The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[sendler]

That shows a couple instances of 20MW, But that article also reaffirms the main attraction to owning the BFB is cash farming a very volatile and increasingly fragile grid as Australia moves to prematurely shut down it's coal plants without a real replacement first.

[RedDevil]

As I see the graph, it doesn't so much maximize revenue but rather works its *** off to stabilize the grid.
At the left it alternates generation and load while the price is pretty much stable.
When the price drops rock bottom it does charge, but at varying rates.
so far so good.

Then, some time before the price goes positive again, it starts generating power!
At a loss. Because it has already seen the upcoming demand and is playing in on it?

It would have been easy to not do that and maximize profit.
I really think it does good there.

[sendler]

There are other charts I been looking at on another thread that show the BFB does absolutely nothing to the grid since it is so small compared to GW scale coal plants. Which by the way, appear to have reacted even more quickly to the drop out in the chart I posted above. The 10MW the BFB chipped in is a tiny percentage of the 560MW that dropped out. That price chart is apparently very smoothed or low resolution compared to some others I have seen where the BFB is very obviously just farming money.

[NeilBlanchard]

The spikes show what the grid needs - not the maximum capacity of the battery installation. And it shows your post about 8MW was baseless.

How is that a problem?

The grid operators love it. It fixes the problem they were having with their conventional generation. And as we transition to renewable energy, batteries will be an important part of the solution.

[sendler]

The grid needed 560MW. And the BFB gave out 8.
.
.

.
.
And was no faster than some of the coal plants to ramp up.
.
.


.
.

[NeilBlanchard]

It's response time is a few milliseconds. It can produce more than 8MW.

They will be building more storage capacity, because it makes sense, and it makes money. Reposting the same graph with erroneous assertions is futile.

People who think we can just continue burning coal - with its huge effect on climate, and mercury pollution, and fly ash pollution, and huge health problems - are simply wrong.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

It's response time is a few milliseconds. It can produce more than 8MW.

I can see you are very defensive of this. Why didn't it? and why didn't it?

[sendler]

Here is a site which posts discharge data from the Tesla BigF'nBattery. There are often 30MW peaks. But never any real amount of area under the graph.
.
NemWeb
.
So I am still surprised to see only 8MW reported in a real emergency drop out of 560MW. And the other thing to remember is the scale of what we are trying to replace. Even if the BFB could maintain 30 MW for 4 hours and make it's rating, which it has yet to do for more than a few minutes, this is still only 5% of a small coal plant that we are trying to replace and only for 4 hours. We would need 120 BFBs just to make up for the output of that 1 plant for 1 day.

[freebeard]

so...Load balancing?

edit: It looks like locally, we're coming to the end of the wet season:

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by sendler

I can see you are very defensive of this. Why didn't it? and why didn't it?

Just correcting your erroneous post. The "evidence" you show is demonstrably wrong - still.