Forums

Utility Storage

Utility Storage

https://www.tesla.com/blog/addressing-peak-energy-demand-tesla-powerpack...

Doesn't large-scale utility storage like this make more sense than residential powerwall?

chhartwig | 15 septembre 2016

It certainly does, and as soon as companies begin to realize how much money they can save in peak demand charges, it will grow exponentially. Even so, it is practical for owners of solar and will be especially valuable when the overall costs are reduced by the increasing volume (economies of scale). This will eliminate the need for homeowners to get raked over the coals by net metering as residents almost were in Nevada.

Instead of selling power back to the grid at a rate lower than what you are paying, you can simply store excess energy during the day and use it at night at the same low rate you are paying for the panels.

We're almost there folks. It makes sense across the board, but especially for utility grade storage.

tigardspaz | 15 septembre 2016

This is exciting. I think that this is exactly what Tesla should be focusing on for their energy solutions division. I'm sure they'll make money selling power-walls, but it will be a lot more profitable for them to sell grid-level solutions to utilities. I think once they complete they complete the solar-city deal they should stop doing retail power-purchase deals and focus on installed cash-and-carry deals, and of course commercial and grid-level applications.

Al1 | 15 septembre 2016

Terrific news.

dansplans | 15 septembre 2016

"Southern California Edison, among other utilities, was directed to solicit a utility-scale storage solution that could be operational by December 31, 2016."

Since there is no cell production at the gigafactory yet, these packs will have to be made from Panasonic imported cells, unless the installation is going to be later than the RFO original requirements.

Utility level storage makes sense for many reasons. Home storage makes no sense for anyone except the insanely rich.

johndoeeyed | 15 septembre 2016

@dansplans
You do not know what you are talking about
http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/30/tesla-powerwall-battery-economics-almost...

dansplans | 16 septembre 2016

@tes-s Just ignore the troll bot. It is apparently programmed to troll and dispute every post I make on the forums. Tesla has deleted it several times, but the 15 year old programmer keeps reviving it under a different name. Apparently its' programming is not sophisticated enough to find up to date information on home storage. The bot's link is outdated and largely just ad advertisement, rather than helpful information.

The 10kWh product is no longer for sale. The 7kWh powerwall is in fact 6.6kWh. It has 2kW of continuous power and 3.3kW of peak. With an 80% DOD(depth of discharge) and initial 92% efficiency, you would require 10 units to provide the equivalent power to the average American home. Actual losses would be higher with additional DC to AC conversion. Powerwall does not include any inverters, or control hardware, or software, beyond basic safety systems. It also requires extensive professional installation. It is NOT plug and play under any circumstances. Costs would therefore be a lot more than $3000 USF.

johndoeeyed | 16 septembre 2016

@dansplans
I dispute those posts which are false, and you make a lot of them.
The link I provided is not invalid because it is a year old.
Here is a link from this week, showing a system in Australia with an estimated payback of 4-5 years.
https://electrek.co/2016/09/09/tesla-energy-solar-installation-with-6-po...

dansplans | 16 septembre 2016

$13,000*5 years = $65,000 AuD at full efficiency, which is a pipedream. Efficiency will start to go down from day one, and continue down as battery pack degrades. Payback on earth would be more like 8-10 years, if you don't have to replace the battery packs before then. It would also appear that he is getting paid $1 per kWh for his excess power generation. Not in this universe does anyone get paid that much! Also does not factor in the cost of solar, which was on site before the powerwalls. He will destroy the batteries in a couple years, and Tesla will not give much in the way of warranty coverage.

https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/powerwall/Powerwall_Warra...

Foolish bot, proving my point. It took 6 powerwalls to have enough storage to even consider anything resembling going off grid. And using an example in one of the most expensive places in the world for electricity, and it turns out to be a major FAIL.

johndoeeyed | 16 septembre 2016

@dansplans
Please read the article properly; you have grossly misinterpreted it, and therefore your maths is grossly wrong, and therefore your conclusions are grossly wrong.
PS:
He has 6 Powerwalls because he has 24kW of PV.
Not that it matters, because return on investment is what is important. This is economics 101.

Mike83 | 16 septembre 2016

Locally owned mini-grids would be the next best after people owning their own rooftop solar. But large Utilities would do better with large scale solar and Powerpacks that don't require immense start up activation of coal or even gas to generate electricity when needed. Simple thermodynamics.
Of course the Utilities would lose some of their monopoly but it would be better if they help their clients and not the fossil fuel interests who are attempting to discourage PV energy.

Rocky_H | 16 septembre 2016

@dansplans, I concur, and those articles show it. Anywhere net metering is available, and electricity cost isn't ridiculously high, residential battery storage isn't economically reasonable.

makobill | 16 septembre 2016

In my state, people don't get 'paid' for net metering (OGE). You can offset your usage at night, but the utility is not required to pay you for what additional you pump into the grid. I'm keeping close eye on 'storage tech' as it will be an important development for those of us in similar circumstances.

Octagondd | 16 septembre 2016

This is Great news for Los Angeles and for Tesla. Having a contract with Edison will help other Industry people see the major advantages of off-peak power storage.

Rocky_H | 16 septembre 2016

@makobill, My state seems about the same as yours. They will net meter, but it just accumulates "credits" that continue to rollover forever, and they never actually pay any real money back to you. So it's generally best for a solar system to stay just about at 90-100% of your usage, but not overbuild it, since you can't do anything with the excess. And our rates are about 8 cents per kWh, without any big peak or off peak differences.

johndoeeyed | 16 septembre 2016

@Rocky_H
That is not what dansplans said.
He said "Home storage makes no sense for anyone except the insanely rich."
i.e. There were no caveats.
But you are an established troll who says anything to troll.

dansplans | 17 septembre 2016

@Rocky_H

Thanks. I have said in other areas of the forums that there is a possibility that home storage might make sense in places like Hawaii or Australia. But for the average person, it is all cost and no benefit. In the US, many states are moving backwards on net metering, so no-one should expect any progress on that front.

Mike83 | 17 septembre 2016

Home storage sure seems to scare the shorters.

Al1 | 17 septembre 2016

Arguing about prices for residential packs makes no sense at this point. The main reason being prices on Power packs are set by Tesla and the cost is only one factor, I would argue not even the biggest one any more.

Utility scale and residential are to a large extent conflicting goals. Targeting utilities first makes a lot of sense for Tesla. The reasoning here is very similar to why they started with Roadster, rather than going after model 3 from day 1.

By going after both Tesla would risk antagonizing utilities while at the same time they still don't have enough production capacity to support both hyper aggressive growth of cars and residential power pack installations.

The statement that home storage makes no sense for anyone except the insanely rich is too strong. I wish I could argue that being first adopter of clean technology makes insanely rich, but unfortunately that's not the case.

johndoeeyed | 17 septembre 2016

@Al1
There are utilities who are subsidizing residential storage. It can be cheaper, and it is better, for a utility to have the customer pay for the storage, and have that storage distributed where it is needed, than for the utility to install it itself.

brando | 17 septembre 2016

How far will utilities go to earn profits? How captured can a regulator become?

==============
FPL customers will pay over $2 billion toward Turkey Point units 6 and 7 before a single kilowatt is produced, Meehan stated. Many of the ratepayers paying the costs won’t receive a payback and those who do will have to wait over 50 years from today to break even.

Stephen Smith, executive director, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, said, “The costs are out of control. They don’t make sense. They are not a good investment for ratepayers. This is more about lining the pockets of FPL shareholders than it is about providing a good investment for Florida.”

http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/business/fpls-turkey-point-cost-esti...
==============

johndoeeyed | 17 septembre 2016

The price of nuclear is now far above that of renewables and other sources.
Hinkley C in Britain has just been given the go ahead at guaranteed price of power twice the current wholesale rate.
Nuclear is now no more than a boondogle.

brando | 17 septembre 2016

And buyers of electricity get to pay for it anyway.
Just to repeat

“The costs are out of control. They don’t make sense. They are not a good investment for ratepayers. This is more about lining the pockets of FPL shareholders than it is about providing a good investment for Florida.”

PS- Another side note, try an internet search on

grid storage companies