Belgium replaces its WW2 turbojet generator with 40 Tesla Megapacks.
The World War II turbojet generator in Lessines, Belgium, was replaced by a total of 40 Megapack battery storage systems. The generator provided energy support to the community in the past. The generator was making air pollution worse in the region. The system supports the local grid with 100 MWh of capacity and 50 MW of power. The Deux-Acren project is one of the largest storage systems in Europe.
Advertisement
40 Megapack units balance the grid in Lessines, Belgium—making it the biggest operational energy storage system in continental Europe pic.twitter.com/rdmcLVjtZK
— Tesla (@Tesla) December 9, 2022
Advertisement
Megapack supports the local electric grid with energy shifting and stabilizing services and seamless integration with more renewable sources. The Deux-Acren plant can store up to 100MVh of energy and 50MVh of power with the 40 Megapacks installed. Energy News reported that the power will be used to regulate the European electricity transmission network. The publication wrote that the three companies spent several years of work on the plant. Michael Coudyser, General Manager of Corsica Sole, said that the project was financed with money from Mirova Energy Transition 5.
Advertisement
A pioneer in energy storage in France, Corsica Sole has been operating this type of plant in the French islands since 2015. The project is important for the development of electricity storage solutions in Europe. The project was financed by our shareholder Mirova Energy Transition 5. We are proving that we can build a world based on renewable energy and energy storage by demonstrating that large-scale battery deployment is economically viable. Corsica Sole becomes one of the European leaders in the sector with this project. Coudyser said that the multiplication of this type of project is a strategic issue to guarantee Europe's energy sovereignty.
Advertisement
Advertisement
The first of three 100MWh projects in Belgium that are planned to come online before the end of the year was turned on in December. Corsica Sole, Yuso, and Innovent were reached out to byTeslarati. We will let you know when we receive any. In a motion to dismiss a case, the company said that it was not a fraud. The company is currently involved in a class-action lawsuit and has recently filed a motion to dismiss the case. S. There is a district court in San Francisco. The statement made by the attorneys may have been taken out of context.
Advertisement
Here is what we found after we obtained a copy of the motion. After some background information on the case, the company noted that all but one of the people had purchased the package. It's an acronym for full self-driving capability. ThePlaintiffs knew at the time of purchase that their cars weren't completely self-sufficient. The timelines towards more complete autonomy were dependent on a number of factors, including software development and regulatory approval. They complain that their cars are not completely self-sufficient. According to the document, four out of five of the named plaintiffs have valid agreements withTesla that should be enforced and cover all of their claims.
Advertisement
The consolidated complaint that was advanced by the one who opted out should be dismissed. Five years after he purchased his vehicle and the optional software package, he sued. All of his claims should be dismissed. The narrative complaint doesn't support a single legal theory. The complaint doesn't mention the parties' written contract or car warranty. It cherry-picks statements made by the company and tries to make claims for fraud. One of the statements made by the attorneys was about the failure. The attorneys never claimed that FSD is a failure. In the document, the attorneys pointed out that the complaint didn't show that the statement was fraudulent. There was no statement made that the vehicles were fully self-sufficient at the time of the purchase.
Advertisement
The website of the company made it very clear that those vehicles were not. The lawsuit alleges that he researched and reviewed online and public statements from the company before buying his vehicle. The labels on the vehicles didn't mean they were fully self- driving. The attorneys noted that the user manual clearly showed this. Attorneys said that no reasonable consumer would buy a car with the belief that it is fully autonomously based. They decided to purchase vehicle and the ADAS packages after researching, reviewing, and relying on public statements. The attorneys stated that the claim that the vehicles were already fully self-sufficient was hollow. His purchase fares no better because of his assertion thatTesla promised to release completely autonomously capabilities within a reasonable time after.
Advertisement
There were no allegations that the package would enable full autonomy within a specified period of time. The attorneys said that many of the statements in the complaint did not even concern the package. In addition, the quoted statements were often accompanied by and subject to the qualification that a release of fully self-driving capabilities to the general public would require government approval, a variable over which Musk had no control, and that any regulatory clearance would require a vast amount of data to show that completely The attorneys cited a federal court that said similar statements don't constitute fraud because they indicate thatTesla wasn't making the absolute representation he said he was. Same here. Under the heightened Rule 9(b) standard, there is no allegation that the statements thatTesla made were false. See Richardson in 2000. The Complaint states that the company has been constantly improving its ADAS technology by releasing software updates, with a goal of achieving more and better autonomy capabilities in the future. ”
Advertisement