy.com.au]

      I'm not sure that's necessarily good news for Tesla's battery and solar operations. Rapid price commodization can crush early entrants who have amortized debt that companies entering after the price crash don't have. In a sense its better for a company like Tesla to keep the price reductions from happening too quickly.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11 2017, @02:51AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11 2017, @02:51AM (#477644)

      Then why is the electricity in Germany, with lots of renewables, so expensive? Average cost to consumers is 32 cents / kWh (US).

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Saturday March 11 2017, @01:17PM

        by maxwell demon (1608) on Saturday March 11 2017, @01:17PM (#477736) Journal

        Because of the way the system has set up, the consumer prices go up when the market prices go down.

        The way this works is as follows: The government gave guarantees for the prices you get for renewable electricity, based on what it cost to produce back then (it wasn't yet competitive on its own). This was achieved not by setting a fixed price on the power, but by making the price two-component: First, the actual price they get for the electricity, as determined on the market. And second, a component that tops up that price to the guaranteed one. However that second component is paid for only by the normal consumers and small companies, not by the big industry. Which means that when the production price goes down, the big industry gets the advantage, but the consumers pay the difference between true and guaranteed price not only for the electricity they themselves consume, but in addition for the renewable electricity those big companies buy.

        So for understanding how this works, let's say for simplicity the production and consumption of renewable electricity is constant. Now assume the market price halves. Due to the guaranteed price for the producers, this doesn't affect the money they receive. But the big companies who only have to pay the market price now only have pay half as much. The difference has to be paid for by the normal consumers, whose electricity price rises accordingly.

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday March 11 2017, @02:01PM (2 children)

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Saturday March 11 2017, @02:01PM (#477744) Journal

        Why is the electricity in New York, with so much nuclear and coal and natural gas, so expensive at 35 cents/kwh?

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11 2017, @06:20PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11 2017, @06:20PM (#477812)

          And organized crime/grovelment?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11 2017, @10:14PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11 2017, @10:14PM (#477866)

          Revolving-door regulators?
          AKA "protectors" protecting their actual constituents (corporations and their profits).

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]