Tesla To Open Megapack Battery Factory In Shanghai (washingtonpost.com) 16
Tesla will open a factory in Shanghai to produce its Megapack large-scale batteries, cementing another foothold for the U.S. company in China even as political and economic tensions between Washington and Beijing swirl. The Washington Post reports: Tesla said in a brief tweet on Sunday that its "Megafactory" in Shanghai will be capable of producing 10,000 Megapacks annually, an output equivalent to its other Megafactory in Lathrop, Calif., about 70 miles east of San Francisco. The company, which disbanded its public relations department, did not provide further details. Elon Musk, Tesla's chief executive, said in a tweet that the factory in Shanghai would "supplement" the production in California.
The Chinese factory will be built in Lingang, a suburban area of Shanghai where Tesla's vehicle factory is also located, according to Chinese media. Lu Yu, an official in Lingang, told local media that production could start as soon as the second quarter of 2024. The investment in China by Tesla comes after the coronavirus pandemic brought some supply chains to a halt as factories in China shut down amid strict "zero covid" protocols. With those setbacks still fresh in many executives' minds -- and amid concerns over alleged human rights violations and chilly relations between Washington and Beijing -- China has struggled to attract foreign investment since the pandemic.
The Megapacks differ from most of Tesla's consumer-focused offerings, like the electric vehicles it is widely known for, in that they are more a piece of energy infrastructure than a consumer product. The batteries are intended to store energy from renewable sources such as wind and solar, allowing energy to be drawn even when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. Batteries like the Megapack are not yet widely implemented in the United States and purchases of the technology have mostly been kept under wraps. But the Megapack has been bought for Apple's renewable energy storage project in California, according to the Verge, and for a storage project outside Houston, Bloomberg first reported. A Megapack, Tesla says, "stores energy for the grid reliably and safely, eliminating the need for gas peaker plants and helping to avoid outages." Each pack can store enough energy to power 3,600 homes for an hour, Tesla says.
The Chinese factory will be built in Lingang, a suburban area of Shanghai where Tesla's vehicle factory is also located, according to Chinese media. Lu Yu, an official in Lingang, told local media that production could start as soon as the second quarter of 2024. The investment in China by Tesla comes after the coronavirus pandemic brought some supply chains to a halt as factories in China shut down amid strict "zero covid" protocols. With those setbacks still fresh in many executives' minds -- and amid concerns over alleged human rights violations and chilly relations between Washington and Beijing -- China has struggled to attract foreign investment since the pandemic.
The Megapacks differ from most of Tesla's consumer-focused offerings, like the electric vehicles it is widely known for, in that they are more a piece of energy infrastructure than a consumer product. The batteries are intended to store energy from renewable sources such as wind and solar, allowing energy to be drawn even when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. Batteries like the Megapack are not yet widely implemented in the United States and purchases of the technology have mostly been kept under wraps. But the Megapack has been bought for Apple's renewable energy storage project in California, according to the Verge, and for a storage project outside Houston, Bloomberg first reported. A Megapack, Tesla says, "stores energy for the grid reliably and safely, eliminating the need for gas peaker plants and helping to avoid outages." Each pack can store enough energy to power 3,600 homes for an hour, Tesla says.
I still prefer Flywheel technology. (Score:2)
These megapacks are mostly to even out the energy output of the electrical grid, so we don't need to fire up additional backup plants during high demand, and as well having energy from cleaner sources like Solar and wind, still give energy during the night or when there is no of little wind.
However if size and weight are not the big issue, I would like to see flywheel tech, as it would be a good source to store energy and not be as resources intensive to build.
Re:I still prefer Flywheel technology. (Score:4, Interesting)
Power a motor to spin up the flywheel... electrical to kinetic... energy loss.
Flywheel spins and loses angular momentum to friction and gyroscopic affect of the rotation of the earth... energy loss.
Flywheel spins generator... kinetic to electrical... energy loss.
Comparatively, charging and discharging a battery has inherent heat loss.
Mining and manufacturing cost aside, it would be interesting to see a study that compares the two for efficiency. You're right about space requirements -- the megapack would likely win hands-down. But, overall, who's the champ?
Re: (Score:2)
Batteries will have energy loss too. As they need to be at an optimal temperature, and a lot of more complex computing to check on their status.
I have always been interested in flywheel tech sence I was a kid playing with an antique sharpening stone. I would spin it and it seems that it would spin forever from only a slight force, and it was hard to stop.
But that aside. I agree I would like to see difference in the technology and cost benefit analysis. However I think flywheel tech would be much more pra
Re:I still prefer Flywheel technology. (Score:4, Interesting)
Flywheels can have a round-trip efficiency from 85% to 98%, depending on factors like magnetic bearings, etc.
Matt Ferrell did an interesting review of flywheel storage about two years ago. Without taking into consideration advances in both battery tech and flywheel tech during the past two years, I would say the relative cost vs efficiency is still valid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
(Spoiler alert. Flywheel technology is a better choice in some instances, battery is better in others, and gravity storage is better in some favorable locations.)
Re: (Score:2)
Pumped storage is better than both of them. It can be water based, but it can also be air based. Old mines are a good place to pump air into, and then release it when needed. Obviously can't react as fast a battery, but space wise it's often using otherwise useless tunnels or land anyway.
Re: (Score:1)
Why do you prefer flywheel tech? Power a motor to spin up the flywheel... electrical to kinetic... energy loss. Flywheel spins and loses angular momentum to friction and gyroscopic affect of the rotation of the earth... energy loss. Flywheel spins generator... kinetic to electrical... energy loss. Comparatively, charging and discharging a battery has inherent heat loss. Mining and manufacturing cost aside, it would be interesting to see a study that compares the two for efficiency. You're right about space requirements -- the megapack would likely win hands-down. But, overall, who's the champ?
I'll answer. Because different technologies have different usecases, different strengths and weaknesses, different parameters, different costs, and yet everyone seems to be going apeshift about batteries and nothing else. Even mention alternatives and you'll be virtually lynched.
Meanwhile, a sane person realises that putting all eggs in one basket is stupid, divesting all investment from research in any alternatives to the Designated Winner even moreso, and has backup plans for scenarios where the problems
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I Thought China Bad (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Musk is also openly hostile toward the USA. He'll do fine there.
How do they come up with these numbers? (Score:3)
3 MW-Hr, or 3000 KW-Hr, into 3600 houses is 833 watts. When does a house pull that little? Night time in the summer. The refrigerator is only 260 watts. The freezer is another 120 or so.
But if the water heater kicks on that is 3,000 watts. The oven is 5000 watts, the surface burners are 2100 or 1500 watts depending on size.
In the winter the heat pump compressor is 7 amps at 240 V plus the inside and outside fans. Close to 2000 watts all by itself.
A typical winter day is 60 kw-hr here, or 2500 watts on average. So divide their claim by three. One particularly unpleasant month the average was 80 kw-hr per day. Note this is a 1400 sq ft house, not a McMansion.
Re:How do they come up with these numbers? (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, the real question is how many kwh of supplemental backup you would need to provide a given level of reliability for a given number of homes. In reality there is no time at which every other source except for the batteries would be down, so it's not like an "uninterruptible power supply" that has to be able to take the whole load on its own.
Re: (Score:2)
Update: I checked my spring numbers. June was the month with the lowest power consumption. It's between heating and air conditioning and irrigation season. 500 kw-hr for the whole month, 16.7 per day or an average of 700 watts. So that would fit into the given criteria.
Still, that's a pretty optimistic case. The power going out in June won't kill you, the power going out in January very well might. I would put in a note about switching months in the Southern Hemisphere, but does anywhere North of Antarctica
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: How do they come up with these numbers? (Score:2)
Need to open 4 more (Score:3)