Mountaineer@aussie.zone to Adelaide@aussie.zoneEnglish · 4 months agoSA's newly approved battery will be more than three times the size of famous 'Tesla battery'www.abc.net.auexternal-linkmessage-square4fedilinkarrow-up119arrow-down11
arrow-up118arrow-down1external-linkSA's newly approved battery will be more than three times the size of famous 'Tesla battery'www.abc.net.auMountaineer@aussie.zone to Adelaide@aussie.zoneEnglish · 4 months agomessage-square4fedilink
minus-squarezero_gravitas@aussie.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·4 months ago New SA battery storage project approved near Mount Gambier will be three times the size of ‘Tesla battery’ Pacific Green says the Limestone Coast Energy Park, which will have a capacity of 1,500 megawatt hours … The latter battery, colloquially known as the “Tesla battery”, can store up to 193 megawatt hours (MWh) and was once the world’s biggest. 1500 / 193 = 7.77 So while that is ‘more than three’, why doesn’t it say ‘more than seven’? Am I missing something? When they say ‘size’ do they not mean capacity?
minus-squareNo1@aussie.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·4 months agoWindows was down yesterday, so nobody could use Excel to do that calculation. So they just had a guess it was more than three. But honestly, idk. Maybe they were comparing the physical area? Which seems the most useless comparison…
minus-squarezero_gravitas@aussie.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·4 months ago Maybe they were comparing the physical area? Which seems the most useless comparison… Yeah, that’s all I can think of too, but they didn’t mention it anywhere in the article.
minus-squaremojofrododojo@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·4 months agomore than 2? yeah more than 10? nope uhhh… more than 3? yeah we’ll just go with that.
1500 / 193 = 7.77
So while that is ‘more than three’, why doesn’t it say ‘more than seven’? Am I missing something? When they say ‘size’ do they not mean capacity?
Windows was down yesterday, so nobody could use Excel to do that calculation. So they just had a guess it was more than three.
But honestly, idk. Maybe they were comparing the physical area? Which seems the most useless comparison…
Yeah, that’s all I can think of too, but they didn’t mention it anywhere in the article.
more than 2?
yeah
more than 10?
nope
uhhh… more than 3?
yeah
we’ll just go with that.