Tesla To Construct 'Virtual Solar Power Plant' Using 50,000 Homes (cleantechnica.com) 199
Long-time Slashdot readers denbesten, haruchai, and Kant all submitted this story. CleanTechnica reports:
Tesla and the government of South Australia have announced a stunning new project that could change how electricity is generated not only in Australia but in every country in the world. They plan to install rooftop solar system on 50,000 homes in the next four years and link them them together with grid storage facilities to create the largest virtual solar power plant in history. And here's the kicker: The rooftop solar systems will be free. The cost of the project will be recouped over time by selling the electricity generated to those who consume it.
"We will use people's homes as a way to generate energy for the South Australian grid, with participating households benefiting with significant savings in their energy bills," says South Australia's premier Jay Weatherill. "More renewable energy means cheaper power for all South Australians..." Price predicts utility bills for participating households will be slashed by 30%.
Electrek reports that the project will result in at least 650 MWh of additional energy storage capacity, and Tesla points out that "At key moments, the virtual power plant could provide as much capacity as a large gas turbine or coal power plant."
"We will use people's homes as a way to generate energy for the South Australian grid, with participating households benefiting with significant savings in their energy bills," says South Australia's premier Jay Weatherill. "More renewable energy means cheaper power for all South Australians..." Price predicts utility bills for participating households will be slashed by 30%.
Electrek reports that the project will result in at least 650 MWh of additional energy storage capacity, and Tesla points out that "At key moments, the virtual power plant could provide as much capacity as a large gas turbine or coal power plant."
Interesting Idea (Score:1)
Ferret
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
But if Tesla can build the solar panelling for ~.50USD/W, it might be doable in 7.5-15 years (I calculated recoup costs at 30 years as requiring ~0.30c/KWh power pricing to make it back, based off an 8 hour/day generation period.
According to this page : https://electrek.co/2017/10/30/elon-musk-tesla-work-harder-australia-power-problem/
South Australia is already paying ~$0.47 per kWh ( not sure if that is AUD or USD )
According to this PDF : https://www.originenergy.com.au/content/dam/origin/residential/docs/energy-price-fact-sheets/sa/1July2017/SA_Electricity_Residential_SA%20Power%20Networks_Standard%20Published%20Rate.PDF
Current network prices are ~$0.40 AUD INC GST ( GST = Sales tax )
Taking the cheaper of the two xe.com says that
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And batteries for the millisecond-scale response times to bridge the gap until those backups spin up.
Re: (Score:2)
Great news! (Score:4, Informative)
This is great news for rental tenants and others who can't make the numbers work on a solar system. South Australians can register their interest at http://ourenergyplan.sa.gov.au/virtual-power-plant
Re: (Score:2)
Providing they can convince their landlords to have it installed.
If the cheap power then makes their property more valuable to renters, they'll up the rent.
I don't see how this would benefit renters.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course this is in reference to private rentals, not state housing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great news! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Great news! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great news! (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the Australian "lower level govvie drones" quoted in the article was the premier of South Australia, so not exactly lower level. Your theme seems to be that those in government are always stupid, corporations making profit is always evil, and absolute cynicism about everything is always warranted. You could be replaced by one of those little dippy drinking birds placed in the voting booth every election and the world wouldn't even notice your nonexistence.
Re: (Score:2)
This is great news for rental tenants and others who can't make the numbers work on a solar system. South Australians can register their interest at http://ourenergyplan.sa.gov.au... [sa.gov.au]
Perhaps they can also sell shares in this & similar projects, making sure that individuals can buy in & not have it all taken up by big money.
This should play well in markets with high electricity pricing like Australia, Hawaii, Germany & California.
And now that Tesla has opened the door, I expect to see other players in energy storage such as Sonnebatterie try to make similar deals.
Re: (Score:2)
typo: Should be SonneNbatterie, not Sonnebatterie
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
This should play well in markets with high electricity pricing like Australia, Hawaii, Germany & California.
And now that Tesla has opened the door, I expect to see other players in energy storage such as Sonnebatterie try to make similar deals.
Solar power is expensive and unreliable. Sure, batteries address the reliability problem but then add to the cost. Without the batteries then it's cheaper but then something has to fill in the gap during the night. This means burning oil or natural gas.
I'm sure we'll see competition in batteries being supplied but they all use the same materials and technology to create those batteries. They can only get so cheap. The cheapest batteries are the ones you don't have to buy.
Coal, oil, natural gas, and nuc
Re: Great news! (Score:1)
Solar power has proven to be affordable and reliable. Not only that, it is a safe investment.
Give me 1 billion in dollars, I can begin to deliver power before the week is out, even in Australia. Given 10 billion, there is no guarantee that a nuclear plant will ever deliver.
The same people of South Australia deserve the benefits of solar, not the sure and certain waste of nuclear.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Whatever. I'll listen to the people that ran the numbers.
https://blogs.scientificameric... [scientificamerican.com]
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co... [roadmaptonowhere.com]
Where did you get your numbers from?
Re: Great news! (Score:1)
Reality.
1 billion dollars? I can buy solar panels and start to install them immediately. Would begin in a week if I wanted.
A nuclear plant? You'll not produce a single watt without wasting 10 billion dollars. And you'll come back begging for more money when you run out.
You know that's how it will happen. If Australian money wasn't plastic they'd be better off burning it. Literally, it would be less wasteful than nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you get your numbers from?
From any jurisdiction where the legal system allows infrastructure projects to be held up indefinitely by any group of activists with a grudge. With enough lawyers, you can make a local street improvement project cost ten billion dollars and look like the worst investment of all time.
Re:Great news! (Score:4, Informative)
Nuclear power is reliable, inexpensive (at least compared to solar + batteries), carbon free, and also the safest energy source we have.
Not sure what planet you're living on. Sure it's reasonably reliable. But I don't think anyone in their right mind would consider it inexpensive. Also, it's definitely not carbon free due to the immense amounts of concrete required to build the plants, never mind mine the Uranium and enrich it. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your argument.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Can you give citations for your claims? I'll provide a couple.
Nuclear has lower carbon footprint than solar:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/so... [carbonbrief.org]
Nuclear power is safer and cheaper than solar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:Great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ooh, youtube citations! I can do that too:
Solar is becoming cheaper than all other alternative energy sources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
He specifically talks about nuclear here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Tony Seba suggests that personal rooftop solar will eventually be cheaper than any grid supply, even a fantastical free energy supply, because its cost will drop below the cost of transmission:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone of your citations is based on speculation, not real historical data.
*cough*
Those predictions are based on the extrapolation of past historical trends. In particular, Tony Seba has been tracking solar since 1976:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Just to remind you, all of the things that I've talked about - batteries, EVs, self-driving, and solar - are technologies. The adoption curve for technologies is never linear. When you read the reports from the IEA, from the OECD and so on, they will tell you, "One percent EV penetration, 2%, 3%, 4%, 5%, right? And maybe at some point in 2040 it'll get to 10%, or whatever; same thing for solar. But whether they do it on purpose, or they don't understand technology, I don't know.
Ramez Naan compares forecasts that the IEA has made, and points out that IEA is linearly projecting the future of solar, whereas solar is clearly progressing exponentially, and has been for a long time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Also, it's definitely not carbon free due to the immense amounts of concrete required to build the plants, never mind mine the Uranium and enrich it.
The more carbon-free the total economy becomes, the sillier this argument gets. At some point all mining and construction equipment will be electric and as carbon-free as the grid mix allows at the time. And in the meantime, ANY type of mining, smelting and construction is carbon-intensive to the same degree as nuclear. Wind turbine blades and towers are not being made by elves at the North Pole.
Re:Great news! (Score:4, Interesting)
Nuclear is not an option. South Australia does have uranium but there is no domestic market and likely never will be - political suicide to anyone who would stare down environmentalists.
There were murmurs about commissioning a study a year or two back but any motion would ultimately be defeated by both the coal lobby and the greens.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nuclear is not an option.
Nuclear is always an option.
South Australia does have uranium but there is no domestic market and likely never will be - political suicide to anyone who would stare down environmentalists.
Then the "environmentalists" are ignorant, or idiots, or quite possibly both. Nuclear power produces less carbon than solar and kills fewer birds than wind. If these people are concerned about global warming and saving rare birds then they'd support nuclear power just as much or more than wind and solar.
There were murmurs about commissioning a study a year or two back but any motion would ultimately be defeated by both the coal lobby and the greens.
Do the lobbies vote or do the people? I'm sure both lobbying groups contain a lot of people but just how many coal miners are there? I've already established the "greenies" ar
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear is never an option when people are ready to take up arms and fight it.
No idea in what phantasie world you live.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is clearly totally fucking stupid and demonstrates that environmentalists don't have a clue.
They should be demanding nuclear and hoping it goes pop. The Chernobyl exclusion zone is a wildlife paradise these days.
Re: (Score:2)
For the wildlife, as it is no longer hunted by men. ...
For humans living there it is still deadly. Considering that a deer lives about than ten years and a human around 70
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, there is a continuous stream of new animals moving in to replace the ones that die.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Solar may not be an industrial baseload, but it can be a good residential backup in places as sunny and as sprawling (high ratio of roof area to population) as South Australia. I'm assuming that eventually photovoltaic will be built into roofing material by default. You will have to order special "shade roof" for places that don't get any sun.
Re:Great news! (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed, I am in SA, and in the first year since my 2kw solar was installed at a cost of $4000 aus, I have saved $1000 on my power bills. I am producing more than I use to run aircon 24/7, but due to the low feed in rate, still have small bills of around $200 aud/ quarter for nightime use. Currently generating 90kw/h per week, and use 77 kwh per week. As the feed in is 11c per kwh and power is 30c per kwh, still get a bill, however when I get a battery, I expect bills to drop to supply charge only.
Re: (Score:2)
Four years is accurate for Australia. Almost one fourth of all homes in Australia have solar on them. The super fast payback period is why.
The payback period is so fast because Australia has the most expensive electricity in the developed world. Because of this, Australia also has the most developed residential solar installation industry in the world. The blokes in Australia can do a residential install for around a third of the price of a residential install in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Maths fail, $200 for 3 months does not equal $40 per month. Hot water is gas, so not included at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you dont shower, dont assume others dont.
Re: (Score:2)
This is great news for rental tenants and others who can't make the numbers work on a solar system. South Australians can register their interest at http://ourenergyplan.sa.gov.au... [sa.gov.au]
Did your solar system include Pluto?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I would love to go solar but I rent so it's pretty much up to the landlord. It would be nice to have someone who will work with landlords to get it.
Yes, (Score:4, Funny)
we .au techs have informed them that it is in fact a Distributed Power Plant, not a Virtual one (but if they want unlimited virtual power i have these solar panels in minecraft they could use).
PSA + bad jokes expended. My work here is done.
Re: (Score:2)
(but if they want unlimited virtual power i have these solar panels in minecraft they could use).
Mate, unless you've got the Galacticraft mod installed, those'll be light sensors, not solar panels.
Not new, others have been doing this (Score:2)
Solar panels are always connected to the grid. And several other companies have offered to install them for free if the householder pays slightly reduced power costs to the company.
The key point is that only about 1/4 of the cost of buying power is the generation. About half is in transmission and distribution. And the other quarter in admin, solar subsidies etc. So we pay about 21c/kwh, but only get paid about 6c/kwh to give power to the grid.
That means the real benefit is to be able to use the power d
Re: (Score:2)
The kicker is that soon (5 years?) batteries will be cheap enough for people to go off grid altogether. And then who will pay the 75% of costs that are not related to generation?
This is going to be a real problem. I certainly plan to drop the grid at the first chance, and those who must remain on it will suffer some pretty big price hikes.
With people who build in isolated ares, we are already seeing the cost of running the grid power to their homes is more expensive than rolling their own.
Re: (Score:2)
My last upgrade - in order to qualify for the off-grid subsidy, required a quote for the cost to connect to the grid - which ended 600 metres away. AUD$30,000 (yes thirty K) not including tree-clearing costs.
The cost to upgrade our system (6 extra panels, controller, new set of lead-acid batteries, charger, and installation) only came to AUD$22K, so we qualified for the subsidy.
I can't imagine the cost to get the grid connected if you're more than a few km from the nearest pole.
Re: (Score:2)
In Montana 4 years ago, I was quoted between $25,000 and $75,000 per mile, depending on the company and the terrain. (A local co-op was the low end, a mid-sized Edison type was the high end.) First 300 feet is free, IF it comes from a main line, not some neighbor's drop.
In California 20 years ago, I was quoted $12/foot for above-ground and $40/foot ($210k/mile) for buried cable, but Edison told me both were now functionally no-goes due to CA's goofy regulations and high costs (new above-ground is now mostly
Re: (Score:2)
During summer afternoons, I get paid 44c/kWh for power that I feed into the grid. I buy it back at night at 12c/kWh, so I don't have any reason to go off grid.
Re: (Score:2)
In Germany going off grid would be super stupid.
Most household solar plants with battery storage are already in 'virtual power plants'.
It is used for balancing power, the interesting part is the battery.
It is not only filled by the owners solar panels but also from the grid.
An it does not only power the house but feeds back into the grid, too.
Re: (Score:2)
The kicker is that soon (5 years?) batteries will be cheap enough for people to go off grid altogether.
That won't happen. Or, it might happen but the market will quickly correct for this and make being connected to the grid economical again.
One day after discussing the cost of energy with friends I decided to figure out just how much it would cost me to go off grid. I took several angles to this and one was to just buy one of those "backup" natural gas generators and run it continuously. If I assumed that I could use the electricity as it was generated then my cost for the natural gas was the same as what
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, this wonderful grid of theirs has significant costs of its own. That's why the electric companies are always bellyaching about how expensive their grids are to run when they're trying to get net metering outlawed.
On my electric bill, charges are split out into categories, some that can be assigned to actual electricity generation, and others that can be assigned to the connection and distribution. Typically, 40% or more of the charges are due to the latter.
That means that if I went off-gr
Re: (Score:2)
The electric utility is not in the business to make electricity, they are in the business to make money. If solar + batteries ever do get to a point where the costs of running wires is above that of what it takes you to disconnect from the grid then I can expect the utility to pay you to go away so they can focus on more profitable customers. As people on the fringes disconnect the people closer to the power plants will see costs go down for not having to subsidize the long wires out to sparsely populated
Re: (Score:2)
There's several companies doing this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
in my neck of the woods, but the contracts are just awful. They're structured so that the homeowner takes on all the risk. There's monthly lease payments for the equipment and if the value of the electricity generated doesn't cover the lease you're on the hook to pay the rest. Also if you move you have to buy out the lease or get the new homeowner to buy into it. It's a pretty crap deal all around.
I think your solar power setup is run by the Koch Brothers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, sounds like a standard SolarCity type setup. You can lease the panels for the electricity generated, but it's a 20 year lease, stiff exit clauses prior to the 20 year term, is non-transferable, and if the electricity generated does not cover the initial projections of income, the homeowner is on the hook to cover the difference.
Well then it is pretty weird. Might as well just generate it and keep it. THe selling back to the grid was always a canard in my book.
Re: (Score:2)
30% savings claim (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd be cautious about their claims of a 30% savings. I had SolarCity give me a very similar pitch. At the time, electricity prices were USD$0.08/KWh. Their offer was that I would be required to purchase from SolarCity 100% of the electricity my roof generated, at $0.13/KWh, for the life of the system. Pay close attention to what I just said - generated electricity, not consumed electricity. If I only consumed half of the electricity generated by my roof, I would sell the remainder to my local utility at the going rate, which is still $0.08/KWh. In fact, it's been $0.08 +/- $0.01 for the past 15 years. The more the sun shined, the bigger the hole I would have been digging for myself. Fortunately for me, I understand basic math, so I declined their offer. I instead purchased my panels from a local installer, and I'm on track to have my system pay for itself within my original 7 year estimate.
Meanwhile (Score:2)
Meanwhile, people who paid the $1,000 to pre-order a solar roof from Tesla 9 months ago are being told it will be another 5 to 8 months.
The grid? (Score:2)
It's all very nice. But will the power grid support that infrastructure?
had light version in Europe for years (Score:3)
In Europe we've been able to contract our roofs to PV companies for years. They take any profit, the homeowner gets free electricity. With the drop in feed in tariff rates new installations are dead in the UK now but it's still viable elsewhere. The schemes are so old they predate affordable domestic storage systems or grid storage but Tesla aren't really doing anything new.
Re: (Score:2)
In Germany the profit is shared.
Why would anyone give all the profit to a foreign company?
Of course Tesla is not doing anything new, and claimimg that 50,000 roofs virtual power plant is the largest in the world, is just a joke, Germany has dozens of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Should have said 'income'. Because we rarely meter generation, self use and generation income are uncoupled, the company get's the predictable income, the user the unpredictable self generation saving. It's a reasonable exchange.
Buying the system yourself always had a higher return but having a system at all beats one you can't afford to install.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in Germany most "similar schemes" the company doing the "management" and the owner just share the profit. After all, the profit is changing extremely over the day or the year.
Finance (Score:2)
So cool idea but the real question is how do they plan to finance it? Putting solar on that many homes will be a huge up front capital expenditure (with some ongoing maintenance costs too) and that money has to come from somewhere. Furthermore the payback on a system like this isn't going to be in a year or two. It's going to take a decade plus or minus a few years to break even under even the most optimistic of assumptions. So Tesla will have to raise a large amount of capital today for a speculative p
So basically (Score:2)
Don't they already do that? (Score:2)
You know, those solar "leases" where you put the panels on your house and they sell you the power at a "discount"?
Re: (Score:1)
Cool, more for those of us who arent paranoid nutjobs, win win.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"They are paying in data collection by Musk. You couldn't pay me to sign up for this."
Well, then they'll pay 50.000 other guys and you can pay your bill yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is why don't they just do it with cheaper Chinese panels?
Re: Free, but not obligatory? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because Tesla wants to ramp up its production capacity. ... the production cost is the same everywhere. It is only a difference in currency value at the world currenccy markets that make some places look cheaper.
And bottom line Chinese panels are mot cheaper
Re: Free, but not obligatory? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, the government does own these roofs. These are council homes (low income housing).
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the government does own these roofs. These are council homes (low income housing).
If the government owns the roofs (and homes) then the dwellers are not homeowners, by definition. Per my OP:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any government owns a homeowner's roof yet.
That being said, I understand the benefit of encouraging roof colours that are appropriate for the latitudes of the homes.
Re: (Score:2)
I know what you meant, but when the government owns the homes, they themselves are the homeowner that owns the roofs.
Re: (Score:2)
Where exactly is it being "forced" onto anybody's roof ? People are offered a deal, they can either take it or leave it.
Re: (Score:2)
Actual experience with my 5 kW system. It cost me $7000. I think the installer probably got a $4000 subsidy in one form or another, so i paid that indirectly, being a taxpayer.
Anyway, over the year that it has been installed its performance matches the predictions almost exactly, and it has generated 7000 kWh. Due to an insane state government scheme, which again i am paying for, I get 14c/kWh for power I feed into the grid, and am charged 24 c/kWh for power I take out. Over the year my total electricity bi
Re:Why would I do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they'll sell you electricity below market rates and not charge for installation or maintenance of the system.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that seems pretty obvious when you RTFA
Re: Why would I do that? (Score:1)
They will sell me the electricity I generate above my market rate for selling it to me, which is zero. I'm better off getting a loan to pay for installation if I have no savings.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the specific numbers: the loan interest, the difference between the solar rate and the market rate, and how much electricity you use. If you have no savings, chances are you're not a good loan risk so your rate may be higher.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would I provide my roof (and have holes drilled into it and everything else) so someone else can install solar panels on it and then sell me the electricity that is generated?
Where's the advantage for the homeowner over just telling this lot to go way and continuing to purchase power as today without all of that gear on the roof?
From the summary, it sounds like the homeowner gets a 30% discount on their monthly bill. The average electric bill in Australia is about $100usd so they are basically renting their roof for $30usd / month. A 30% discount sounds nice and he will likely get some people to say yes but it seems like a very small amount of money to deal with the hassle of having a 3rd party installing and then periodically maintaining something on your roof. There could be other benefits too though like not having to worry a
Re: (Score:2)
$100 USD average bill in Australia? You canâ(TM)t be serious. Nearly double that I would say.
Re: (Score:2)
The average is about $1600aud per year which is about $1200usd per year or $100 per month: https://www.canstarblue.com.au... [canstarblue.com.au]
The average in the USA is also about $100 per month: http://eyeonhousing.org/2015/0... [eyeonhousing.org]
Re: (Score:2)
When I was back visiting in December, I sat down with my mother for half a day and worked up a spreadsheet of their bills for the last year to work out how offers from other electricity retailers would compare to their current provider. (Yes, pricing is that damn complicated!) We ended up finding a provider that would save them $300/year and I switched them over.
It's interesting that you even have a choice. I'm assuming they all share the same lines. In the US, as far as I know, pretty much everyone only has one choice and that is the local provider. The pricing is much simpler and is highly regulated and many are co-ops but the only choice is to use the local provider or to go off-grid.
Think about it (Score:2)
Why would I provide my roof (and have holes drilled into it and everything else) so someone else can install solar panels on it and then sell me the electricity that is generated?
Is this a serious question? The answer to why is easy. They give you a deal that benefits you. Why is not complicated. Now the devil is in the details of course but it's not hard to answer why you might do this. Seriously, you cannot figure this out?
Where's the advantage for the homeowner over just telling this lot to go way and continuing to purchase power as today without all of that gear on the roof?
Because it costs you more to keep buying power the way you do today. Aside from a few eco-fanatics, almost nobody is going to install solar panels unless there is a financial payback that makes sense for them. If someone wants to come to me and offer me a
Re: Pay for the energy you generate on your roof! (Score:1)
You sound really bitter.
At this point, Musk detractors just look like fucking morons whose only consistent quality is being absolutely wrong about literally everything.
Re: Pay for the energy you generate on your roof! (Score:2, Informative)
He's worth $20 billion dollars.
Are you really that fucking retarded?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Has he yet to make a business that actually turns a profit?
Is that your argument against long-term thinking? If a business does turn a profit soon after starting up, you would undoubtedly be carping about "profiteering."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Pay for the energy you generate on your roof! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did a little looking about the internet and I find that General Electric will sell a 50 MWt/15 MWe nuclear reactor to the US government for use in their navy submarines. By just about any definition of "small modular reactor" this qualifies. This reactor cost the US government about $100 million. To get the same 250 MW of electrical capacity as the Tesla "virtual power plant" it'd take 17 of these nuclear reactors, so about $1.7 billion. These reactors are fueled once and will run for 30 to 35 years. If we assume that these Tesla solar panels also last 30 to 35 years then this should be a pretty easy comparison.
You'd have to include the cost of the 10 or 15 people* who run and constantly monitor each of those naval reactors 24/7/365.25 in your estimates. Qualified nuclear techs don't come cheap.
*A guesstimate on my part but I can't imagine less than 4 or 5 people per shift to run them.