Jun 1, 2015
trils0n Has anyone read the two studies from 2013 found on the CPUC website? Their storage prices and break even numbers seemed crazy high to me. (If true, Tesla's price is super duper amazing?) Not sure If I read them correctly/understood them fully.
Report from EPRI on its energy storage cost-effectiveness study
Report from DNV KEMA on its energy storage cost-effectiveness study�
Jun 2, 2015
jhm Generator Glut
I should probably define what I see as the coming "generator glut." There exists globally about 6 TW of power generation capacity. This capacity is utilized about 10 hours on an average day to generate all the electricity consumed. Ignoring renewables, the infusion of batteries into the grid has the potential to stretch this utilization to 20 hours per day and would cost less than adding new generation capacity to add these batteries. Thus, there exists on order of twice as much generation capacity than needed to satisfy electricity demands. If the infusion of batteries is slow, then we have a moderate oversupply problem, but if battery production capacity ramps up quickly, the glut could be severe.
In any case, we are talking about an over supply ploblem that could take decades to resolve. Power plants are designed to be used over a 30 to 40 year timeframe, and this is why having twice the needed capacity could take 20 years to reslove. Meanwhile, installed Powerpacks can be loaded on trucks and redeployed wherever they can yield a bigger return.
The acceleration of solar capacity adds to the severity of the over capacity problem. Utility solar and wind add to the generator glut. Distributed solar matches generation assets to consumption. In a glut, demand is the scarcity sought after. So distributed generation has the advantage of locked in consumption.
The critical driver of this generator glut scenario is cheap, abundant batteries. Tesla has entered this space at $250/kWh which is low enough to scale the battery industry and drive down costs in the process. Tesla's entry price is also not so low as to drive off competitors from entering this market. This too is critical because the more competition there is among battery makers that faster the industry will scale and drive down costs. So $250/kWh seems well calibrated to maximize the pace of disruption. This pace will determine how sudden and severe the glut proves to be.
What is particularly hard to anticipate is how quickly investors will come to perceive this risk and begin to reduce exposure to all investments that would be harmed by such a glut. What catalysts would trigger a sell off? I'll leave that for shorts to figure out, but once the divestment begins, it could be severe. All I know is that I would much rather be invested in Gigafactories today than getting caught in a massive asset bubble betting against the battery.�
Jun 2, 2015
vgrinshpun James, do not forget that electrification of transportation will require massive amount on energy. I have to dig for data, but based on my recollection electrification of the light duty vehicle fleet in USA will require close to 100% utilization of the installed generation capacity. I think that evolution of transport electrification, affordable energy storage and solar generation in approximately the same timeframe presents huge opportunity and, at the same time, huge risk for the utilities. (if they do not embrace renewables and energy storage).
With further concentration of population in cities and high power density required for large scale manufacturing, distributed generation has it's limits. I believe that grid will still play a role of a backbone of the electrical systems for a foreseeable future (there is an interview with Lyndon Rive out there where he addresses this).�
Jun 2, 2015
Ampster I only read the abstract on the first one but it seemed to say that breakeven was possible on systems costing $1,000 to $4,000/kWhr. If that is the case a Tesla System at installed cost of $500/kWh should have a quick return on investment. That is positive for Tesla, and bad news for companies selling higher oriced systems.�
Jun 2, 2015
Paracelsus And at that point Lyndon and Elon declare 'Check Mate'............... Their ability not only to see the future, but to play their chess pieces in a way that the final move ultimately leaves the grid operators and the fossil fuel industry lobbying in support of more EV demand on the grid to keep themselves solvent must have Lyndon and Elon grinning at the end of the day as this becomes more and more transparent. Elon could have rolled out the Model 3 before battery storage, but by rolling out and deploying a very disruptive battery storage plan first, it will literally force the owners of the grid and the fossil fuel industries they are supported by to be the most vocal lobbiests for expanding the very same incentives for EV's that they are so critical of now.......for all the very reasons that jhm and vgrinshpun just mentioned. And think how much further those same incentives will go on a $35,000 vehicle. Wholly cats that is the most strategic set of moves I have every followed.�
Jun 2, 2015
jhm Vlad, that's a fair point. Let's see if we can scale this. Suppose we have a fleet of 2 billion vehicles that use 9 to 15 kWh per day. If my math is correct, that is 18 to 30 TWh per day. So with 6 TW capacity, this would add 3 to 5 hours of utilization to the existing 10 hours for other purposes. The US has very high motorization compared to the rest of the world, but it also has very slow growth in demand for electricity.
So yes, EV can moderate the generator glut scenario. However, it is largely about timing. The growth of solar can easily cover incremental demand for electricity. It only take 2 to 3 kW of solar to power one car. EV production would have to scale at a much higher rate than solar to overtake that specific contribution to capaicity. Also working against this is the fact that cars have a useful life around 15 to 20 years. So even on really optimistic scenarios for EV growth, it will take multiple decades to achieve a 2 billion EV fleet. The tricky thing is how fast auto batteries grow relative to stationary batteries. If the two roughly keep pace with each other, then I suspect generator glut happens before the electric vehicle fleet creates sufficient demand to resolve the glut, if ever. (I may need to model this to sort it out.)
To be clear, my generator glut scenario does not anticipate any end to the grid. To the contrary, the glut will likely keep grid prices down. Commercial users may be a huge beneficiary of the glut, and let's not forget ubiquitous and cheap EV charging as a benefit.
The advantage of distributed solar is to the producer of solar power who has a locked in buyer. Lyndon has mentioned that Elon has pointed out an invisible wall that SolarCity has done well to avoid, but Lyndon has not said what that invisible wall is. My hunch is that the generator glut may be the invisible wall. Surely SolarCity has had opportunity to get into the utility solar space, but they have elected not to. Why? There are likely multiple strategic reasons. But if you really understand the potential for batteries to disrupt the economics of power generation, you really do want to stay clear of getting sucked into it. A company like FirstSolar, that only does utility scale installations and has low efficiency thin film technology that is only economically competitive at this scale could get really hurt by a generator glut. I'm not saying this will necessarily be the case, but it is risky play. Few people perceive how risky this may be, and this is another reason why Elon and Lyndon might just call it an invisible wall.�
Jun 2, 2015
Hogfighter I believe that it requires about 4.5 to 6KWh of electricity to refine oil into 1 gallon of gasoline. So when an additional EV hits the road, there is an incremental need for more electricity, but it is not a an absolute addition due to the need to refine less petroleum. I realize that this is a gross oversimplification of the matter, but it bears mentioning.�
Jun 2, 2015
bonaire If you look over the california S.G.I.P. program data, systems from most of the A.E.S. guys including Tesla have system costs (I believe that is turnkey price) well over $1000/KW in most cases. Recent new projects by Tesla indicate 50 KW systems at $100,000 but it's hard to know what they look like in project cost form. If that really is the final price, then it is getting far cheaper. Going back a year or two, full project costs on a per-KW price scale were up in the $2000-3500 range. A month ago, those 50 KW systems were logged in the spreadsheet as 100 KW systems for $100,000 and they looked "really" spectacular in terms of pricing. I have to imagine that 50KW systems are one powerpack plus inverter and electrician work. Given the "talked about" pricing of $25K per powerpack to the installers, someone is doing well in terms of system value. And, the S.G.I.P. program is rebating $60,000 for that system alone. I want one!Everyone would want one in their home if they could have it paid for like that.
Click here: Self-Generation Incentive Program
Use the Weekly Projects Report and do some Data review (excel spreadsheet Data Filter, etc.)
You want to compute "Total Eligible / Rated Capacity" - and if you want per kWh, divide again by 2 (most likely).
You'd think cost of scale for bigger projects like SCE-SGIP-2012-2409 would be adjusted since it was entered in 2012 and now with the low-cost batteries, they could do the system for half price (assuming). But system at 1600KW and the $3.1 M of incentive money already reserved is hard to look away from for the buyer. Even recent systems like SCE-SGIP-2015-1018 are coming up as $3240/KW pricing which again presumes that the balance of system overall project cost really drives the price up. But what I hope does not happen is if Tesla quotes a new system today at $500/kWh ($1000/KW) and these older systems are being given reserve funding at $3000/KW or higher - what will the program do with such data? I see that it really does not matter as the incentive is in fact given based on the nameplate KW power rating and the ability to draw power for 2-hours minimum. But what may be happening is that the project that logged an entry for an expected cost at $3000/KW and the final turnkey system ends up being $1500/KW - then the real benefactor is the buyer. It is possible that the SGIP rebate money could even pay off the entire system price given the battery price drop over the last 3-4 years.
With all that data - it looks like the trickle down effect of the Panasonic battery pricing offered to Tesla allowed for a great progress in the battery storage industry and a leap-ahead into very affordable storage packs. So much so that the incentive reserved can possibly pay for a system installation with no money spent from anyone other than California's S.G.I.P. program. A few short years ago, per-kWh pricing on batteries was what, maybe $500 and now reaching $200. That is for the raw batteries. If it hits $100 by 2020, then programs like this one are paying for the system and the buyer actually isn't paying for much at all. I guess that's good if everyone benefits. Competitors like Coda probably uses a Chinese cell and their 20 KW system shows a system overall price of $72K, so that is $3600/KW. Newer items in the spreadsheet show 78 KW with $234K price or $3115/KW. They are going to have to work harder to source lower-priced batteries to keep up with Tesla. The only one even close is Green Charge Networks and they are just under $3000/KW for 150KW systems.
Look at SCE-SGIP-2015-1172 - 150KW (3 powerpacks) - rebate of $180,000 ($1750/KW or $1.75/W due to the 1.20 multiplier since Tesla is in Calif) available on a proposed $300,000 system price allowance. Is the powerpack really $25K? So, this one would be $75K of powerpacks, let's say $30K for inverters and $15K for permits and various electrical engineering work. Round it to $120K, add $10-20K sales and marketing and you have $180K incentive paying for a possible $130-150K turnkey system (wholesale). I like the numbers. Now, what is the price exposed to the buyer? That's hard to know. The margin here is perhaps the grey area that is held close. What I wouldn't know - maybe someone here like jhm knows - is the pricing of 50 KW inverters (charge and discharge). They do have to have the "Grid Sell" features like the small units that Solar City used for home installs of the 10 kWh systems, the Schneider Electric XW, if I remember correctly. And larger systems need some sort of telemetrics tied to the power company so it can regulate charge and discharge cycles.
I don't think we're at $500/kWh just yet. But even $1000/kWh is quite good. I doubt a delivered commercial system will reach below $1000/KW in the next two years, mainly due to the rich incentives in some states like CA and NY. $700-800/kWh for a single powerwall system seems about right for now. In CA - the "break even" is not even an issue. It looks like the systems pay for themselves (if priced in the buyers' favor) in just a couple years given the incentive returned. If I were a buyer, I would seriously NOT lease such a system but rather work out the price, installed, turnkey and pay for the system myself as long as the rebate check was coming my way.
it is just too bad that V2G is not allowed with MS or most EVs today. Especially for rare blackout power scenarios, a couple times a year.�
Jun 2, 2015
jhm Interesting. So to go about 30 miles in an EV, you need about 10 kWh. In a gas car to need about 1.33 gallons which require 6 to 8 kWh to produce. So the incremental demand for electricity with EVs is around 2 to 4 kWh per day, not 10.
This pretty much also explains why EVs will alway cheaper and more energy efficient to power than gas cars.
- - - Updated - - -
But the question for such uses is whether they will pay high enough rates for electricity to pay for the capital cost of fossil plants in addition to operating and fuel costs. And if willing to pay such rates for electricity, would they not also get better rates from renewable power. Pumping water can accomodate the intermittency of solar and wind. That's a really tough position to be in.�
Jun 2, 2015
Bet TSLA No, it's not. If there's a glut, an oversupply, electricity will be sold at market price (one afternoon recently it went negative in Australia). For users who can be choosy, the average spot price is what renewable power is competing with. I still say no glut because there's too much negative feedback.�
Jun 2, 2015
jhm What I am referring to is 200 TWh of storage capacity, not energy produced or consumed.�
Jun 2, 2015
AudubonB Now it makes sense, then. It wasn't clear from the context...to me, at least.�
Jun 2, 2015
Bearman I have often heard that refining gasoline/diesel requires certain amount of electricity but never seen a reliable source for the exact numbers, if any of you have one please post it here and make my life easier arguing with deniers.
Thx�
Jun 2, 2015
AlMc Best short answer 6kWh: best long answer I could find: http://gatewayev.org/how-much-electricity-is-used-refine-a-gallon-of-gasoline�
Jun 2, 2015
jhm We discussed that up thread before April 30. At the time we were trying to figure out what Tesla could get for batteries. Most of us were surprised with how low Tesla set the price, $250/kWh. I'm glad Tesla entered this low. I think it is low enough to trigger substantial change.
Regarding the EPRI study, they were modeling complete installations, which include a lot of cost beyond the batteries alone. What was missed is that batteries can be moved into existing facilities like an active or retired coal plant for minimal siting and installation cost. Additionally, the cost of capital is quite different considering the modularity and mobility of Powerpacks. Suppose you have an existing and active coal plant. You can install just a few Powerpacks and evaluate the financial performance. If the performance suggest a positive return, you can add more packs. And as market contitions change you keep adding packs until there is little to no marginal benefit. But what if the situation changes such that marginal packs have negative benifit? Then you uninstall and redeploy to another location. An existing fleet of Powerpacks can be redeployed as needed to optimize the value of the entire fleet. This the downside risk of a particular deployment is limited to the cost of redeployment. This is a very different financing proposition then, say, building out a 100 MW NG plant, where Capex is pretty much a sunk cost that can never be recovered should the economics deteriorate. Powerpacks will be quite nimble at seeking out the highest possible returns. So if anything, the EPRI underestimates the economic value that batteries can create.�
Jun 2, 2015
jhm Yeah, I was only trying to address the question of how quickly production could be scaled up to install 200 TWh of stationary and mobile battery packs, which depends critically on the rate of growth leading upto 10 TWh annual production capacity. An annual growth rate of 42% gets us to this midpoint in 15 years, and 30% gets us there in 20. I think the expansion of solar has been closer to 42% which gives me hope.
So my concern was just the pace of expansion. Bonaire brings up many other complexities of just how to achieve such a pace. My feeling is that, if we can get far enough along the experience curve to cut the coat well below the economic benefit, then the transition can come pretty quickly. So for me the key issue is to drive down the cost with scale. Government incentives are, as Musk has recently said, not necessary, but are useful catalysts for reaching scale efficiencies quicker.�
Jun 2, 2015
austinEV That answer is strange. They are estimating that based on the amount of loss from crude to gasoline? I suppose that is because refineries make their own electricity?�
Jun 2, 2015
jhm Growth of photovoltaics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So I looked up some data on the growth of PV solar. The cumulative installed base has grown from 566 MW in 1998 to 2735 MW in 2003, 15844 MW, and finally 138856 MW in 2013. So over this 15 year period the annualized growth rate was 44.3%. In the last 5 years, the pace has picked up a bit to 54.4%. This quickening of pace makes economic sense as solar his hit unsubsidized parity prices in differ geographical markets. If we were back in 1998 and someone said that solar needs to grow 200 fold over the next 15 years, most people would not have believed it could be possible. And, of course, now we have the benefit of hindsight and selection bais to see that in fact PV solar grew 245 times. So now as we look forward to the growth advanced batteries, we know that it is at least possible to scale manufacturing at a rate of 44% per year for 15 or more years all while driving the cost down year after year. In fact, the sustained annual growth was made possible by these successive reductions in price. Should the pace of price reductions slow in the coming years, then the expansion will slow as well.
Anyone want to figure out when there will be enough solar to power 2 B vehicles, about 5 TW (5,000,000 MW) of PV?�
Jun 2, 2015
vgrinshpun The answer is indeed strange. I do not believe energy loss during the refinery process is equivalent to the electricity consumed during the process. I am not a chemist, but it seems that if refining of oil requires energy in form of, for example, heat, this energy is not necessarily obtained from electricity. The methodology seems to be flawed.
Based on 2013 US yearly Finished Motor Gasoline production of 845,935,000 barrels (35,529,270,00 gallons) and 2013 US yearly electricity purchased by all US refineries (46,078,000,000 kWh), the total electricity consumed during the refining is 1.26 kWh per gallon of produced gasoline.
In addition, comparing electricity used in the process of gasoline production to the electricity used to propel an EV is very misleading. The proper comparison would involve comparing usage of electricity in the process of refining oil to usage of electricity in the process of generating electricity, i.e. electrical energy consumption by a power plant. I do not have references handy, but to the best of my recollection it is in the range of 5 to 10%, i.e. it takes about 5 to 10 kWh to produce 100kWh of electrical energy.
- - - Updated - - -
I believe that this line of reasoning is erroneous, please see my post above.�
Jun 2, 2015
vgrinshpun James, unfortunately your estimate of the energy needed for the electrification is not accurate.
As seen from the several slides from the power point I prepared for my workplace presentation, according to the very detailed Pacific Northwest National Laboratory study, complete utilization of the existing US power generation (less the peakers) will cover only 73% of the US light duty vehicle (LDV) fleet. Complete electrification of transportation (including heavy duty vehicles) will require substantial increase of the installed generation capacity **and** installation of the vast amount of the grid connected battery storage.
NOTE TO THE MODS: we are probably OT here, it seems that this post and related posts from jhm and others should be moved to the Stationary Storage Investors thread. Thanks
�
Jun 2, 2015
ecarfan @vgrinshpun wrote: "Complete electrification of transportation (including heavy duty vehicles) will require substantial increase of the installed generation capacity **and** installation of the vast amount of the grid connected battery storage."
See Elon's PowerWall launch presentation. He discussed that. The generation capacity can be covered by increased PV, and of course a lot of batteries. It's doable. But big oil and the utilities will fight it and do whatever they can to delay it.�
Jun 2, 2015
vgrinshpun Of course it is doable (and yes, I saw Elon's presentation).
The point of my posts is that addition of installed solar, wind generation capacity will not only need to replace existing generation capacity, but also provide additional generation capacity required by electrified transport. The result is that existing utilities can very well survive the transition if they embrace deployment of renewables and grid connected energy storage - they have some time for action, but *no* time for pondering the issue. They need to make serious and decisive move to renewables and grid connected storage *now*.
- - - Updated - - -
In fact there are already precedents of utilities supporting PHEVs. Swedish utility and Volvo formed an alliance that financed development of the plug-in Volvo V70 diesel hybrid.
Also, I totally agree that there is a clear evidence of very shrewd strategic play by "Musk Industries" - in one of the interviews Lyndon mentioned that solar connected Powerwal will be an insurance from the "bad policy decisions".:biggrin:�
Jun 2, 2015
ggr No, the refineries mostly need heat, which they get from burning stuff, it never gets converted to/from electricity. Nevertheless, the energy is used up.�
Jun 2, 2015
EarlyAdopter Right, and that heat energy (and CO emissions) could have been used to spin a turbine and put electricity back on the grid, but instead is put into chemical processes to separate petroleum. Electricity is fungible, so this lost opportunity generation should be counted in the total electricity cost of refining oil.
- - - Updated - - -
You have to look past just the power inputs into refineries, per my post above.�
Jun 2, 2015
Lessmog Wow. Exponential growth boggles my little mind.�
Jun 3, 2015
Johan You're not alone. Our human minds seem to not be wired to intuitively grasp exponential growth. We always tend to think in a linear fashion. When we do observe exponential growth we always have a tendency to not believe it, think it's just transient, extrapolate linearity instead of furhter exponential growth. Also in the early stages it can be difficult to separate linear from exponential growth, since the absolute numbers are so small and the slope and shape of the growth curve is not obvious at first.
Ray Kurzweil has some good thoughts about this, even though he can sometimes come across as a bit too optimistic, I still think he's often mostly right:
The Law of Accelerating Returns | KurzweilAI
�
Jun 3, 2015
bonaire In prior pages, we noted that the population growth will go to something like 9-11 Billion. That means one thing - more power usage. However, batteries themselves are not power creators but rather power storage and effectively net-power users because of charging losses. So, the real interest will be what power systems power the batteries. In reading a link I posted earlier - from Royal Dutch Shell about the energy profile of 2050, they show that coal use will be going up due to the Asia/India effects. Those would be base-load plants which run 24x7 and supply to their users who want to have continuous economic growth as they turn away from subsistence farming to more service-oriented economies. If you're a fan of CO2 reduction and climate change - it appears that population and economic growth trumps our desires for sustainability.
I do not know if exponential growth is good, in fact, especially for us resource-using people. It may be good for economies and in turn those who can afford to invest in them. You know, the guys who supplied picks and shovels to the gold miners during the gold rush made the most money. The power companies and support systems will do well during this population growth phase. But it really does not speak well to a sustainable resource profile as the per-capita food, energy and other resource uses goes up worldwide.
This is an investor forum page and so, I guess the theory is that "more people, more demand" so I can say one thing that is obvious. More babies, higher stock market long-term.
Anyway, I think my point is - exponential growth should be done smartly in those areas that add a positive. But watch out for false promises. I think that renewables are a good thing and smoothing the grid is a good thing but it is not a call to have more babies or burn more power because energy is now more in-control. We still have to cut back on our usage in smart ways. We really need exponential growth of intelligence.�
Jun 3, 2015
jhm To be sure, when I speak of exponential growth it is mostly in the context of logistic growth. Logistic growth describes how we transition from one equilibrium to another. In the early stage of this transition growth is approximately exponential, but the rate of growth declines so much the it become linear at the point of inflection, midway to the terminal state, to sublinear from from that point on. So any kind of concern that exponential growth is not sustainable over the very longterm is reasonably modeled as a logistic transition to some sort of long term carrying capacity. What is critical is to note that growth rates decline over time. This may even apply to things like interest rate, noting that real interest rates in the US have been about zero or even negative over the last 5 years. Or notice that real GDP growth rates tend to be lower in developed countries than in developing countries. This is all consistent with a finite resource world where economies converge to some sort of long-term carrying capacity. So it is very important to witness how growth rates decline over time.
Regarding renewables and batteries we are still in the very early stages of adoption, when growth rates are very high. For batteries it will take 15 to 20 years just to get halfway to carrying capacity. So this is the time when the growth rate can be in range of 30% to 50%. After 20 years the rate will decline as con as is consistent with logistic growth. It is actually quite beneficial to humanity and the planet that this transition gets off to a quick start. The difference between initial growth at 30% or 42% is a matter of delaying elimination of fossil fuels by a decade. Can we really afford to let fossil fuels continue to push us deep into climate change an extra ten years? The damage done in those extra ten years could be pretty much permanent on a human time scale. Whatever the size of the human population is in 2100, it will be miserable if we do not phase out fossil fuels by 2050. We need to get this transition done with urgency.�
Jun 3, 2015
vgrinshpun This is gross misinterpretation of the data. Nobody claims that the process of refining oil into gasoline is 100% efficient. However, equating heat required in this process with electrical energy and then using this energy to make comparison with the energy required to propel and EV is equivalent to comparing apples to banana peel.
First off, as far as transportation fuel is concerned, comparison of losses (and carbon emissions) during refining of the oil should be compared to the losses during the production of the electricity, **not** energy that is required to move an EV. Both processes are not lossless, with generation of electricity being more efficient of the two.
Secondly, saying that energy consumed in the process of refining is equivalent to electrical energy which could have been produced is just wrong because, as mentioned above, generation of electricity is not a lossless process - at best only slightly more than 50% of the heat energy can be converted to electricity at the best and newest power plants.
This whole line of thinking is incredibly flawed.�
Jun 3, 2015
JRP3 I'd also add that much of the refinery energy used is from petroleum byproducts that would not exist if the oil were not being extracted from the ground and refined, i.e. petroleum coke and natural gas. So to be clear, not much electricity is used per gallon in refining, most of the "6kWh per gallon" is actually heat, and most of both the electricity and heat produced are from petroleum byproducts. Stop drilling and refining oil and those byproducts are no longer available for power generation.�
Jun 3, 2015
jhm Certainly the utilities should move quickly on renewable, storage and EV charging infrastructure. However, what you need to do to make your case about needing more fossil generation capacity is to work out how long it will take for 84% of the US light duty fleet to be electrified and similtaneously model the expansion of solar, wind and batteries over that time. In my attempts to model fleet compostion, I am looking at peak ICE fleet occuring in the early 2030s and 84% penetration would still be off into the 2040s. Meanwhile, solar capacity has been advancing 54% annually over the last 5 years. Hitting 15 TW of solar globally by 2030 is not a stretch. Pairing that with 45 TWh of stationary storage in the same timeframe would provide about 60 TWh of highly dispatchable solar energy and would only require a comparable growth rate in batteries. I submit that this would be sufficient to retire the most inefficient third of fossil generators potentially a decade before the auto fleet is 84% electrified. So utilities need to move incredibly fast if they want to own the bulk of 15 TW PV and 45 TWh storage by 2030, but the smartest ones will ditch their least efficient fossil plants while there still exist buyers for such assets.�
Jun 3, 2015
bonaire That is the discussion point. And different viewpoints offer different feelings and non-science about it. In the end, all tribes on this ball need to agree. Since they do not and even some have religious undertones into the discussion, it may be that it is never solved. I think we have to be ready (in heart, mind, soul) that it may never be solved. I think humanity can live through 2*C rise. I think humanity can live through 5*C rise. However, not all species will. We have people living from the Yukon down to the equator. Obviously we can survive a few degrees of temperature change. The financial hit of moving NYC on-shore, Tokyo and other cities that would be affected by 30' sea level rise is a big deal. But if the whole issue of climate change implies economic costs to move sea-side cities - I think then the problem isn't "for humanity" but rather "for economy". I value humanity more than economy.
Our biggest risk is how we handle a soft-landing when "easy, cheap fossil fuel goes away". Turn off the oil and nat gas spigot tomorrow and what would it take for us to all get along? Turn it off in the year 2100 with long term planning up front - it makes it easier. It is possible we hit 11 Billion people by 2070 to 2080. And so, that would be right about the time the general oil reserves are exhausted. That's the big issue. Without the easy oil, we face a possible population bottleneck ahead. I think that is the issue Musk is sort-of eluding to when he says things like "we need to do this...for humanity" ie. if you ever saw the early 2013 TED interview where he mentioned 2030 solar pv becoming a plurality of US energy production. (( and of course, if it does, he and supporters will become very wealthy in regard to SC and TM ))�
Jun 3, 2015
Familial Rhino The distinction between the severe warming effects on the economy as opposed to humanity is not that well defined. Surely humanity is seriously affected when all coastal cities around the world must relocate, not to mention entire island-nations. Unless humanity is only impacted when there are no humans left, which makes this discussion moot.
No, Musk is not alluding to that. He is on record saying that if we burn all available fossil fuels we are playing with the future of the planet. He is not concerned with running out of fossil fuels, he is concerned with the world not running out of them soon enough to stop catastrophic warming.�
Jun 3, 2015
bonaire But he also must know (and has stated that EVs are really just kind of moving closer to the decimal point) that EV adoption is going to take long decades to accomplish. The only real way to get the point across to the world is to get government leaders talking. But how many will say that oil only has <n> years left? Are any gutsy enough to do so? I think Climate Change is one way to soften the blow. Rather than saying oil will run out in 50-60 years, they are saying that our burning of oil is bad and we should slow down. The hard crash of the world economy once oil is gone is probably what they don't want to let out of the bag. It would be just as bad as saying a 4 mile asteroid is coming, don't know where it will hit but will be here in 55 years. I am certainly convinced that easy oil will run dry. Shale oil will hang on a while, fracking for a while but eventually we will need to drop below 90 Million barrels per day of consumption. And at the same time - if population ramps from 7B to 9B and 11B, wouldn't it be better now to adopt a plan for population education into this matter rather than trying to grow economies like China and India to use up the oil and other fossil fuels even faster? I doubt our world leaders can handle this "well".�
Jun 3, 2015
Familial Rhino You are saying that Elon talks about the warming risks to scare us into avoiding the real danger, which is (according to you) that oil supplies will be ending. You have it backwards. Elon is saying that since oil will be exhausted at some point anyway, we should start the transition now because we are destroying the planet. Even if there was enough oil for another 1000 years at current rates of consumption, we should still stop burning it. Really.
Using sugar as your primary food is a really bad idea not because you will run out of sugar, but because you will run out of pancreas.�
Jun 3, 2015
doggusfluffy Oh great! Next I suppose you're going to tell me alcohol isn't the best liquid to run my body on either and it's also probably bad for my liver in the long run. Junk science. :wink:
Also this:
Samsung, LG unfazed by Teslas battery push
�
Jun 4, 2015
bonaire Follow up to my post about regarding oil running out...
S.A. apparently has 268 Billion barrels of proven reserves. They produce 10 Million barrels a day now and wanted the lower price to produce more market share. At that rate, they will be "empty" in 73 years. Proven reserves don't mean total potential reserves, of course, but my point is that very easy oil will run out in four generations if no new reserves are round. Some have even speculated that they over-state their reserves.
Total worldwide reserves is 1481 Billion barrels. Total world demand is 93 Million barrels a day. That is 43 years of "total reserves / daily demand". This is not that long of a time. Either humanity finds more oil, replaces it with something else or learns to conserve like crazy -- or something of a serious economic and humanitarian concern is on the not to far horizon. I wonder if you asked people on the street if they know about these numbers. Based on the timing and population growth oil may run out when world population is between 8.5-10.5 billion. How many world leaders want to let the populations know about these numbers? How many view these as "outside of my re-election window"?�
Jun 4, 2015
jhm How Tesla Energy could capture the standby capacity market
Last year California utilities paid $190/kW/year for standstandby capacity. My mind keeps going back to this point with the thought of how could Tesla Energy capture this value. Consider that Tesla wants to sell Powerpacks at $500/kW. Within 3 years at around $190 per year, Tesla could more than break even. So the question becomes, how can Tesla place these assets into this market with no cost of siting or installation?
Here is one proposal. Tesla could make Powerpacks available to power producers, think solar farm for an engaging example, under multi-year storage capacity lease. The idea of a storage capacity lease is that leasee cedes standby capacity payments to the lessor (Tesla Energy). The leasee pays for the cost of installation and provides a suitable site. The leasee gains the benefits of on site storage to improve the economics and operations of their generation facility. Suppose you are a solar farm operator. Very little additional equipment may be needed to integrate Powerpacks into your farm. What you gain is the ability to smooth the solar power you sell, avoid selling when prices are too low, sell when prices are higher, and even buy cheap power overnight for additional rate arbitrage. All these uses improve your operating profit without a large capital outlay for batteries or the risk of owning a battery long-term, including potential declines in the standby capacity fees and declining performance of the battery. Additionally, you do not have to wait for long back orders to acquire Powerpacks for full ownership. Such a lease could be a very compelling offer to a solar farm.
Now what does Tesla get out of such a deal. They get a lease that is worth the next ten years or so of standby capacity payments, plus they retain the residual value of battery itself. Ten years at $190 per year is perhaps too good to be true. As more capacity comes into the market, payments could decrease. Tesla could easily handle payment declining to $50/kW/year, maybe less. A capacity glut has the potential to drive this market price much lower. However, the key driver to a capacity glut would be the introduction of cheap storage. So it is well within Tesla's power to moderate this risk as they would control most of the battery production capacity. Basically the leases would be competing with the batteries they sell. The essential risk is that other battery producers step in and create a battery glut. Given the scale of the stationary and transportation battery markets, this risk seems pretty remote. We would need something like 200 gigafactory equivalent units (GFUs ) within the next ten years to screw up ten-year leases made over the next five years. This is a manageable risk for Tesla. So the battery glut scenario is quite remote, but it should be clear that a fossil peak plant glut scenario would have to play out before a battery glut. Thus, the greater risk of declining standby capacity fees goes to fossil plant operators. So financing fossil plants will become riskier and more expensive. Meanwhile, Tesla Energy can build up a portfolio of storage capacity leases placed is diverse markets around the world. These leases can be bundled as an asset along with the residual value of the Powerpacks to create asset backed securities. These ABS bonds could be sold into the bond market at favorable terms for Tesla Energy. (Note this is essentially what SolarCity does with PPAs for long-term financing.)
So I am pretty confident that Tesla Energy could structure a financial product that would give them fairly direct and efficient exposure to standby capacity markets. Over the longrun this will drive fossil plants out of this market, but before that is accomplished Tesla could enjoy much higher returns on Powerpacks than what current pricing would suggest. So in the interim, this could go a long way toward paying for the expansion of Gigafactories.�
Jun 4, 2015
ggies07 This could go in several threads, so I'm putting in here:
At OPEC theSaudi Oil Minister Mainly Wants to Discuss Solar Power - Bloomberg Business
�
Jun 4, 2015
jhm Very cool. I like this post here because it is about disrupting the energy markets.
I think the Oil Minister is not pushing this far enough. Exporting electricity might not have nearly as much economic impact as putting that cheap electricity to work within the Kingdom. What they should be looking at is manufacturing that utilizes alot of power. Might I recommend that they have Tesla produce a Gigafactory for them. They can export advanced battery packs. Getting into this business would actually be a hedge for the Kingdom against the rise of electric vehicles. If Nevada can host a Gigafactory, why not Saudi Arabia?�
Jun 4, 2015
ItsNotAboutTheMoney A reserves means that it can be extracted economically. Given improved recovery technology and increased oil prices, their reserves should have been increasing over time. Doesn't mean that the new reserves will all be as cheap as the current production though.�
Jun 4, 2015
drinkerofkoolaid My guess is the reason these companies/cartels are rapidly increasing output is they realize their stockpiles will become a lot more difficult to get access to and sell, once new regulations take effect. Something like a last hurrah before the boom ends?�
Jun 4, 2015
jhm I want to follow up on a discussion that began here:
Tesla Stationary Storage Investors Thread - Page 47
We discussed that about 60 GW of peak power capacity is added each year at an average cost of $1000/kW. This is a $60B market. Vladimir pointed to a helpful slide that illustrated how the dynamic range of such a plant is only about 70% of the full capacity. The plant must operate at at least 30% to be able to vary output for 30% to 100%. Thus such a plant may need to pay to idle when spot prices are negative and otherwise the 30% minimum can displace more efficient baseload rates. So this is an expensive way to get variable capaicity. On top of the utilities need to pay standby fees just to have such a capacity available. Moreover, the response time is about 10 minutes to vary output.
So batteries provide an attractive alternative. They provide 200% dynamic range, operating from -100% to 100%. And the do not need to idle. So they do not compete with baseload, which maximizes the utilization of baseload capacity. Moreover they are highly responsive, adjusting output in less than a second.
So far this is a review of what we have discussed. What I d like to do now is refine an estimate of how much battery production capacity may be needed to capture the $60B market for new peak plants. In earlier discussion I had made the mistake that an equivalent number of GW would be required of batteries to satisfy this market. This need not be the case. 60 GW of gas peaker capacity gross provides just 42 MW of variable capacity, ie., dynamic range. Moreover, batteries deliver 2 times as much dynamic range per W. Thus, as little as 21 GW or 42 GWh of Powerpacks could satisfy this market. So this current $60B market could be satisfied by as little as $10.5 B of Powerpacks plus the cost of installation, which could be trivial if sited within existing power plants. So batteries come in a quarter of the cost. This is a huge economic motivator for adoption, that requires no subsidization.
So the next question is how long will this take. If Tesla expands the Gigafactory to 75 GWh so that 50 GWh is available for stationary storages, then this will suffice for the 42 GWh minimally needed to capture this market. Tesla looks to achieve this some time 2018 to 2020. Moreover, other companies like LG Chem are moving quickly into this space. So it is plausible that the new peak power plant market could be fully captured by batteries as early as 2018. Beyond halting new fossil peaker plant development, the batteries will compete with existing peaker plants. As these plants lose utilization and peak rates decline, the least efficient plants will need to be retired whether they are fully amortized or not. Write-downs of NG plants could begin much earlier than most people might expect, 3 to 5 years.�
Jun 5, 2015
evme AMS has said they signed a 500mwh order with Tesla:
Your Renewable News | Advanced Microgrid Solutions signs 500 MWh energy storage deal with Tesla�
Jun 5, 2015
jhm So AMS has contracts with customers for 50 MWh and now an agreement with Tesla for 500 MWh. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for AMS to need a new agreement with Tesla.�
Jun 6, 2015
bonaire The way I read it, it is a 50MW deal with SCE and they are using 40% of the 500MWh order for that, or 200 MWh. Sounds like they want four hours of runtime which is the late afternoon peak period after solar slows its output after 3pm. Peak demand is 5pm to 9pm on the hottest So Cal days. The writer miswrote 50MWh when it should have read 50MW. Sounds like it will be distributed and with that, they can utilize the S.G.I.P. Program to just about pay for the installs if they can book all the installations onto the program. Perhaps Tesla can pull some old pricier 2011-2013 projects off the list and replace with the newer projects from AMS?
Tesla Motors Inc. Signs 500 MWh Energy Deal With Advanced Microgrid Solutions
some price curves vs system loads and this shows the reason why they want to knock down the peaks.
http://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/mkt-electric/california/2011/08-2011-elec-CAISO-dly.pdf�
Jun 8, 2015
gene http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/08/panasonic-autos-batteries-idUST9N0Y302M20150608
Article: Japanese electronics group Panasonic Corp plans to send hundreds of its employees to Tesla Motors Inc's Gigafactory in Nevada from this autumn to prepare for production at the plant, which it confirmed will start sometime next year.
Panasonic, which has been expanding into sales of industrial goods and other business to reduce its reliance on commoditised consumer electronics, is partnering with Tesla to make lithium-ion batteries at the eco-car manufacturer's Nevada Gigafactory.
"We'll need hundreds of people at the start," Yoshio Ito, head of Panasonic's automotive and industrial systems (AIS) division, told reporters on Monday. "We should actually see that starting around the autumn."
He also said the company plans to invest around 60 billion yen ($478 million) this fiscal year in the Gigafactory and the company's joint development project with Spanish auto parts maker Ficosa International SA, which specialises in advanced driver assistance systems featuring blind spot detection and assisted parking. ($1 = 125.4900 yen)�
Jun 8, 2015
electracity Interesting thread, but put on your Elon thinking cap:
If the U.S. is all EV, storage on wheels in the U.S. will represent about the total daily electricity usage in the U.S.
If you had a contract with utilities to use 10% of that capacity at the rate of $.06/kwh, it would be worth six billion dollars.
Six billion dollars per day.
Tesla Energy will probably be in the business of utility scale storage and support services by aggregating the massive installed base of distributed home and EV batteries. Done well, this is probably the best answer to running the grid with a high percentage of intermittent renewables.�
Jun 8, 2015
winfield100 @JHM, et. al. for info on Renewable energy growth, google and download excel spreadsheetplanetary consumption in Terawatt-hours, 2007 to 2013
BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2014, sheets 54 (PV) and 56 (wind)
note: doubles, almost doubles, rate of exponent slows but fairly large
6.7 11.2 19.1 30.5 59.2 94.1 124.8
and Wind 2007 - 2013 in tera-watt hours
170.6 219.1 277.8 343.2 435.9 522.1 628.2 �
Jun 9, 2015
electracity What are believed to be Tesla cell costs at this point? It seems to me that the powerwall is priced below all-in cost. A profitable price would be maybe 3X the component cost. I think the price they announced is really 2018 pricing.�
Jun 9, 2015
ecarfan That makes no sense to me. At the Tesla Energy launch last month the PowerWall prices were announced. There is no reason to think that Tesla is lying and that the price is much higher, and that the announced prices were actually the prices three years from now.�
Jun 9, 2015
Bgarret Good article in Forbes about the game-changing nature of Tesla's battery technology - I really enjoy the following:
In the fourth of those charts, DOE analysts had pegged the capital cost of lithium-ion battery storage at about $500/kWh of battery capacity, which is where the price had been hovering until last month, when Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced a grid-level battery, the Tesla Powerpack, at $250/kWh.
National Lab Director On Tesla Battery: 'This Is The Future, Now' - Forbes�
Jun 9, 2015
electracity I'm not saying they are lying. I'm saying they will likely selling at a loss for awhile. It's a 200lb piece of electronic equipment. How is their direct cost per unit less than $2K today?
Tesla Energy's long term strategy in the distributed power market is what is interesting. They don't need good margins on batteries to do well. The strategy is not to dominate the battery storage market to sell batteries. The strategy is to be a big player selling energy and distributed services.�
Jun 9, 2015
dhanson865 I don't think they have enough cash reserves to sell at a significant loss with the volumes they are talking about. I could believe that they'll sell it at cost for now and let the profit margin increase as cost per battery decreases.
They have enough demand to charge what they need on this stuff, no reason to sell it below cost.�
Jun 9, 2015
electracity How can there not be a GAAP loss? What I think musk would say is that the loss doesn't matter. That selling at this price makes the best return in the long run.
If there is no GAAP loss per product, then you are saying the cells are at most $100/kwh. Great if true, but unlikely.
It may be possible to justify current Powerwall pricing based on long term customer acquisition costs alone. Consider Mercedes entering the market. Mercedes didn't announce products to make a good future return on batteries.�
Jun 9, 2015
dhanson865 I think you need to show the work on your math. It sounds off to me.
Industrial grade products are $250/kwh. Home products even higher. Were are you seeing powerwalls sold for $1000?
I'm seeing Powerwall | Tesla Home Battery
10 kWh $3,500 ($350/kWh)
7 kWh $3,000 ($428/kWh)
You have to have some info I don't if you think they are selling these at some kind of loss.�
Jun 9, 2015
hockeythug Mercedes-Benz is going head-to-head against Tesla with a home battery
No pricing yet.�
Jun 9, 2015
AudubonB Mild-mannered Moderator chiming in:
Hockeythug, it is considered inappropriate to create a post that contains solely a link. We request a modicum of input describing its relevance, key points, refutable information or suchlike. Makes for a far more constructive and informative discussion - thanks.�
Jun 9, 2015
trils0n Why do the cells need to be $100/kWh? That doesn't make any sense to me, I'd say if they were going for selling at cost (no margin) then the cell cost could be near, but probably less than, $300/kWh. (This is in line with current cost estimates for Tesla's auto batteries). I assume the cells are the primary cost of the Powerwall, so they probably need to be below $300/kWh to account for packaging, DC-DC inverter, assembly, etc.
10kWh/$3500 = $350/kWh
7kWh/$3000 is approx $430/kWh
Elon doesn't like selling products below cost.�
Jun 9, 2015
hockeythug Got it. Fixed.�
Jun 9, 2015
electracity Cell prices, not cost of storage. Cells are the primary cost component of tesla storage. But there are many parts in the box.�
Jun 9, 2015
Rarity Some outlines of Tesla's plans...
Bloomberg article�
Jun 9, 2015
JRP3 Already mad with power.�
Jun 10, 2015
dhanson865 And I still say you need to show your work. You want to claim that the battery cells are only 20-30% of the cost of the unit (BOM aka builld of materials)
I say they are a higher percentage of the BOM cost. Tell me what is so expensive that is eating up the other 80% of the cost of a powerwall when it doesn't include an inverter?
Isn't it basically a pretty shell + a battery pack (that includes BMS) + a couple of connectors?
Seems like to me that the battery costs are around $250 per kWh and the rest of the cost of the unit is minimal. To you there is some super expensive non cell cost and the cells are only $100 per kWh.
You seem to be making a pricing problem where one doesn't exist.�
Jun 10, 2015
techmaven Please show your work here. I think you are very far off.
Right now, Tesla sells a products with 70 kWH and 85 kWh of energy storage. Even after the 25% GM for the entire car, Tesla charged $280/kWh for the Model S battery pack upgrade including the sheet structure, based on 2013/2014 pricing. The PowerWall contains the cells + sheet structure + cooling pumps + BMS. The cost of the cells to Tesla was somewhere under $200/kWh, which a reference to $160/kWh. The strong dollar has now made the cells even cheaper. Since Tesla has to make many large battery packs, their automation and cost optimization of cell integration into battery packs is probably a bigger deal than most people realize.
The 3x part doesn't make much sense. And Tesla doesn't have deep enough pockets to sell at a loss and make it up in volume. Taking that to the car, it would mean that Tesla would have to sell the 70 kWh battery pack + BMS + cooling portion of the car for $50,000, not counting the rest of the car. That clearly does not make sense.�
Jun 12, 2015
jhm Tesla Hitting The Battery Accelerator | CleanTechnica
Apparently the utility industry thought they had more time.
With battery volume doubling, the annual decline in battery prices could be comparable to solar, about 15% per year. Everyone should read up on the experience curve, Wikipedia article good.�
Jun 12, 2015
jhm Californias Plan to Turn Distributed Energy Resources Into Grid Market Players : Greentech Media
Tesla could become a DERP, and that's a good thing. Tesla's Superchargers, vehicles, and Power products can all be aggregated to provide grid services.�
Jun 13, 2015
electracity Using EVs will probably be the most economic way to use a high percentage of intermittent renewables. People now view their BEV batteries as precious. But in ten or fifteen years this will change, and most BEV owners will place a higher priority on lifecycle cost.
The stats I recall JB Straubel giving are that overall vehicle utilization is 4%, with 80% of vehicles not used during rush hour. (I assume this is U.S.). Basically vehicles sit idle at home and at work. Tesla semi-official statement on batteries is that they decline significantly after five years. Obviously if batteries are cycled frequently and hard capacity will be reduced. But few cars have have hard daily use.
It is also interesting that the model S stores far more energy than their owners' homes use in a day. At some point in the future all of these conditions likely come together to produce improved economics by better utilizing BEV batteries.�
Jun 13, 2015
roblab My understanding was that Tesla has always stated that most degradation occurs in the first few years, and then tapers off to a very slowly degrading near flat line. The little bit of information that we have at present does not go out 5 years, but the above scenario plays out: Rapid degradation for a couple years, then flattening out.
I don't know where you get your information. All I have ever heard compares with this.
Battery Degradation Level In Tesla Model S Only 5% After 30,000 Miles?
Of course, maybe in 5 years it will take a nose dive, but evidently Tesla doesn't think so, with an eight year warranty and a maximum 30% degradation at that time.�
Jun 13, 2015
mkjayakumar The canary in the coal mine are the ones running in hot weather areas like Texas, Arizona and Florida. So range numbers from those owners are perhaps more interesting than from WA, northern Cal and UK.
If someone has driven two summers in those places and can chime in, that will be great.�
Jun 13, 2015
dmckinstry Is that 30% maximum official Rob. In my case I have ~44 kmiles on my S. The weather conditions have been mild as I've wintered in So. CA and live in WA in the summer. The percent degradation varies significantly depending on my assumptions. If I assume 265 rated miles when new, my current range charge gives me 256.3 miles (~3.3 percent loss). If I assume a new rated range of 270 miles (which I recall I actually had on my first range charge) it's more like a 5% loss.�
Jun 13, 2015
electracity The battery plot we have is an initial drop, then flat. For the model S, we have to go by Tesla's statements about what they anticipate for years 5+.
- - - Updated - - -
Well, they are in their own hot coal mine. Their degradation curve is not necessarily an accelerated typical degradation curve. I would air condition my garage in those climates.�
Jun 13, 2015
JRP3 Remember that any change in mileage may not be any actual cell degradation at all, it could be a BMS/software calculation error. Some people have "recovered lost capacity" by changing their charging routine, which means there never was any real loss.�
Jun 16, 2015
bonaire 1GWh = 100kWh * 10,000.
This indiates a rough revenue guidance for 2016 storage, based on $25K per powerpack (barring volume discounts or inaccuracies) : $250,000,000.
$250M is roughly the revenues of 2500 cars at ASP of $100K or 3125 at $80K ASP.
That $25K seems quite low really. I almost think it's too low priced compared to the competition and then to think $100 kWh is not far off which would lower the cost for a customer further still.
The CA initiative of storage entirety is 1.3GW of storage by 2020 (with install by 2023).
California Passes Huge Grid Energy Storage Mandate : Greentech Media
Meaning - most of that storage is backed by 2x the batteries - or 2.6 GWh (some more than 2 hours). What we don't know for sure yet is the wide-spread adoption of powerpacks in other countries and states (Hawaii and NY come to mind along with the Ireland announcement recently).�
Jun 16, 2015
jhm Remember that the real competition is not other battery makers, but fossil fuel generation operators who do not want their plants to become stranded assets. The price must be low enough to disrupt the economics of thermal electricity. Without getting the price low enough, the utilities continue to play their old game and uptake of batteries is slow. But take the price of Powerpacks low enough, and utilities can't even get financing to play the old game. Once the financing dries up, they will flock to Tesla for the batteries they need to stay in business. We actually need other battery makers to move aggressively as well for this new market to reach critical mass. This is the difference between growing this market at 10% per year or 100% per year.
Additionally, setting a low price will keep non-competitive batteries out of the market. When there are subsidies up for grabs, you don't want a bunch of lightweights soaking them up, but serious players only.�
Jun 16, 2015
bonaire jhm, the real interesting tech is the two-way intelligent charge controllers paired with grid-sell AC inverters. Batteries will eventually become some sort of commodity because what it takes is mass production such as steel or plastics. But also batteries are not energy creators but actually use energy in the end. They just offset usage in a grid-sell time-shift scenario. Charge at night - discharge afternoons. I am not really thinking of battery standby but rather the grid-benefits of having to produce less power during peak load periods and a nice smooth power distribution curve even on hotter days because the hot long lines and transformers are not needing to move as much power since local batteries are supplementing. As well, more efficient HVAC, lighting and other forms of LEED-based building efficiency certification can help. What about also some sort of governmental benefit given to the higher levels of LEED certification and self-generation? That could help.
Peaker plants may still be needed through regulation because they must ensure that hot, cloudy and windless afternoons must be covered for all those on the grid. In a future utopia in 50 years or later, when every home has a battery - sure, they can really relax the current grid design. But I think it will take a good number of decades before we really see both super-prevalence of batteries, prevalence of EVs and then a very marked decrease in the fossil fuel stuff.
Firms like Walmart can take the lead and install solar pv and batteries in all their stores, nationwide. And that may start to make a dent. There is just so much added fuel demand by the growing population.
Did you see today that housing permits for new construction is up 11.8% over last year? Future demand. I also read from an IEA page that gasoline demand this year will be up 3% over last year here in the USA. Mostly due to (I guess) the lower gas prices and sales of the big vehicles. And that pales in comparison to what is going on in India and China as they evolve their economies. The primary thing that renewables and batteries will help with here in the USA is the shutdown of older, dirty coal burning plants. One small bit about that is we can leave coal in the ground and some day, long into the future, if it is ever needed - it's there. I've always thought that fossil fuels are here for us to use until we find a way to make energy in a far more renewable form. Kind of a kick-starter fuel until we get smart enough to know not to use it.�
Jun 16, 2015
jhm Bonaire, you have plenty of good thoughts here, but I'd like to defend my view on about half of current generation capacity not being needed. Recall that the global generation capacity currently stands at 6 TW and about 60 TWh are supplied each day. This works out to an average utilization of about 10 hours per day. Peaker plants run just a few hours per day. So if you run your cheapest baseload 20 or more hours per day with sufficient storaged capacity for the few hours of peak demand, you simply do not need those inefficient peaking plants, and this is without consideration of adding much wind or solar to the picture. Wind and solar actually compete with baseload, supplying cheap energy at practically no marginal cost. By contrast batteries compete with highly dispatchable peaking power. The levelized cost for gas peaking plants in the US is 18 to 23 c/kWh. Wind, solar and baseload plants are in the 4 to 8 c/kWh range. Powerpacks priced at $250/kWh can provide storage at a levelized cost in range of 6 to 9 c/kWh. So from a cost perspective, it is not hard for wind, solar and baseload in combination with storage to provide fully dispatchable power at a lower cost than gas peaking plants. So if you have enough baseload capacity to charge batteries on a sunless, windless day, you simply do not need inefficient peaking plants. How we will know this to be the case is when the spot price consistently remains below 18 c/kWh for a few years. We will know that peaking plants are completely priced out of the market.
Another phenomenon long before we reach that point is that demand for natural gas will collapsed. At first the utilization of inefficient peaking plants will decline as efficient baseload natural gas and batteries displace the peakers. This will be a net gain in efficiency that reduced natural gas demand. Next, the expansion of solar and wind will come to displace the utilization of efficient baseload natural gas generators. So natural gas demand will take a second hit from renewables. Now at really low prices of natural gas peaking plants can achieve a levelized cost as low as 16 c/kWh, but even this is not low enough and it is still predicated on insufficient demand for natural gas. So cheap natural gas will not repair the market for gas peaking plants.
Notice I have pretty much ignored coal. Coal is already dead. Over the last three years 36% of US coal plants have been retired. It has become increasingly difficult to make the financial case for new coal virtually anywhere on the planet. Combined cycle natural gas is more efficient and cheaper in most places even before accounting for the environmental and health costs of coal. Wind and solar are also competing with coal.
Another popular objection to the scenario of a fossil generation glut is that EVs will emerge in time to create new demand for inefficient peaker plants. Let's just suppose the world has 1 billion plug in vehicles each using about 9 kWh per day. This so happens to be what you would need to run 3 TW of the world's most inefficient plants for 3 hours a day to generate the need 9 TWh of energy for 1 billion plug in vehicles. So at around 20 c/kWh the world could do this at a cost of $1.8B per day. Or smartly utilizing solar, wind and efficient baseload at around 6 c/kWh, this demand could be satisfied at $540M per day. Charging EV represents a flexible and even dispatchable load that can easily tap into the cheapest energy available as it is being produced. I see no reason why the global economy should waste $1.2B per day for the world's least efficient power generators. Currently, solar generates about 255 TWh per year and to cover a 1 billion vehicle fleet we would need about 3300 TWh per year. So growing solar by 30% per year for 10 years is sufficient to meet this demand. In the past 10 years solar has been growing at 47% year, so 30% for the next 10 years is not a huge stretch of the imagination. What is a huge stretch of the imagination is the thought of 1 billion plug in vehicles on the road in just 10 years. Solar, wind and of course batteries can all keep pace with the energy requirements for the EV fleet no matter how fast it grows. There is no economic argument for keeping the most inefficient fossil generators on line just to serve this demand. To do so would deprive the global GDP of at least $440B each year, not counting the the environmental and health cost of inefficient energy production.
What should be coming clear here is that this energy transition has the potential to reduce incredible friction in the global economy. Making best use of wind, solar batteries and EVs could add something on order of 1% GDP growth for decades to the global economy. The reason to retire half of the world fossil generators and leave huge reserves of fossil fuels in the ground is because to continue to rely on them would be a huge drag on the global economy. There is a much smarter, cleaner and more economically rewarding way to create an abundance of energy.�
Jun 17, 2015
bonaire Don't forget about "synchronous standby" which are plants running but not dumping to the grid. Those plants are basically "hot standby spinning reserve". That is if a plant has to take a boiler offline and that can place a sizeable overload on other plants. In terms of freq. response, batteries (if spread out enough) could be called upon first to go into service as synchronous standby but they cannot run as replacement baseload since their spec is usually 2 hours of standby power at their rated power number. A peaker plant can run 1 hour, 4 hours or 24x7 if needed. Batteries can be used in the mix of things but will take a lot of batteries to replace numerous synchronous standby plants and need to be very reliable.
One thing to remember overall is there is a battery snowball effect in terms of stationary storage. If 10 GWh are installed every year, during decade #2, 20 GWh are needed per year because original batteries have a 3000-4000 full cycle count associated with the chemistry. all batteries should need some sort of replacement as their capacities drop over the years. a 100kWh powerpack should have about 90 kWh of usable capacity after about 3-4 years, for example, then continue to drop as they cycle daily. It is like driving a Model S 200+ miles every day, over 70K miles per year. Something to consider. Batteries must become a commodity as their replacement ongoing will be necessary and is not factored into the original project budget but must be provided for in the out-years (out-decade?) Much like Solar PV inverter replacements are a known future cost. Solar inverter replacement at 13-15 years is well known - how about grid storage inverters themselves, another factor in projects. What will their warranty periods be? Usually shorter than the expected replacement window. Companies like Schneider Electric sell their Conext inverters and there, I believe their warranty is 3 years.
Solar modules do need to last - but if we really think about it - all Solar PV installed today needs total replacement in 50 years of degradation. Good for the vendors, I guess, as long as costs stay down. If they go up, people may turn away. And the costs have a small headwind that we must face - the dropping of federal and state incentives to install systems. Good thing prices are down from where they were 5 years ago. As with any "market" this is expected.
Coal - I don't follow much but it has dropped from 50% to 35% of baseload. Now, India and China are making up for our regulations to shut them down, and I suppose they are installing more plants than we shut down. Net effect, we move the pollution and greenhouse gases overseas (which also goes along with us moving our demand from factories overseas as well). As we Americans feel good about going green, the emerging economies are going as brown as we have ever been and with more population there, there is further danger of snowballing the effects they have. They still have lower per-capita incomes and carbon footprints, which I guess is good.�
Jun 17, 2015
jhm Actually surplus coal is not flowing into China. Coal imports to China are down 41% in May 2015 over prior year. China has been closing down inefficient coal plants and ramping up renewable power. When you think about it, it is a much stronger industrial play for China to mass produce solar panels, wind generators and batteries and install them domestically, than to import coal. Also the impact coal on health in China is horrendous. So they've got their own reasons for curbing coal.�
Jun 17, 2015
Johan Yes I wouldn't worry about the Chinese. They are doing in 40 years what it took the West 100 years to do (industrial revolution + transition in to post-industrial economy + huge growth) in 40 years. They are doing it better and smarter than we ever did. They won't repeat our mistakes. They are unwinding their dependence on fossil fuels as we speak and they will be much faster at that transition too. Their reasons are several: local environmental problems related especially to coal, economics (as has been thoroughly dissected here both coal and NG will for all intents and purposes not make economic sense in the very near future) and (a generally under appreciated reason) the Chinese do inhabit the same planet as the rest of us and they are smart enough to know that all their growth and development will be for nothing if the coastal regions of China gets covered by ocean and large parts of the country becomes uninhabitable due to draught.
Sometimes I think the "benevolent dictatorship" system of China is better than our broken western democracies that are so prone to manipulation and slow to implement societal change. Think of having Elon as a benevolent dictator running say the USA. I know it would be wrong in principle but I suspect it would work great in practice...�
Jun 17, 2015
JRP3 The problem with democracy is that half the voters are below average intelligence, and they vote :wink:�
Jun 17, 2015
9837264723849 erratum: below median intelligence�
Jun 17, 2015
jhm Just to drive one point home, one of the advantages of solar and batteries is that it turns the problem of energy creation mostly into a massive manufacturing problem. This is what the Chinese economy is really good at. Benevolent or not so much, China stands to make an awful lot on manufacturing solar, battery and related devices to the rest of the world. So it is well within their national interest in pushing all other countries into action on climate change. I don't think they saw this opportunity so clearly in Kyoto, but I suspect the technology and economics have improved to the point that China sees massive trade opportunities.
I am not at all cynical about this. Rather I think it illustrates just how important the technology and economics are. I am hopeful that we will see the politics on this improve as more countries come to see how economically beneficial the energy transition will be. Smart countries, smart companies and smart investors will figure out how divest from fossil fuel based technologies and switch to new energy opportunies. These are the ones who will benefit the most, while those that cling to fossil assets and fosdilized business models will lose wealth. It's not a death spiral; it's a change spiral, to quote Lyndon Rive.�
Jun 22, 2015
MitchJi Hi,
Most analysts are hugely undervaluing this.
Even missing the existing UPS market (Lutz is wrong):
And grid storage:
http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/14/energy-storage-about-to-get-big-and-cheap/
http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/30/tesla-powerwall-battery-economics-almost-there/#UpdatedCost
�
Jun 23, 2015
vgrinshpun Everybody and their oil company now want to be part of the energy storage business. Enter Shell Oil - they are partnering with Advanced Microgrid Solutions to install up to 20 Megawatts of battery storage at Shell Energy commercial, industrial and utility customer sites throughout California. AMS, of course, has 500MWh deal with Tesla Energy on deploying of their battery storage. This is a very small project for Shell Oil, but, perhaps, a signal for a new trend.
Are we starting to see divesture within the Big Oil, or just an attempt to hedge? Smart move in either case.�
Jun 23, 2015
Robert.Boston California has very high goals for installed grid-tied storage to integrate all the wind and solar on its power grid. To achieve that goal, CA is willing to pay a lot. Companies like Shell are merely jumping on the bandwagon, using their existing transmission-level facilities to house storage. I wouldn't read any motives into Shell's actions beyond making higher profits.�
Jun 23, 2015
vgrinshpun I am not sure if I can agree with this. Given CA SGIP program payout for the installed energy storage Shell Oil will probably get this 20MW of storage free, or will make small profit after installation costs are accounted for. Shell Oil, however, will need to spend resources to plan for this installation, issuing contract to AMS, etc. So there is no profits for Shell Oil to be made on the installation of this project. Shell oil could conceivably had saved save some money if this installation was used to shave peaks from the utility purchased energy, but they likely use cogeneration for any sizable internal consumption.
So I am far from sure that motivation for this project is, as you are suggesting, shorter term - making higher profits. This project does not make much sense for Shell Oil if this is the motivation for it, IMO. I think that impetus for this project is strategic, along the lines I included in my original post (which, BTW is, in the final analysis *is* about protecting their profits, long term...)�
Jun 23, 2015
atang I suspect that Shell oil is shaking it's boots 'bot now. imo.�
Jun 23, 2015
vgrinshpun Well, timing is everything.
I was discussing this article with my brother-in-law who just came from a prolonged visit with his friend living in Alberta, Canada. It turns out that his friend's father is a 40-year veteran of the Shell. As soon as I mentioned the article linked in my original post my brother-in-law eyes lighted up and he said that according to his friend's father, there is a conscientious strategic effort on part of Shell management to invest in renewable energy and energy storage that is needed to facilitate renewables. The long term vision is to transition from the fossil energy company to an energy company.�
Jun 23, 2015
Robertj Australia. Adelaide council to subsidise home batteries
Adelaide to pay for solar batteries to spur 'energy revolution'
DateJune 24, 2015 - 4:44AM
- 8 reading now
- Read later
Homes and businesses in the centre of Adelaide will be offered financial incentives to connect battery storage to their solar power systems.
Households and businesses will be given incentives to store surplus power in batteries. Photo: Glenn Hunt??
The Adelaide City Council will pay up to $5000 towards the cost of batteries in what it believes to be an Australian first.
Lord Mayor Martin Haese says adding energy storage to solar power is a "game changer" for the way the world reduces carbon emissions.
"We are on the cusp of an energy revolution," he said.
Advertisement?
"Just as we capture and store the rainwater that falls on our roofs, we can capture the sun's energy and store it until we need it, making continuous availability of carbon-free renewable energy a reality."
As well as cash for battery storage, the council will offer up to $5000 for the installation of a solar system, $500 for the installation of an electric vehicle charging point, up to $1000 for homes and businesses that switch to LED downlights and up to $5000 for apartment buildings that introduce energy efficient upgrades.
Mr Haese said responding to climate change was essential for the environmental and economic future of Adelaide.
"Council is determined that we will continue to be a leader in climate action and our expanded incentives to further encourage Adelaide's businesses and community early adopters," he said.
�
Jun 25, 2015
atang This is good and BIG news thanks so much for bringing it to us :smile: Plus welcome to the forum!�
Jun 25, 2015
muleferg Alevo Launches New Battery Technology for Storing Excess Clean Energy - Industry Tap
Another source.�
Jun 25, 2015
AudubonB I second that welcome - and I, too, already had cut-&-pasted that to the notice of the Arizonan members here, who are being beset with crushing pushbacks from the two utilities in the metro Phoenix area.�
Jun 25, 2015
atang Not to go on and on but as you have pointed out, this is really unfair for Arizona! but there will be a reckoning, And I suspect it wont be nice. imo�
Jun 25, 2015
vgrinshpun Thank you for posting this - as with your previous post about the Alevo battery, my hand almost involuntarily reached to grab a calculator.
This article claims that Alevo 1MWh battery pack fit into a 40ft shipping container. Given that standard shipping container is 40ft x 8ft x 8ft, the total volume is 2560 cu. ft. As I estimated earlier, Tesla Powerpack is 3ft x 4ft x 8ft, with a total volume of 96 cu. ft.
This means that one can fit 26.7 Powerpacks into one Alevo container, for a total capacity of 2.67 MWh. So it looks like Powerpack has 2.67 higher volumetric energy density then the Alevo GridBank.�
Jun 27, 2015
bonaire What is GridBank? - Alevo. Updated graphic in that link, compared to the article.
Looks like it runs at 2x the power of the storage capacity, i suspect that is for short term frequency response. Their web site really is a bit more drawings and hype than real data. Looks like they show a high recharge cycle count of 45,000 but only show 30% capacity at that point. 70% after 5000 cycles. Not that different than other Li-Ion. A123 showed 80% capacity after 8000 1C cycles.
http://www.neces.com/assets/Microgrids-p154vFINAL1.pdf�
Jun 29, 2015
hockeythug No mention of Tesla in the article but I think they can solve Hawaii's problem:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hawaii-wrestles-with-vagaries-of-solar-power-1435532277�
Jun 29, 2015
jhm Recycling American Coal Plants | MIT Technology Review
There are few things I enjoy as much as an article about repurposing coal, but I can't fathom how this author missed the potential to turn retired coal plants in to energy storage stations by swapping old machinery with with batteries. Many coal plants have been retrofitted with NG, but the ones retrofitted with batteries might just knock out gas plants as well.�
Jun 30, 2015
JRP3 Indeed, in my area there is an old coal plant that is trying to get approval to re-power with NG to meet peak demand loads, which would include running a pipeline to it. I've been thinking solar panels and a battery bank would be a better choice all around, yet no one is discussing it.�
Jun 30, 2015
ItsNotAboutTheMoney Assuming normal distribution, median = mean = mode.�
Jul 1, 2015
Robert.Boston The author may have missed it, but I know for a fact that the major independent generation owners haven't overlooked this opportunity. Still, storage is better co-located with either the variable generation it's helping to integrate or with load; co-location reduces transmission losses. The advantages of reusing old fossil plant sites are (a) cheap land because of contaminants and (b) transmission interconnection. Very few storage sites are so big that (b) matters--yet.�
Jul 1, 2015
jhm Yeah, Robert, collocation at active plants makes more sense, especially while the volume of batteries is small. I wonder if some coal generators may be thinking they can postpone an early retirement by loading up on batteries. It seems they could argue that such a hybrid coal plant is more efficient and facilitates integrating more renewables in the grid. If adding batteries could offset the need for a new gas peaking plant, could that be a compelling argument to keep a coal plant in operation?�
Jul 2, 2015
Gerardf MB introduces their offer:
Accumotive - Mercedes-Benz Energiespeicher
Reservations Now Open For Mercedes-Benz Battery Energy Storage System
The residential units, which are sold as 2.5 kWh units, but can be combined to include up to 8 modules (20 kWh), are now available for reservation.
Not very impressive. And I wonder what the price is ?
Spec's for their "PowerPack" & 1 MWh system
- Rating 1.000 kW
- Energy content 1.190 kWh
- AC output voltage 400 V / 50 Hz
- Cell technology : Lithium-Ion (Nickel, Mangan, Cobalt)
- Number of full cycles 4,000 cycles (100 % DOD, 1 C/1 C)
- Expected service life >10 years
- Configuration 34 DC cabinets, scalable in steps of 35 kWh
- Dimensions W/H/D in meter Minimum 10.5 x 8.0 x 3.2
Source : https://schlauerspeichern.de/Batteriespeicher_Datenblatt_Business_DE_EN.pdf�
Jul 2, 2015
Johan Anyone able to get a real answer on pricing of the MB units please post here! It will tell us quite a bit about just how much of a head start Tesla has.�
Jul 2, 2015
electracity Two year standard warranty compared to 10 for the powerwall.�
Jul 7, 2015
Gerardf Testcase shows Saft is to expensive, but reading this Tesla PowerPack should fit.
Testcase shows Saft is to expensive, but reading this Tesla PowerPack should make this use case economically feasable.
If indeed a price level Euro 500 - 1.000 kWh (without inverter & installation costs) is already economic in Germany for storage, it will be hard to overestimate the energy storage opportunity Tesla PowerPack will have in Europe priced at Euro 230,-- per kWh (US$ 250).
Source : Power grid pilot highlights Europe's battery storage failings
"A pilot project run by Europe's largest power network operator to integrate power from rooftop solar panels into the grid has shown that battery storage of renewable energy is not yet economically viable in Europe."
.... the cost of batteries has proved the project's Achilles Heel.
ERDF's Nice pilot has learned that battery storage in Europe costs 500 to 1,000 euros per kilowatt/hour (KWh), with an extra 30 percent for installation and the inverters that turn direct current solar power into the alternate current used on the grid, an ERDF official said.
At that level, battery storage would already be economically viable in certain parts of Germany and Denmark, where renewable energy use is most advanced and where retail power rates, at around 30 eurocents per kilowatt/hour (KWh), are among the highest in Europe, according to Eurostat data.
But that is not the case for France, where residential power rates are around 17 cents per KWh, and most of Europe, where power averages about 21 cents.
"Economical feasibility is usually not a given in most of mainland Europe's grids," acknowledged Michael Lippert, head of Saft's new energy storage unit.
Some analysts expect the tipping point for batteries in Europe could come around 2020. The ERDF official said it is hard to forecast by how much more the cost of batteries would have to fall to become viable for grid storage. "That is one thing we will have to evaluate at the end of the Nice pilot," said Lippert."
�
Jul 9, 2015
jhm AGL offering 7.2kWh battery storage at under $10,000 : Renew Economy
Prices are coming down! Well kinda... AGL, a utility in Australia, is offering a 7.2 kWh system for the modest price of AUD10,000, about USD7,444.
The comments are interesting and show how eagerly people are anticipating the Powerwall.�
Jul 13, 2015
bonaire Key item in that AGL offering article:
Remember though that Tesla is selling powerwalls and powerpacks "to installers" at the prices given back during the reveal. What the installers charge is where the markup is found and so they may require price limits on what an independent installer (local mom and pop solar pv installers who re-sell) can charge for the battery parts. Well, if markup will come it would then come in BoS (Balance Of System) areas like engineering, permitting, labor, transport costs and other. I'm sure there will be some abuse here and there. I remember back in about 2010 or 2011 when a local installer put up a 1.8KW system (8 modules) on my sister-in-law's house. $16,000 through a loan - they were sold on the very good SREC market at the time which has since collapsed. I didn't know about it until after they did it but would have stopped them. Another friend put up a 20KW system on his roof (big system) and paid over $120,000 for it because his state of NJ was offering $600/ea pricing on SRECs at the time. Not any more. My 8kw system at $32K seems like pocket change and includes a variety of extras not in a usual system.
I also want to note another abuse regarding EVs. Back a couple years ago, there was a program where Blink offered "free chargers" for homeowners in some states. Many who looked into it had electrician pricing well over $1000 to pull a couple wires. My own electrician did my L2 EVSE install in 2013 for $230 with some nice work for what the Blink guy quoted $1020 to do for a "free" charger. There will be abuses of stationary storage systems, especially in states which offer rebates or other big incentives. NY and CA come to mind right now.�
Jul 13, 2015
electracity Installed costs are more complicated. Look at the solaredge implementation of the powerwall. If the end user wants power when the grid is down, a sub panel with breakers and a auto transformer needs to be installed. Once we can make Apples to Apples comparisons in the real world we can draw conclusions of value between choices. The only cost from an installer I have seen is $500/kwh for the 10/kwh powerwall.�
Jul 15, 2015
bonaire electracity - is that the SCTY install price if a powerwall is installed along with a solar pv array? Is that nationally or just in CA?
Couple points:
- standby power (ie. what SCTY will install, the backup wall @ 10kWh) is not available for CA SGIP monies
- but is available for Federal Tax Credit 30% due to the programmability of the wall being charged with Solar PV during the day. If it can be "walled off" from charging from the grid and just charged during the day, it apparently falls under the single-use IRS Tax treatment and thus, a standby wall offers the buyer 30% tax credits being "part of the system".
- if the $5K SCTY price is "bundled" into a solar lease, then the buyer is SCTY and not the homeowner and tax credit goes to the buyer.
- The tax credit makes doing the wall @ $5K more affordable for the installer since they can claim 30% on it.
- the pricing "to the homeowner" may look like $5K but could be bundled as a higher priced component to allow for the 30% credit to work better.
I would like to see pricing on an installation of a 2-wall scenario (2 x 7kWh) for load shaving in a state other than California without Solar PV along with it.
That would be $6K wholesale costs to the installer, plus shipping, plus labor and materials for the walls' installation. Will they do it for under $10K?
I know someone here said that in their state of PA, they have customers going off-grid and waiting for the wall to become available in order to do it. I'd like to see such a system priced out and written up in a magazine article as an example system.
I'm not too sure I like the fact that a backup battery that will hardly ever be used is available for 30% Federal Tax credit due to the way a judge treated the scenario of dual-use versus single-use. perhaps they didn't make it clear that the intention of the batteries to be charged by Solar PV would be used for backup power and not for off-grid power.�
Jul 15, 2015
Bgarret So this is the financing aspect of the 50MW that Advanced Microgrid Systems announced when it announced it would buy 500 Mwh of Tesla Power Packs. The good thing about this is SUNE and their YieldCo TerraForm have been the most aggressive financiers in the renewable space, buying First Wind and billions of other solar and renewable assets. This is their first storage investment and if it is a template, SUNE has worldwide reach, hedge fund backing and could unleash some powerful demand for stationary storage.
SunEdison and Advanced Microgrid Solutions Join Forces to Finance and Deploy 50 Megawatts of Energy Storage for Southern California Edison - Yahoo Finance�
Jul 15, 2015
electracity The $5K price is probably at the same time as the solar install, but I'm not sure. It only has to be charged from the solar panels, not AC, to be eligible for the ITC AFAIK. Here's a relevant program, and a reason not to install the 10kwh version:
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/sdges-proposes-a-bring-your-own-battery-tariff�
Jul 15, 2015
bonaire That program seems smart but should be well-reviewed to watch for abuses. In some states, such a "tariff" includes states like Pennsylvania where they have an Act 129 solution that allows power providers to turn of air conditioning for 15 minute increments during peak load scenarios. They pay homeowners for that solution - but I don't know if it does much good. They do not increase the thermostat set points, they just turn the AC off. What happens when it comes back on is that the AC will just run hard again trying to reach the setpoint of the thermostat. What is needed is NEST type internet-connected thermostats such that homes can have their set points bumped up 1-2 degrees during such periods at a time by a grid provider.
The Grid providers themselves have to do a better job of describing the monster that they are fighting. If cutting the top off the peak load spike that happens daily is the monster, then they need to quantify just how much of that spike will be solved by deploying well-thought-out grid batteries to heavy industries using power mid-day to later afternoon. The incentive there is a combination of West-facing solar, battery storage and conservation efforts to lower power demand. It is more than just installing batteries alone. There is traction in the Western-facing solar PV installation efforts now - as such, you get much better solar pv yields in later afternoons with west-facing modules than south-facing. Dual-axis is of course "the best" solution but very expensive and prone to some failures. For the most part, the monster itself is air conditioning loads across large regions.�
Jul 15, 2015
blakegallagher
I wonder at what price point of batteries does it no longer make sense to point panels west facing? At some point capturing more of the suns rays will be more important with cheap storage than increasing peak production.�
Jul 15, 2015
Ampster Good question. Lots of factors are going to drive that in addition to battery prices. For example, here in Southern California we often get morning clouds so there is more solation in the afternoons. Some folks near the ocean say we get reflectance from the ocean as the sun heads west. My panels are flat.�
Jul 15, 2015
jhm Two incomplete answers.
1. By 2020ish I expect the price of Powerpacks to approach $150/kWh, whence the cost of storage approaches 3c/kWh. Southfacing solar should also approach 3c/kWh. How much more expensive would west facing solar be? If less than twice the cost, then the west facing is cheaper than south facing plus storage.
2. Rooftop solar presents situations where west facing is cheaper than south facing. A real interesting case in point is that SolarCity's Zep Solar has developed a mounting system for commercial flat roofs that run east-west. The rows run north-south in pairs such that one side is east facing and the other side west facing. There is a common support between the paired rows so as to minimize material in the frame. The geometry also removes shadowing problems allowing for more panels per surface area. They are designed for rapid installation. A large roof that once might take a crew 20 days to install can now be installed in 3 days. So the cost of this system fully installed is quite close to utility ground mounted systems. Finally the east-west mix of orientation provides for wide and even power production throughout the day which minimizes the need for net metering or batteries. (I suspect the Gigafactory may prove to be the ultimate show case for this system.) So basically the challenges of rooftop mounting provides natural opportunities for west and east facing installations.�
Jul 15, 2015
sahanim Tesla CTO: Batteries + Solar Will Lead to Cheap Electricity Within 10 Years - Forbes
Don't think this has been posted here yet.�
Jul 16, 2015
bonaire jhm, if utilities want to smooth the power demand curve, they themselves would utilize some large-scale multi-MW farms of west-facing modules. Or, perhaps using one-axis tracking which isn't a lot more expensive than regular racking. With one axis tracking, amount of capture can be quite and good can even perform both power to morning-charge a battery set followed by excess power later in the afternoon which then is supplemented by batteries. It is said that 1-axis tracking may gain 20% of energy harvested. Tracker solutions work best with the highest efficiency modules available.�
Jul 16, 2015
jhm From the article :
Anyone know more about this?�
Jul 17, 2015
bonaire interesting line there. "for larger projects"
$250/kWh was already called out for the price of powerpacks at 100 kWh per pack, $25,000. Now, $500/kWh is still a number just starting to be seen on full system eligibility costs when looking at the claimed full system price listed in the california s.g.i.p. data that is publicly available. A 50KW system (presumably two powerpacks @ 200kWh) would be $50,000 in batteries. The projects are posted as $100,000 eligible price. that seems to go with the statement. But is a 2-pack project really "for larger projects"? And is it a good guess to think that a 50KW system is 200 kWh? Because the requirement of s.g.i.p. is to run at the rated power for 2 hours or more. You don't go to 100% battery charge and then down to 0% with Li-Ion batteries. And if 100 kWh powerpacks are just that, 100 kWh, then somehow they must meet this 2-hour requirement. Some recent project additions are for power ratings of 242.5 KW which is not the typical round-number that has been used (50, 100, 200, 800, etc.)
The 242.5KW systems have eligible costs of $730,000 - or $3010/KW.
We don't know the full size in kWh of such installs but it must be at least 220% of the KW rating. If they go with just a slight buffer, then that is 500 kWh but won't run for 2-hours at 242.5KW for long as batteries will lose capacity over time. I think s.g.i.p. should require the 2-hour power output production at rated-power for their installation sign-off and at 2 years after install as well (700+ cycles). If a $730,000 system of 242.5KW uses 600kWh of powerpacks (6 of them), then that is $1216 per kWh. These systems reserve $424,860 per install, so you can see much of the project is easily paid for by the s.g.i.p. funds.
Going back in the s.g.i.p. data - you can find systems with much higher prices per KW so the prices are dropping. Other companies need to react to these prices or be priced out of the market. I think Tesla is charging "too little" for the systems today. Even at $30,000 for 100 kWh, they are ahead of the competition by a large margin.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét