Tesla Makes Good On 100-Day Promise By Completing Install Of World’s Biggest Battery

3 months ago by Mark Kane 25

Tesla

Tesla Powerpack to Enable Large Scale Sustainable Energy to South Australia

Tesla has completed the world’s largest battery energy storage contract in Australia – a 100 MW/129 MWh system that needed to be ready by December 2017 (in 100 days).

Tesla Powerpack

Missing the deadline would make have made the installation free of charge according to Elon Musk’s very public wager.

According to the latest report, the ESS is now up and running, so the ball is now on the side of they utilities that need to now test and approve the station for the duty.

“Regulatory testing will begin in the next few days to ensure the battery is optimised and meets AEMO and South Australian Government requirements, before operation commences on Dec. 1.”

The ESS will support the Hornsdale Wind Farm, which is operated by renewable energy provider Neoen near Jamestown.

Elon Musk said:

“Congratulations to the Tesla crew and South Australian authorities who worked so hard to get this manufactured and installed in record time!”

 

source: Mashable, Bloomberg

Tags: , , ,

25 responses to "Tesla Makes Good On 100-Day Promise By Completing Install Of World’s Biggest Battery"

  1. Mister G says:

    GO TESLA GO DESTROY TOXIC FOSSIL FUEL CARTEL LOL

    1. L'amaata says:

      Now that that’s out of the way ., They can start making Model 3 batteries…..

  2. SparkEV says:

    Is this the very first time that Tesla delivered anything on time? Hell must have frozen over and dumped all that heat to SoCal; it was 97F degrees where I live, and it’s was Thanksgiving day!

    1. Nix says:

      Actually, there have been quite a few installs of grid battery backup systems done on-time by Tesla. In fact, every single one reported here on insideev’s were all on time.

    2. terminaltrip421 says:

      curious where you are. I’m in the coachella valley (desert) where it was almost certainly in the 90s just not necessarily 97. will have to check.

  3. Tom says:

    Pretty cool.

  4. Ron M says:

    I wonder what that total amount of MW’s of Powerwall, Powerwall2 and PowerPack have been sold to date.

  5. Miguel says:

    Let’s now crack-up 3 volume…

  6. Someone out there says:

    Apparently Samsung pulled out of the bidding for the contract because they couldn’t make a profit so they sold their cells to Tesla instead. The question is how much money Tesla lost on this deal?

    1. Mark.ca says:

      You are a prime example of why parents should never drop their kids onto their heads.

      1. Someone out there says:

        Really? Do you have anything else than insults and abuse?

        1. Mark.ca says:

          For you, no! Give up on your constant and persistent trolling and we’ll talk. You are just a know nothing assuming fool.

    2. Nix says:

      So if Samsung didn’t have factory floor and assembly equipment already in place needed for a project of that volume, so their upfront costs were prohibitive, that means Tesla can’t make money on the project? Or that Samsung’s costs for other parts besides the cells are too high.

      Tesla’s profits on their solar and energy lines of business are publicly available in their SEC reports:

      Revenue for Energy generation and storage: 317,505
      Cost of Revenue for Energy generation and storage: 237,288

      That’s a very healthy margin. It looks like a win for Tesla, and a sign that Samsung is far behind.

      1. Someone out there says:

        I’m glad that you brought that up. Those numbers include SolarCity solar sales. If you deduct the solar sales from the total you find that Tesla actually sold batteries at a -33% gross margin. Yes, they lost money selling batteries, the batteries cost more than they sold them for.

        So what looks like win to you is actually a big fail.

        1. Nix says:

          The only problem with your assertion, is that it is factually incorrect. The reality is that Tesla’s profits are from BOTH energy and solar. This is documented in their latest SEC filings.

          But it cracks me up. Haters like you whined and cried about how bad a deal Tesla was making buying Solar City, and now you guys repeatedly make outlandish claims about how big the profits are on the solar side of the business.

          So which is it? Solar is massively profitable, and you nutters got it wrong, or solar was a horrible idea, and is going to lose Tesla money? Because you guys can’t seem to get your story straight.

          1. Someone out there says:

            Ok, let’s check it out together, shall we?

            Here’s the 10-Q for Q3 2017
            https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000156459017021343/tsla-10q_20170930.htm

            Page 35:

            “Energy generation and storage revenue includes sales of solar energy systems and energy storage products, leasing revenue from solar energy systems under operating leases and power purchase agreements and sales of solar energy system incentives. Energy generation and storage revenue increased by $294.2 million, or 1261%, in the three months ended September 30, 2017 as compared to the three months ended September 30, 2016. Energy generation and storage revenue increased by $768.2 million, or 1536%, in the nine months ended September 30, 2017 as compared to the nine months ended September 30, 2016. These increases were primarily due to the inclusion of revenue from SolarCity, which we acquired on November 21, 2016, of $273.0 million and $752.8 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017, respectively, as well as increases in sales of our energy storage products.”

            So energy storage revenue, after deducting the solar revenue = $317-$273 = $44 million

            Continued on page 37:

            “Cost of energy generation and storage revenue includes direct material and labor costs, overhead of solar energy systems and energy storage products, depreciation expense and maintenance costs associated with leased solar energy systems. Cost of energy generation and storage revenue increased by $213.0 million, or 877%, in the three months ended September 30, 2017 as compared to the three months ended September 30, 2016. Cost of energy generation and storage revenue increased by $542.3 million, or 1073%, in the nine months ended September 30, 2017 as compared to the nine months ended September 30, 2016. These increases were primarily due to the inclusion of energy generation and storage costs from SolarCity of $178.1 million and $497.5 million in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017, respectively, as well as increases in sales of energy storage products as a result of growing popularity of our Powerpack and Powerwall offerings.

            So energy storage COGS, after deducting the solar COGS = $237-$178 = $59 million

            I.e. the power products cost $59 million to make and sold for $44 million.

            1. Mark.ca says:

              There you go! I knew you were a SA troll and here is proof! You remind me of one of my dumb neighbors. When i told him my solar array costed me $14k he said his electricity only costs him $2k per year. You get where I’m going with this?

  7. Mel4EV says:

    A solar array above the batteries would be a great addition – provide cooling in the very hot Aussie sun, and to add to the generating capacity. Cooling presently would be by a/c.

    1. DJ says:

      I have wondered the same or even just some sort of canopy. Leaving the batteries to bake in the sun doesn’t seem like the best idea when for pretty cheap they could put a canopy over them and keep them a heck of a lot cooler during the day.

  8. Ian says:

    I hope someone is doing a documentary starting with the blackouts and following the construction of this project and the effects this project will have on the power grid.

  9. DJ says:

    Holy crap. Tesla met a deadline on time!

    1. ffbj says:

      Because, they had to.

  10. Mike says:

    I would like to see a comparison of how long that would have taken with coal or natural gas and what would have been the turn-around time to add a significant amount of either solar or wind

    1. Some Guy says:

      Start-up of operation of a 100 MW gas peaker plant from scratch (before first permit) should be about 2 years, including bidding process, as also infrastructure (gas supply) has to be considered. And that is not accounting for the local population of Nimby’s in route of the pipeline. There are no coal paeker plants, but building coal plants in western countries can easily take a few years. It’s basically all limited custom made stuff, like turbines, furnaces etc. Nothing from shelf, most comes from third party that has own bidding process once main contractor has won the bid for the plant.
      Whereas Tesla just has scalable mass production powerpacks, everyone alike, that easily fit into shipping containers and can to some extant taken straight from a warehouse.

  11. kubel says:

    Tesla needs to make this guarantee for everyone.

    Model 3 on-time, or it’s free?

Leave a Reply