Twenty Month Payback for Tesla 100-MW Utility Scale Battery Storage System

Australia has determined that Tesla 100MW battery system saved $40 million and the system had cost only $66 million. This is a 20-month payback on the investment.

Tesla’s 100MW/129MWh Powerpack project in South Australia provide the same grid services as peaker plants, but cheaper, quicker, and with zero-emissions, through its battery system.

Here are the key findings from the report are that the Hornsdale Power Reserve:

* Has contributed to the removal of the requirement for a 35 MW local Frequency Control Ancillary Service (FCAS), saving nearly $40 million per year in typical annual costs
* Has reduced the South Australian regulation FCAS price by 75% while also providing these services for other regions
* Provides a premium contingency service with response time of less than 100 milliseconds
* Helps protect South Australia from being separated from the National Electricity Market
* Is key to the Australian Energy Market Operator’s (AEMO) and ElectraNet’s System Integrity Protection Scheme (SIPS) which protects the SA-VIC Heywood Interconnector from overload

[scribd id=395050069 key=key-dRCMVblSULN87eBEaJ1C mode=scroll]

33 thoughts on “Twenty Month Payback for Tesla 100-MW Utility Scale Battery Storage System”

  1. In a way it is similar in form to a non sequitur to describe a battery as zero emissions – at best it is a shrill marketing ploy. My air compressor has zero emissions. my water tower has zero emissions. My Cheerios have no cholesterol

  2. You are aware that Nuclear requires batteries, and that Lithium batteries cost less on an amortized basis than pumped hydro?

  3. From the article it seems like price is suppressed and the private owners are making their money back. Do you mean the article to say something else?

  4. You should endeavor to show the article–which contradicts you exactly–is wrong.

    ” The rest of the money comes from 30MW/119MWh allocated to wholesale electricity market, and most of this comes in the frequency control and ancillary services (FCAS) market, where it responds to sudden changes in frequency, such as when big coal units trip (and there has been more than 100 of those since the battery went into service just over 12 months ago). ”

    HT Goldrocket below.

  5. ” Cheerios with milk has cholesterol. Batteries with traditional methods of generation has emissions. ” <– So what? Batteries are still a far more efficient way to store and transport the energy, and electric uses of that power for transportation are still far more efficient than IC engines. Batteries also don’t care where their energy comes from, their sources do not have to be “traditional” or polluting.

    You can have your Cheerios with water if you like, but if you claim to enjoy it I think you’ll be lying then as you deceive now.

  6. Except there are no ludicrous emissions associated with the creation of batteries, and unlike fossil fuels, batteries are recyclable. What other deceitful points to you pretend to have?

  7. If you’d read the articles, most of their interventions have been to to respond to trips of COAL FIRED power stations, often happening interstate.

  8. VS all other sources have all the same ludicrous amounts of emissions created during the whole process of mining, transporting, and refining of the raw materials, and then the manufacturing, testing, transporting AND ludicrous amounts of emissions after all that. I will take the Tesla battery way ty.

  9. That is an interesting assertion, given that wind power is typically highly unpredictable. Do you have any sources to back it up?

  10. I loved it when the Brits paid “diesel farms” big bucks to augment their unreliable power supply. So much for worrying about real pollution.

  11. The “savings” is for a facility only required due to wind power disrupting the grid. Hardly a “saving”.

  12. And the manufacture of the wind turbines caused more pollution than they will “save” and expending more energy than they will produce.

  13. “…and with zero-emissions, through its battery system.”

    Except, of course, the ludicrous amount of emissions created during the whole process of mining, transporting, and refining of the raw materials, and then the manufacturing, testing, packing, transporting, and installing of the finished products. Wash, rinse, and repeat for all of the replacement batteries and miscellaneous parts.

  14. ”some would put it” says nothing about its truth value only that some would lie.

    It has been shown that wind has at all points of the wholesale electric prices dampened prices. You can find the studies on the web. But can you evaluate experimental design enough to see through what “some would say”?

  15. Minutes if in standy modes, burning gas to stay hot. Here in u.s. some peakers produce a few hours a year yet are always burning gas.

  16. Derp.
    Fell for extraction industry agi-prop.
    Everthing you wrote in exactly wrong.
    price surges were due to coal inflexibility, anything below flat out reduces profitability.
    Turbines have reduced electric prices at all points in cost curve.
    Long distance transmission was built out to support the coal plants.
    Managements decisions are to boost price and hence returns. There’s little the transmission/electric companies can decide regarding wholesale market price of electricty.

  17. Yes, Australia has had power prices increase a lot over the past decade or so as a combination of

    1. A lot of long distance infrastructure spending (big distances / small population)
    2. Coal being replaced by stuff like wind farms
    3. Bad management decisions
  18. Or, as some would put it, the South Australian battery is required to compensate for the intermittency of the wind farms.

  19. My point is soon they won’t be the ONLY battery based option. Other battery systems have already been slated for South Australia.

  20. “… with zero emissions…”

    Love it.

    My box of Cheerios has “zero cholesterol” written on it…. because Cheerios made of oats.

    Cheerios with milk has cholesterol. Batteries with traditional methods of generation has emissions.

    Don’t Aussies pay as much as Krauts for their electricity?

  21. There are a lot of players in the market mostly running instant on gas turbine powered generators, basically a jet engine connected to a generator. Quite expensive to run and maintain. And it takes minutes to get up to speed. There are also CGT units (GT followed by a steam unit) but those take 30 mins to an hour to get up to max. Batteries have lower capacity but faster response and maybe now cheaper cost.

  22. I suspect this plant can only achieve those results because it’s the first in the market. As soon as a number of competitors show up the prices that can be charged for these services will decline, along with individual market shares.

  23. Right now with interest rates between 2%-3% a payback period under 30 yrs is a good investment.

    Solar panels and a small storage unit would be great for rural electrification. Especially in remote areas.

Comments are closed.