3 ms·

The takeaway (if I'm reading the graphs correctly) is that the Gladstone coal unit took over 3 minutes to respond to the Loy Yang failure. It was contracted to

by jobu 9y ago

The takeaway (if I'm reading the graphs correctly) is that the Gladstone coal unit took over 3 minutes to respond to the Loy Yang failure. It was contracted to respond within 6 seconds, but couldn't. Fortunately the Tesla battery was able to respond within milliseconds and cover the gap. It's a good bit of PR for Tesla, and could have some negative implications for coal or gas fired backup units.

pwagland 9y ago
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
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jobu 9y ago
  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-frequeny-fig-2-copy.jpg 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)
  - jermaustin1 9y ago
    There are two types of people in the world: those that can extrapolate meaning from an incomplete set.
    - leereeves 9y ago
      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?

by jobu 9y ago

pwagland 9y ago

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

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jobu 9y ago
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-frequeny-fig-2-copy.jpg 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)
- jermaustin1 9y ago
  There are two types of people in the world: those that can extrapolate meaning from an incomplete set.
  - leereeves 9y ago
    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?