Slashdot Mirror
Tesla: A Carmaker Or Grid-Storage Company?
cartechboy (2660665) writes "Let's be real, the three Detroit automakers were skeptical of Tesla Motors, and rightfully so. But at this point, it's pretty hard to deny the impact this Silicon Valley automaker is having on the industry. Now there's a new question buzzing around: Is Tesla Motors actually a carmaker, or is it really just a grid-storage company? If you think about it, the company's stock price is too high for Toyota or Daimler to just buy it outright. So maybe Tesla's gigafactory will not only make batteries for its own electric cars, but it could also sell battery packs to electric utilities and others. In reality, the gigafactory could become its own separate company and just sell the battery packs to Tesla, and others."
No, its just a carbon offset dealer.
The gigafactory is basically a Panasonic battery factory. Tesla is involved because they want it in the US and are a major consumer of Panasonic batteries, but all the tech is Japanese. So yeah, Panasonic is in the grid storage business. They do home battery packs and wind farm output smoothing in Japan, and maybe soon in the US.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Having investigated this scenario, here's how it works:
Solarcity installs a system (panels, storage, chargers/inverters) on your premises at zero cost to you. They get the tax subsidy offered for the installation. You roof is now occupied by solarcity. They sell you electricity AND what you don't use, they sell to your local utility. You have now switched energy providers and are STILL paying power bills.
I fully recognize they they take on what maintenance there is on this plant... But there isn't much and they are completely unregulated. They charge the home owner whatever they please, just so it's below the regulated utility.
It doesn't sit well with me and I won't do business that way.
By covering the top of the Tesla with solar cells the cars could gather solar energy, store it and sell the excess to the power companies. Social chaos will soon follow. Just wait until the power companies have to hop scotch over homes that provide their own energy and the price of energy for homes on the grid goes through the roof. Big oil, coal, the nuclear industry as well as traditional car makers and associated trades could sink below the waves. The shifting of incredible amounts of money from those industries alone could generate financial chaos. Combined with breakthroughs like 3D printing we are entering an era in which we have no economic model to apply to this new way of life.
Facebook could have bought them instead of buying WhatsApp and Ocular, and spending just a little bit more.
It doesn't sit well with me and I won't do business that way.
Seems like the customer who can't afford the upfront cost of panels is benefiting from cheaper energy bills.
How is this unfair?
Batteries for grid storage have different properties than batteries for cars.
So grid storage tends to use different battery technologies than vehicles.
That's all fantastic in your zero mass-zero friction theoretical land, but if you can't get financing based on not having enough value in your company that's the same thing as a stock price being too high. Otherwise, I'd be able to form a company tonight and buy Microsoft.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
The real position in play is abstraction over the GRID and selling it back as a viable business model. EV's are transitional technologies on the way to the future. Tesla cars are proof-of-concepts that a future can work without petroleum dependancy. They spotlight those millions of tailpipe emissions which only electric and hydrogen eliminate.
Power markets refuse to invest in the capture of smokestack emissions at source so the exercise Tesla is running remains retail only. When hydrogen competes with electric fuel cells that day will mark petroleum's last tailpipe gasp. Then emissions at the smokestack are all that's left to capture then.
Tesla will be there and in position to sell you power for your business, home or car in whatever form required from an eco-conscious GRID that puts the cost of capture into the end product and puts producer's responsibility back onto the consumer end user.
I cant speak for this company but we have a setup like this at our home
What we did was sign a lease with the company, they own the panels, we own the electric. We pay them a fixed price on the panels per month which is around 25% of what we were paying prior to the installation. At the end of the month, Any excess power created above the lease price is paid to us (not the lease company) At the end of last year we made 1800$ in electric generation (after paying the fees, the actual check was somewhat higher, around 2800)
I dont know what company we are using as my father is the one who deals with it
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
They also take on the opportunity cost of capital which is around 7% annually of the cost of the installation. That's $700 per year or $58 per month for a $10,000 installation.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
If Tesla makes the cars' power bidirectional, the excess capacity of cars plugged in for recharging (essentially) becomes a grid-connected battery itself. I recall seeing homebrew electric cars used as "generators" during brownouts a few years back. Tesla could do this on a massive scale using individuals' cars -- and pass some of the gains (peak power) back to the car owners.
Nissan offers a "whole house UPS" feature for its Leaf EV in Japan. In the event of a power failure your car can run important appliances like the fridge for a few days. You can use it to reduce your energy bills by storing solar energy not used during the day too.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
All hippie environ-wenie BS aside, the only true appeal of home solar is independence. Trading one master for another to get power is pointless. Powering your own house and car with your own equipment in a true "off the grid" way would be awesome, inspirational even. But home solar isn't quite there yet - tantalizingly close, mind you.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Having installed this scenario, LMFTFY: Solarcity installs a system (panels, storage, chargers/inverters) on your premises at zero cost to you. They also have options from $0 down to fully paying for the system. They get the tax subsidy offered for the installation. This is correct except where it's required by law to go to the owner of the home; I live in Oregon which has $1500/year for 4 years that is required to go to the homeowner. SC offsets this credit by charging $75/month extra for 4 years, which means I have a net credit of $600 each year coming my way. You roof is now occupied by solarcity. Yes, the roof has solar panels on it. They sell you electricity AND what you don't use, they sell to your local utility. The power back to the grid goes as a credit on your account and is pulled watt-for-watt when you use more than the solar panels can produce (aka at night). The systems are guaranteed for a certain number of watts per year and, if it comes in under that, SC actually writes you a check for the difference. You have now switched energy providers and are STILL paying power bills. Yes. You pay for the system based on the power it generates. I can't really tell if your comment here is trying to be naive; you expect a $0 down system to not charge you for the power? I fully recognize they they take on what maintenance there is on this plant... But there isn't much and they are completely unregulated. They charge the home owner whatever they please, just so it's below the regulated utility. Maintenance, hopefully, is minimal. However, they provide full insurance for the roof (where it was installed) as well as theft (apparently it's a problem). They are regulated by the contract that is signed at the beginning. The price is based on the contract; one option is to have a variable rate per year, the other is to pay (in my case $250) up front and have a fixed price for the term of the contract, which is $20 years. My price came in slightly lower than my utility company was charging at the time and is set for $20 years; this with the fact that my power company raises rates every year and is in the process to do a relatively large jump to pay for some new complexes, I think I am in a very good position. And to touch on some of your reply below this: Uhhh... it's unfair in that solarcity uses the tax benefit/subsidies due the homeowner AND has the homeowner's roof locked up under a 20 year lease? I've calculated that at retail levels, equipment costs and installation is paid off in 10 years. That's before the tax benefits/subsidies are applied. Not sure what pricing you're using; I have a 4.9kw system which would be close to a $23,000 system installed. My fixed price for 20 years is 0.0984/kWh and qualifying credits I could get is around $16,000, bringing the total cost to around $7,000 meaning 14 years before my SC would break even on a private system, after credits. And that implies you have $23,000 in cash to pay for the system. How you believe it is unfair to sign a contract, I do not know. Most tax benefits/subsidies are due to the owner of the system, not the homeowner. And the roof is not what is 'locked up', the lease and the system are. You are fully allowed to have the system moved (at cost of labor) to a new home. Now, let's add a peculiar California spin on this (my state). The utilities have been required by law to add storage capacity to the grid for something known as regulation... Fill in. This means regulating the grid up and down. When they regulate the grid up... They feed energy to the grid. Regulating down means absorbing from the grid. These activities are extraordinarily lucrative and the property owner get's none of that but it uses the "plant" they have effectively paid for. I'll reiterate that power to and from the grid is exchanged watt-for-watt. This is also why the utilities are crying foul over the lack of grid maintenance fees by the entities with this type of operation (there are only a few, but they're all big, pretending to be small). They get to act like an energy provid