It'll be interesting to see how this is pitched and what it's price point is... I'm still not convinced that energy arbitrage is profitable enough for individual homes given the current cost of the storage.
I'm curious if they'll be indemnifying homeowners for fires originating in the battery pack.
Anyway, if it can clearly save me money and is not incredibly expensive up-front, I'll likely get one. Even if you actively conserve, electricity is decently expensive over the long run.
In the same way that very few people buy a $100,000+ Model S to save money on gas, early adopters of this product will be people who are a) well off and b) find the idea of converting their home to 100% renewable electricity appealing.
It might be. The significant return to individuals should come when they can participate in "ancillary services". These are classes of power contribution or absorption that meet short-term, urgent grid management needs.
For one example among many: if grid frequency drops below its nominal 60Hz, that indicates electricity demand exceeds supply, and the kilotons of spinning iron and copper in the generators that supply the grid are slowing down as they contribute rotational kinetic energy to meet demand. Grid management options for this type of demand/supply mismatch include calling for increased output from generators that aren't already at their max, engaging idle-output (but phase synchronized) spinning reserve generators, and buying power from contiguous grids.
Power sold under these circumstances can be priced at large multiples of base rates (like net metering rates) because of its high value in stabilizing the grid.
Smart grid infrastructure (communications, controllers, bidirectional inverters, etc) will allow grid managers (or localized intelligent algorithms) to draw on residential energy storage for ancillary services. These services should bring residential participants much higher returns than existing simple and not very lucrative net metering schedules. However, I imagine there will be significant legal combat before resident owners of distributed storage are allowed to recover market rates for their ancillary service contributions.
We have a fairly large 100% electric home built in 1980 (after the oil crisis government promised "all's going to be nuclear & cheap real soon now") ... don't underestimate the electricity & heatings costs on large properties
It really depends on where you live. In places like Arizona, this unit could pay for itself in a matter of a few years. Even if it is only used as a load shifter, it could generate great savings during the summer/hot months.
Living in Hawthorne, I really should be there in person, but here I am watching it in a low-definition Flash stream. So be it. Just quarantine it in a VM in the same way you would iTunes or any other quasi-malicious software.
Unfortunately there's still no stable/scalable way to deliver a livestream using HTML5 in chrome. Video on demand yes - live video no. We do it in Safari via HLS. Max (Livestream CEO).
The Powerwall is available in 10kWh, optimized for backup
applications or 7kWh optimized for daily use applications.
Both can be connected with solar or grid and both can provide
backup power. The 10kWh Powerwall is optimized to provide
backup when the grid goes down, providing power for your home
when you need it most. When paired with solar power, the 7kWh
Powerwall can be used in daily cycling to extend the
environmental and cost benefits of solar into the night when
sunlight is unavailable.
Tesla’s selling price to installers is $3500 for 10kWh and
$3000 for 7kWh. (Price excludes inverter and installation.)
Does anyone have any experience with the pricing here and could elaborate a bit wether or not this is a good deal? This does seem enticing at first glance, but I am unfamiliar with any hidden costs there might be in going with a solar + backup system such as this.
Somebody just stated that technically this would feed the average home consumption of energy for about 8 hours. Why is this a good deal, even if it were 24 hours?
Would the benefits of solar power being extended into the evening be worth it? Back of the envelope calculations:
If you can run on solar all night there's potential savings. Assume 10kWh costs $1. If you have a surplus of solar during the day and you fully deplete at night, you theoretically save $365/year. Break even is at 10 years, which coincides with the warranty.
Well for me, I'm paying just over 22c/kwh, last period we used 808kwh over 80 days, so almost bang on 10 per day.
So with a solar setup that could charge a 10kw pack each day I could almost go off grid. That would save me nearly $1000/year once you take into account daily connection charges.
So the batteries would be paid off in 3-4 years, add a few years for however many panels I need and that's a pretty decent saving for no more power bills.
Of course it depends how long they are likely to last after that 10 year warranty period - no point swapping utility bills for tesla bills for replacements every 10 years.
> no point swapping utility bills for tesla bills for replacements every 10 years
Well, there could be additional benefits, such as not being linked to the grid and it's occasional problems (not to mention you aren't drawing power provided in part by coal). Then again, an extended period of low solar energy could have it's own problems.
I don't know about your consumption but ours is definitely 'bursty'. If we could have a battery with some surplus to offset some of our breakfast/lunch/dinner + laundry routine it would pretty much eliminate most of our energy bill.
However, I might be completely wrong about how this works.
Meanwhile, in lead acid battery land, a Trojan T-105 is ~$150 for a 6 volt, 225 amp hour battery, which you might comfortably cycle 0.9kWh each day for 5+ years. Use 12 of them to match the 10kWh Powerwall and it only costs $1800, replace them at the end of 5 years and you have about the same cost as the 10 year Powerwall.
Powerwall is several times smaller and lighter and presumably doesn't give off hydrogen gas when you charge it or burst and flood your room with sulphuric acid if you get to freezing temperatures with a discharged battery bank (done that), so there are certainly plusses.
It just isn't the silver bullet I was hoping for. I've been putting off replacing my batteries in a cabin while I wait for this, I suppose I'll nurse them through the Summer and make a decision in the Fall.
The voltage is irrelevant. You can run an inverting 120VAC power supply from one battery, or a hundred, as long as it supports the right voltage range. Yes, putting 20 6V batteries in series would give you 120VDC, but that's not particularly useful.
What matters is the energy capacity, which is measured in kWh.
I guess the question is how long the powerwall is expected to last, and how novel the linking of them is (I have no idea). Additionally, we can hope that once the gigafactory is up and running, or version 2 of it is, that prices drop.
Really, I think the big advancement here is attractive packaging of the product and experience, a la Apple.
At $150 a battery its a pretty good deal. There is a guy here in Ontario Canada that sells them for that price as well. His site is http://cartguy.ca/ ( E-mail: sales@cartguy.ca
Toll free: 1-888-905-2278
Our Location: 2933 Hwy 35 S, Lindsay, On K9V 4R4
Our Mailing address: 2 Peel St, Lindsay, On K9V 3L7)
He also has the Trojan T-105RE for $199 a piece.
Not sure if the advantage of the T-105RE is worth it.
According to the EPA [1], an average home consumed 12,069kWh in 2012. So assuming a constant load, a 10kWh battery would power about 7.5 hours of usage.
Your utility company is going to want to charge you a fee (or take a cut of what you sell to the grid) for not buying any electricity from them, so that they can maintain the power lines and substations to your home.
A solar array would expedite charging, but I believe they intend to monitor energy supply rates and charge based off that as well. eg. When rates dip, it charges at a higher rate.
Sure, but the same would be true if you bought solar panels and lead-acid batteries, which are cheaper (but less compact). Or if you bought just the solar panels, and sold the excess power back to the grid (assuming your utility provider allows that).
If you buy enough solar panels and one of these, you can remove yourself from the power grid and pay 0 with conservative nighttime usage (for an American home) buy two and you don't need to be so conservative.
At least we know that the product will be called Powerwall.
On a side note, there might be a reason why MOST live streaming event start late - it provides a sense of scarcity and drives more views.
I am not saying that it is happening in this particular case, but I know for a fact that it is a technique sometimes used/tested by professionals; I don't know how often though.
Serious question: Can anybody who's familiar with the energy storage field explain the nature and magnitude of the innovation here. Is this just a large lithium ion battery with some electronics added for charge/discharge control or is it a bigger deal than that? Perhaps the innovation is in packaging and productizing it for the various market segments?
"Can anybody who's familiar with the energy storage field explain the nature and magnitude of the innovation here."
-Not me but clearly this is v1.0 and likely v3.0 is where you will have huge impacts. Similar to a Tesla costing 35k for their v3.0. The giga factory will probably play an even bigger part here as batteries should scale better than cars. So battery v3.0 should be >>> than electric car v3.0.
I think that the driver behind this is to create synergy across tesla and Solar City. Solar City gets requests for storage, and the financing to distribute it, and the giga-factory has a lot of surplus production.
The production of wind and solar energy for the consumer is quickly approaching (or, depending on your tax regime, has already passed) the cost of traditional energy from the grid. This is great, and we're starting to see wind and solar become major forms of energy production. The problem with both forms of energy is that the energy generally is not generated when it is consumed, so it must be stored.
The problem with storing electricity is it is expensive. The cost of this lithium-based solution finally is cost-competitive with lead-acid. Basically, when the Tesla's Gigafactory is completed (their battery factory, being built near Reno, and expected to be finished in 2017) means that Tesla will be the lowest-cost provider of lithium batteries. Unfortunately, the size of the factory also means that they will have enormous excess capacity. Unless that capacity is utilized, their costs will eat away at their revenues.
This is their answer to this situation: they have excess battery capacity, and costs that are about 1/2 that of their nearest competitor, and there is a growing need for energy storage.
The real target of this announcement, if you ask me, is ERCOT, the regulatory body governing the Texas power grid. In general, Texas has enough power generation capacity for average load days. Unfortunately, they are running out of power plants for peak power days. Traditionally, these were natural gas-fired generators, while "normal" load was handled by hydroelectric, coal, and nuclear (because natural gas used to be more expensive than the others, and also because natural gas generators can be turned on and off over the course of minutes instead of hours or days, like the others). However, as natural gas prices have dropped, most of these power plants that used to be used for reserve power have been reallocated towards baseline power--this is why Texas has enough baseline power generation capacity, but not enough peak power capacity. ERCOT released a study late last year that indicated that it would be cost effective for ERCOT to deploy regional battery storage devices instead of building new power plants to handle these peak power periods. According to financial estimates, ERCOT's power demands will result in >$4 billion/year in revenue for Tesla. Basically, it would appear that Tesla might end up making more revenue selling these solutions to power companies than they can selling cars to consumers.
All of this will lead to economies of scale, further driving down Tesla's costs and entrenching their position as the lowest-cost provider of battery storage. All of this also means that this battery becomes an attractive device for home use, as well. Basically, this is what a lot of people are thinking about when they talk about a "smart grid" that can push power back on the grid during peak demand times.
Is anyone else having the video stop with a buffering spinner and little or no network activity a few seconds after starting the stream?
EDIT: I ended up working around it by switching between the two lowest quality settings each time the stream hung. Disabling Adblock Plus on the page and adding Flashblock exceptions had no effect.
So. COOL! The coolest part...that Tesla realizes that the goal it wants to accomplish can not be done alone. They need companies and people around the world. All patents are open and free for anybody to use and all technology is open source. That is amazing. That's how change happens!
can someone explain how the open sourcing he mentions will benefit Tesla? typically open sourcing is only best when you are a platform as a service. I'm not seeing that - what am I missing?
Living in the north that -4 degree F lower operating temp limit makes me sad. Sure you could put it in a heated garage - but I bet this explains why no one up here owns a Tesla vehicle yet.
89 comments
[ 6.4 ms ] story [ 183 ms ] threadAnyway, if it can clearly save me money and is not incredibly expensive up-front, I'll likely get one. Even if you actively conserve, electricity is decently expensive over the long run.
Why would they? I would have thought it's no different from any other household appliance.
For one example among many: if grid frequency drops below its nominal 60Hz, that indicates electricity demand exceeds supply, and the kilotons of spinning iron and copper in the generators that supply the grid are slowing down as they contribute rotational kinetic energy to meet demand. Grid management options for this type of demand/supply mismatch include calling for increased output from generators that aren't already at their max, engaging idle-output (but phase synchronized) spinning reserve generators, and buying power from contiguous grids.
Power sold under these circumstances can be priced at large multiples of base rates (like net metering rates) because of its high value in stabilizing the grid.
Smart grid infrastructure (communications, controllers, bidirectional inverters, etc) will allow grid managers (or localized intelligent algorithms) to draw on residential energy storage for ancillary services. These services should bring residential participants much higher returns than existing simple and not very lucrative net metering schedules. However, I imagine there will be significant legal combat before resident owners of distributed storage are allowed to recover market rates for their ancillary service contributions.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/04/30/tesla-st...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/04/30/tesl...
This early line especially:
"Tesla was expected to discuss its plans at an event in Hawthorne, Calif., near Los Angeles, late Thursday."
Why this isn't the default, I have no idea.
Recently had a quote in Australia for >$AUD12,000 for a 5kwh battery set.
This is going to change everything to do with solar installations I think. Currently battery packs are a rarely taken up optional component.
If you can run on solar all night there's potential savings. Assume 10kWh costs $1. If you have a surplus of solar during the day and you fully deplete at night, you theoretically save $365/year. Break even is at 10 years, which coincides with the warranty.
So with a solar setup that could charge a 10kw pack each day I could almost go off grid. That would save me nearly $1000/year once you take into account daily connection charges.
So the batteries would be paid off in 3-4 years, add a few years for however many panels I need and that's a pretty decent saving for no more power bills.
Of course it depends how long they are likely to last after that 10 year warranty period - no point swapping utility bills for tesla bills for replacements every 10 years.
Well, there could be additional benefits, such as not being linked to the grid and it's occasional problems (not to mention you aren't drawing power provided in part by coal). Then again, an extended period of low solar energy could have it's own problems.
However, I might be completely wrong about how this works.
I'm just seeing the normal Tesla homepage. Did they take it down to avoid stealing the thunder from the livestream?
EDIT: Back up now
or
http://www.teslaenergy.com/
It just isn't the silver bullet I was hoping for. I've been putting off replacing my batteries in a cabin while I wait for this, I suppose I'll nurse them through the Summer and make a decision in the Fall.
edit: the Powerwall runs at 350-450V, 5 amps nominal. Guess it depends on the inverter you use.
What matters is the energy capacity, which is measured in kWh.
Really, I think the big advancement here is attractive packaging of the product and experience, a la Apple.
Toll free: 1-888-905-2278
Our Location: 2933 Hwy 35 S, Lindsay, On K9V 4R4
Our Mailing address: 2 Peel St, Lindsay, On K9V 3L7)
He also has the Trojan T-105RE for $199 a piece.
Not sure if the advantage of the T-105RE is worth it.
[1]: http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/pubs/calcmeth.htm
"enough solar panels" isn't exactly cheap though.
Some funny definition of "typical household". The maximum I've seen in recent years is one TV per household, and the average way beneath that.
On a side note, there might be a reason why MOST live streaming event start late - it provides a sense of scarcity and drives more views. I am not saying that it is happening in this particular case, but I know for a fact that it is a technique sometimes used/tested by professionals; I don't know how often though.
-Not me but clearly this is v1.0 and likely v3.0 is where you will have huge impacts. Similar to a Tesla costing 35k for their v3.0. The giga factory will probably play an even bigger part here as batteries should scale better than cars. So battery v3.0 should be >>> than electric car v3.0.
The problem with storing electricity is it is expensive. The cost of this lithium-based solution finally is cost-competitive with lead-acid. Basically, when the Tesla's Gigafactory is completed (their battery factory, being built near Reno, and expected to be finished in 2017) means that Tesla will be the lowest-cost provider of lithium batteries. Unfortunately, the size of the factory also means that they will have enormous excess capacity. Unless that capacity is utilized, their costs will eat away at their revenues.
This is their answer to this situation: they have excess battery capacity, and costs that are about 1/2 that of their nearest competitor, and there is a growing need for energy storage.
The real target of this announcement, if you ask me, is ERCOT, the regulatory body governing the Texas power grid. In general, Texas has enough power generation capacity for average load days. Unfortunately, they are running out of power plants for peak power days. Traditionally, these were natural gas-fired generators, while "normal" load was handled by hydroelectric, coal, and nuclear (because natural gas used to be more expensive than the others, and also because natural gas generators can be turned on and off over the course of minutes instead of hours or days, like the others). However, as natural gas prices have dropped, most of these power plants that used to be used for reserve power have been reallocated towards baseline power--this is why Texas has enough baseline power generation capacity, but not enough peak power capacity. ERCOT released a study late last year that indicated that it would be cost effective for ERCOT to deploy regional battery storage devices instead of building new power plants to handle these peak power periods. According to financial estimates, ERCOT's power demands will result in >$4 billion/year in revenue for Tesla. Basically, it would appear that Tesla might end up making more revenue selling these solutions to power companies than they can selling cars to consumers.
All of this will lead to economies of scale, further driving down Tesla's costs and entrenching their position as the lowest-cost provider of battery storage. All of this also means that this battery becomes an attractive device for home use, as well. Basically, this is what a lot of people are thinking about when they talk about a "smart grid" that can push power back on the grid during peak demand times.
Here's a couple of articles about the ERCOT annoucement: http://www.texastribune.org/2014/12/15/state-law-could-short... http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060008712
AWS will be running a 4.8 megawatt hour pilot program with Tesla's batteries in the us-west-1 AZ (Northern California).
EDIT: I ended up working around it by switching between the two lowest quality settings each time the stream hung. Disabling Adblock Plus on the page and adding Flashblock exceptions had no effect.
I don't think the stock will be blow up again until we see sales and profit numbers for these new products.
It is this reason alone why I'd never buy a tesla.
And they're viewing it as another product.
Up here in the Yukon everyone has their batteries inside, else they'd freeze.