Slashdot Mirror


Elon Musk's SolarCity Offering To Build Cities, Businesses Their Own Grids

Lucas123 writes Rooftop solar distributor SolarCity announced a new service where it will build a centrally-controllable power grid for cities, business campuses and even islands. Marketing its GridLogic service by calling attention to the recent uptick in natural disasters and the extended power outages that resulted from them, SolarCity said its "microgrids" are fully independent power infrastructures fed by solar panels with lithium-ion backup batteries (courtesy of Tesla). SolarCity claims its GridLogic program can provide electricity to communities and businesses for less than they pay for utility power and the facilities can still be connected to their area's utility power grid as an added backup.

185 comments

  1. Stop using lithium! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Seriously, try to find something a little less toxic. You're going to destroy the environment.

    1. Re:Stop using lithium! by Drethon · · Score: 0

      Plutonium?

    2. Re:Stop using lithium! by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      I don't think "toxic" is the word you are looking for. Maybe you are thinking of lead-acid batteries?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:Stop using lithium! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Unobtainium?

    4. Re:Stop using lithium! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll harder? LiON batteries are generally considered non-hazardous waste, safe for incinerators & landfills.

    5. Re:Stop using lithium! by burtosis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lithium is actually about the least toxic battery technology, compared to older tech like lead acid, nimh and nicad it's practically green. True it causes pollution to produce but after that disposal is much less of a concern.

    6. Re:Stop using lithium! by MrL0G1C · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And no-one should be disposing of them anyway, they can be recycled. In fact, nothing should be going into landfill these days.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    7. Re:Stop using lithium! by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, lithium-6 deuteride tends to make much boom in thermonuclear weapons. So that is a concern.

      Gosh darn it, you're right! I'm afraid, uncertain, and doubtful about lithium and its uses now. Maybe we should ban that "hydrogen" stuff they use in the bombs too?

      </sarcasm>

      I really can't believe I'm having to deal with comments like these on Slashdot, AC or otherwise. Just because something can be used in bombs does not mean that it is of any particular concern (did you know that they use steel too?!). But if you really feel like wasting your life by worrying about lithium, then maybe you should do everything in your power to prop up the lithium battery industry (e.g. buy more batteries), since you can think of each of those batteries as a little, tiny sequestration of lithium that won't make it back into bomb production as long as it's in your possession.

      Do your part for the anti-nuke effort: buy more lithium (batteries).

    8. Re:Stop using lithium! by some+old+guy · · Score: 1

      Mooseberries.

      --
      Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    9. Re:Stop using lithium! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Less toxic than molten salt?

    10. Re:Stop using lithium! by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      The reason lithium-6 deuteride is used in thermonuclear weapons is because it creates tritium and deuterium once bombarded with X-rays produced by the detonation of a fission device, which can then fuse due to the heat and pressure of said detonation to make an even bigger bang; and it's a more maintainable device due to not having to deal with refreshing the tritium all the time because it tends to half-life away, unlike the stable lithium-6 deuteride.

      Also, lithium-6 is separated from the >92% of lithium-7 specifically for the creation of nuclear weapons, which nobody is doing anymore because the nuclear powers already have shit tons of it laying around from decommissioning warheads. Which also says nothing about how your phone battery has exactly 0.0% deuterium in it, and even if it did, it's unlikely that you'd be bombarding your phone battery with the X-ray output of a fission bomb at the moment of supercriticality; and if you were, you'd likely have other problems. Like being a wisp of vapor being quickly scattered over the landscape.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    11. Re:Stop using lithium! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      * not sure how X-Rays convert lithium to tritium...

    12. Re:Stop using lithium! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lead batteries are 100% recyclable. So what is your point? You just toss money into a dump?

    13. Re:Stop using lithium! by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Lead batteries are 100% recyclable. So what is your point? You just toss money into a dump?

      All batteries are recyclable in theory. The problem with distributed consumer batteries (less for commercial installations) is bad practices. Few if any places pay for lead acid batteries, in the USA - most are required to take the same type for free to stop polluting.
      For example i have a rental property bordering on a small lake/pond. I went to clean up after buying the place and found the remains of three car batteries and one SUV/truck battery. Two of them were so badly decomposed the plates would fall apart in your hands just trying to pick them up. Not to mention the lead dissolved in the acid that went into the water directly. I tried to clean up the best i could but i imagine 10-15 pounds of lead flakes/powder remain. I'm not sure what possesses people to throw hazardous waste down a hill and into water as if it magically dissapears, but it is a huge problem.

    14. Re:Stop using lithium! by maroberts · · Score: 1

      Nibblonian Feces?

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    15. Re:Stop using lithium! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Actually the best kind of battery for this type of service is nickel-iron. They last a very long time. And portability is not an issue here.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    16. Re:Stop using lithium! by nobuddy · · Score: 1

      In order to save my hope for humanity, I assume they do not actually believe what the oil companies pay them to say.

    17. Re:Stop using lithium! by nobuddy · · Score: 1

      Well, human bodies. burying in a rotting landfill is still the most efficient way to break down evidence.

    18. Re:Stop using lithium! by nobuddy · · Score: 1

      hint: melting salt makes it no more toxic than freezing it. You don't want to stick your hand in it, just like you would not want to stick it in molten iron. but in neither case has the toxicity of the substance been altered in any way.

    19. Re:Stop using lithium! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nickel-iron batteries may last for decades but that seems to be their only pro. They are expensive, they have a low energy density both in terms of weight and volume and are temperature sensitive. If they were dirt cheap you'd have a good point but unless its some economies of scale thing that is keeping the price high lead-acid is a far better choice in terms of virtually everything and it doesn't have a bad service life either while stationary (~20 years).

    20. Re:Stop using lithium! by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      In the US, all places that sell car batteries actually give money for the old dead batteries. It is called the "core charge" and is because there is serious money in recycling the lead acid car batteries to be used on the next generation of batteries.

      http://shop.advanceautoparts.c...

      Apparently, according to this site, it is mandated by state, but I would expect it to occur in most states as there is good money in the recycling.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    21. Re:Stop using lithium! by macpacheco · · Score: 1

      Li Ion batteries can be recycled into new batteries once worn off.
      Plus the raw materials in pure form inside batteries are very valuable (lithium, cobalt, and a majority of nickel).
      So, the only reason there would be pollution is if the owners of the batteries trash them on purpose, discarding any recycling credits.
      Its so much easier to separate the Lithium, Cobalt and Nickel from each other on a battery than purifying those for their respective raw ores. Everybody wins !

    22. Re:Stop using lithium! by AttillaTheNun · · Score: 1

      How about the old nickel iron (Edison) battery? No toxic heavy metals at all. Sure, may not be ideal for EV use, but localized solar energy storage may be in its wheelhouse.

      http://www.nickel-iron-battery...

    23. Re:Stop using lithium! by burtosis · · Score: 1

      In the US, all places that sell car batteries actually give money for the old dead batteries. It is called the "core charge" and is because there is serious money in recycling the lead acid car batteries to be used on the next generation of batteries.

      http://shop.advanceautoparts.c...

      Apparently, according to this site, it is mandated by state, but I would expect it to occur in most states as there is good money in the recycling.

      Lololololol. They CHARGE you the core charge up front. It's not like they pay for defunct batteries. Unless you plan on buying a new battery the old ones can only be turned in for free at a few select government run locations. People are often faced with paying to dispose of them properly or simply crating a mini environmental disaster. Guess which many choose?

    24. Re:Stop using lithium! by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Also id add that if you aren't buying an exact replacement, the battery vendor is not obliged to take your used battery at all. The most common time to replace is around 5-7 years at which time exactly jack squat % of people have their receipt. Responsible people who tried to keep the receipt are likely to recycle properly even if lost whereas the fuck it crowd is around 100% likely to dump it in a pond or trash can because driving 15 miles to dump it properly and free wouldn't be saying fuck it.

    25. Re:Stop using lithium! by Chas · · Score: 2

      * not sure how X-Rays convert lithium to tritium...

      And this is why you're a know-nothing AC on Slashdot and not a nuclear scientist!

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    26. Re:Stop using lithium! by boristdog · · Score: 1

      Don't make things worse, they're Badenov.

    27. Re:Stop using lithium! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I replaced my battery last time at Advanced. I paid a core charge for the new battery, they then refunded it when I brought in the old battery (after five minutes in the parking lot swapping them myself). If you just walked in with an old car battery, very likely they would pay you the core charge for it, it kind of depends on the person behind the counter.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    28. Re:Stop using lithium! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      It is your choice, but in my state that fuck it cost you around $30. So, most people get the core charge when they replace the battery.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    29. Re:Stop using lithium! by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not, but how long will the salt stay molten without additional energy input?

      (OTOH, for a city sized plant that might well be a reasonable choice. Small packages have a higher surface/volume ratio. OTTH, last time I posted this someone told me that insulation was now good enough that this wasn't a major problem. Perhaps he's right.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    30. Re:Stop using lithium! by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Maybe your state is different. I have tried this it dosen't work where I live. You can take them to the hazardous waste drop off site for your county if you show them your license or other id. I live about 15 minutes away from mine - outside of some rude attitude they do a really good job.

    31. Re:Stop using lithium! by burtosis · · Score: 1

      It's more like 5-10 in my state. I wish it was $30 because maybe then asshats wouldn't walk off the street and throw them down my property.

    32. Re:Stop using lithium! by dj_super_dude · · Score: 1

      ...but can you be sure they're not a nuclear scientist, who up until now was at a loss as to how to boost their thermo-nukes and now we've gone and pointed them in a new exciting direction! (I'm sure there is even something you could add about lithium and the mood of a previously depressed AC nuclear scientist but I'd need more coffee ;))

    33. Re:Stop using lithium! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      20 years, isn't that something like ~7000 charging cycles? I haven't heard of such lead batteries. And why exactly is NiFe expensive? It doesn't seem to be using anything exotic. Isn't it simply because the contemporary production is low?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  2. My only question, where does the LiOn come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If LiOn supplies are already tight how does anyone not account for that when they price out some grand new adaptation? Where are the future batteries, Obama?

  3. Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by NotDrWho · · Score: 0

    Now let's see what you can deliver.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Has he ever given any reason to doubt him?

      Says he can build an electric car, ends up producing the safest, best engineered, and fantastic car ever made, for under $100k. And now they're working on making it drive itself.

      Says he can build rockets for a fraction of the cost everyone else is charging. Ends up producing the most successful and economical lift vehicles in existence. Also working on a way for it to land itself on a platform in the ocean.

      I'd say he has a history of under-promising and over-delivering.

    2. Re:Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by CaptainLard · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah this guy is always promising us the moon. How the hell is he gonna get there? With his own personal rocket factory?! Why doesn't he start with something more down to earth...like a car or something. If his companies can somehow gain a lot of experience with these solar panels and batteries he plans to use then maybe we don't need to brush off this natural innovation as complete hype. Then maybe, just maybe I can stop typing exclusively in sarcasm. Only time will tell.

    3. Re:Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by Charcharodon · · Score: 2
      Then maybe, just maybe I can stop typing exclusively in sarcasm.

      I was getting worried (my sarcasm detector has been offline since 1987). I thought there for a minute you might be the one of 9 people in the US that has managed to miss every single article about Tesla/SpaceX and did not know who Musk was.

    4. Re:Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      Then why do I have solar panels running my outdoor lighting, pool heater (water), and pool filter (electrical), without said gov't subsidies? Oh that's right it was cheaper when you start factoring in all the things I didn't have to payout to the county gov't in the way of permits, electricians, trenching equipment, copper wiring and the conduit to run it from the house out into the yard, etc, etc.

      For a utility yes solar generated electricity makes little sense, but for the home or business owner it makes a great deal of sense. The farther from the grid you go the more sense it makes. With equipment prices these days anything more than 30ft from the house solar is on parity with grid electricity if you are willing to do the work yourself.

    5. Re:Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      . Solar is NOT cheaper and it may not even be "cleaner" than other options when you consider the whole lifecycle of the system.

      Are you aware that the prices of solar panels and batteries are falling constantly and that is widely forecast to continue. modern solar panels do degrade slowly - good ones at about 0.5% per year, that means they'll still be pumping out plenty of energy in 50 years time.

      Solar panels will very soon be the cheapest option without subsidy even against fossil fuels that are subsidised.

      Nuclear is cheaper! Not any more.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    6. Re:Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      (my sarcasm detector has been offline since 1987)

      Uhh....you're not going to last long here on the internet....

    7. Re: Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your claiming that it's cheaper because you ignored a whole passel of laws while exploiting the economy of scale caused by European subsidies and most likely Chinese subsidies, and applied it to an edge case where you are using chemicals to compensate for the unreliability f small solar installations?

    8. Re:Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has he ever given any reason to doubt him?

      Yes a number of times.

      Just last week in fact, he promised to "End Range Anxiety" but what he really did was provide a map with charging stations on it, which didn't do a thing about range or the anxiety drivers feel about how limited their Tesla's range is. Road tripping in his cars is still not for the faint of heart and drivers must still worry about "will I get there" before the battery dies.

    9. Re:Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Yeah this guy is always promising us the moon.

      Actually, he's been promising Mars, not the Moon. ;-)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    10. Re:Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by CaptainLard · · Score: 5, Interesting

      1973 called, they want their solar power cost benefit analysis back.

      Obviously there are still situations where solar is not ideal but there is a reason its one of the fastest growing energy sources. Things everyone should know:
      -Solar panels collect back the power used to manufacture them in 1-4 years.
      -Their useful lifespan is over 30 (approaching 50).
      -If your roof gets sun more than half the days of the year, a solar array will pay itself back in under 15 years WITHOUT SUBSIDIES (I'm looking at about 12 for my array not including subsidies).
      -Storage is indeed an issue, but that is the very issue that this plan is addressing!

    11. Re:Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      For a utility yes solar generated electricity makes little sense

      Not for long, perhaps. In twenty-thirty years, I could totally see utility-scale solar redirecting production peaks into hydrogen production. You even save on inverters if you overprovision for that purpose (since you need low-voltage DC anyway).

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    12. Re:Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Road tripping in his cars is still not for the faint of heart and drivers must still worry about "will I get there" before the battery dies.

      I'll grant you the first part, but the second? If you input the address into the car's GPS, and it says "based on the available charging stations along the route, you can get there and it will take X hours", and you still worry about "will I get there"? I'm sorry, but you can only do so much to "fix" stupidity.

    13. Re:Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by supertrooper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In reality, that also helps. He cannot promise a battery with infinite capacity. Cars running on gas need refueling too and sometimes, when I'm running low, I wouldn't mind knowing where the closest gas station is. Not saying Tesla and Elon Musk will solve the world's problems, but they are trying to solve one or two while still making some profit. What do companies Exxonmobil or Chevron do for us? Really? Endless wars for oil, oil spills and other environmental impacts, price fluctuations and possibly many other negative factors.

    14. Re:Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just last week in fact, he promised to "End Range Anxiety"

      Elon WILL end range anxiety very very soon. What do you think he's doing with all that lithium? It's well known that a portion is targeted for dispersal into California's drinking water.

    15. Re:Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Solar panels collect back the power used to manufacture them in 1-4 years.

      Oh, Bullshit!. The last time I priced solar panels for my house, quotes ranged from $25,000-$30,000. And even covering my roof, they might end up saving me $100/month tops (estimated). At $1200/year, they would take over 20 years to pay for themselves. And that assuming that they never, ever need ANY maintenance or repair in the next 20 years (color me pretty skeptical on THAT).

    16. Re:Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      which didn't do a thing about range or the anxiety drivers feel about how limited their Tesla's range is

      The anxiety is not about the range, but about running out of charge with no idea where the next charge point is.

      You know the rough range and you know how long your journey is. There's no reason before you leave you should feel anxiety because you know you need to recharge en-route.

      Knowing the remaining range isn't enough when you have no idea where the next charge point is, unlike petrol vehicles you can't just pull into any petrol station - you need to pull into one that's got a charging point added. It's about anxiety due to the non-mature nature of the technology meaning the infrastructure isn't fully rolled out yet.

      Knowing where the nearest charge point is should remove that anxiety because you can plan it into your route. And if it's a super charger then you can plan to have your lunch at the same time and it'll be fully charged when you get back to the car. So not really different from stopping to refuel at a motorway services on a long journey.

    17. Re:Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . Solar is NOT cheaper and it may not even be "cleaner" than other options when you consider the whole lifecycle of the system.

      Are you aware that the prices of solar panels and batteries are falling constantly and that is widely forecast to continue. modern solar panels do degrade slowly - good ones at about 0.5% per year, that means they'll still be pumping out plenty of energy in 50 years time.

      I've heard that, but so far I've not SEEN where solar panels have reached cost parity with buying electricity from the grid. Right now, Solar is about 1.5 to 2 times the cost per KW/h in areas best suited to solar and that is WITH the special tax treatment and subsidies. If you pay the whole cost, it's like 3-4 times more expensive and if you don't live in the right place, forgetaboutit. So, yes, solar is getting cheaper but it's not yet reached parity with even expensive retail electric rates and is certainly NOT cost effective at industrial production levels.

      Solar panels will very soon be the cheapest option without subsidy even against fossil fuels that are subsidised.

      Nuclear is cheaper! Not any more.

      Nuclear is cheaper than Solar, which was my point. Fossil fuels are currently cheaper than nuclear which is largely about Natural Gas prices and the massive production boom we've had due to fracking.

      Solar is getting cheaper, but Natural Gas is getting cheaper too only at a faster rate. Solar is just not viable, even with subsidies and tax breaks. Heck, even cheap and abundant Nuclear isn't viable with natural gas today, Solar has no prayer at this point barring some technology break though that cuts the cost by about half overnight. Looking at the thermodynamics of the situation tells me that hoping for that kind of break though is akin to proving the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't apply and that we've been wrong for a few thousand years...

      So... fat chance..

    18. Re:Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK troll, I'll bite.

      they collect back the POWER to MANUFACTURE them. Nothing was said about the cost to you, which includes manufacturing, installation, permitting, and profit.

    19. Re: Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HyperSolar - They are causing the revolution in solar by bridging the Gap in implementation of the new Hydrogen Economy

    20. Re:Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      That is even better, as Mars has two moons!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    21. Re:Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Has he ever given any reason to doubt him?

      Yes, right in the summary: "SolarCity claims its GridLogic program can provide electricity to communities and businesses for less than they pay for utility power and the facilities can still be connected to their area's utility power grid as an added backup."

      For the utility grid to provide backup power, it has to have spare capacity. Upkeeping that capacity is not free. This plan is trying to make the electric company effectively subsidize SolarCity customers.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    22. Re:Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by suutar · · Score: 1

      You find it improbable that the electric company will have the capacity they currently do, in a timeframe that would prevent these minigrids from finding other backup methods (like connecting to other minigrids far enough away to avoid being in the same storm pattern)?

    23. Re:Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you start connecting mini-grids together, you end up with a power grid, like today!!

      The big difference between power companies and Solar City could be overhead. That's where hundreds of millions are sunk. All the PHBs micromanaging non-core assets.

    24. Re:Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      Companies like Exxon and Chevron spend billions drilling the ground to find oil. They then build collection systems on numerous wells, tanks to hold the oil and shipping facilities to load the oil into tankers. Then the transport oil around the world (with the immense logistics that requires), unload the oil into more tanks, process the oil through a distillation process to separate the different hydrocarbons (and keep in mind how hard it is to distill something that has more energy than thousands of tons of dynamite). They then collect and distribute those refined hydrocarbons into separate tanks, pump from the storage tanks to tanker trucks, distribute the tanker trucks to your local gas station which is probably also owned by them and includes additional tanks and pumping infrastructure.

      I want the world to move away from Carbon as well but don't discount the challenge of doing what the oil companies do in finding, extracting, refining and transporting it to your local gas station. It is an immense job to do that they accomplish and they do it pretty much continuously to keep that spigot flowing.

    25. Re:Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by Charcharodon · · Score: 1

      Sarcasm on the fritz and they still give me a shitload of mod points to dole out. Funny huh?

    26. Re: Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      I give not a single flying fuck about how stupid the Chinese and Europeans are behaving when it comes to their subsidies. If they want to subsidize my giant American capitalist swimming pool filled of course with the tears from baby seals killed with clubs made of nearly extinct hardware from the devistated South African jungles that's their problem.

      As far as the "whole passel" of laws I don't have to pull permits that are not required. The entire solar water system is run off of 12vDC, no permits required. The panel installation and the solar pool pump is 1 permit and electrical inspection, instead of the 3 or 4 I needed before. I am also getting to skip the wire run and trenching and the extra electrical box work. That all adds up quickly to the price.

    27. Re:Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      By the time the utility-scale solution comes on line your average home owner will no longer be interested in being a customer as there will be really no reason not to generate your own power, unless of course if things like force shields and personal home hadron colliders become popular.

      As it is for less than $3000 I have enough solar power to cover everything but the largest power hogs. (AC, heat, refrigerator.) All my personal devices, tv, lighting, and water heating do just fine off of solar. There is no reason why most of the rest will not be converted in that 20-30 year window.

    28. Re:Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      There will always be demand for hydrocarbons and fertilizers, for example. And as a high-current, low-voltage application, hydrogen generation is much better suited for at least somewhat centralized production. You probably don't want to haul very thick and expensive cables over large distances. So, yes, it's quite plausible that in the future, most people will be at least partially self-sufficient, but there will always be need for industrial levels of power. Especially with ever-cheaper PV modules and increasing energy needs for advanced resource extraction and manufacturing .

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    29. Re:Okay, we're clear on what you're promising by Charcharodon · · Score: 1

      I agree about industrial power, but I was talking about residential. Unless some crazy new fad pops up, home power generation will be quite doable.

  4. Why Local storage? by Lumpy · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why not the far simpler and more beneficial Grid tie syncing systems? They work great and will let the power generated spread out to others that dont have the money for a solar installation. It causes the benefits to reach out further.

    Eliminate the batteries, system is simpler, and benefits more. It's a win,win,win, anger republicans which is another win.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Why Local storage? by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Eliminate the batteries, system is simpler, and benefits more.

      Are you sure? A bank of batteries may very well be simpler than upgrading the entire grid to handle distributed generation.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Why Local storage? by An+Ominous+Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Partly because a solar-powered city is gauranteed to still need power at night, and local storage eliminates loss inherent to transmission and distribution. But mainly because trying to tie into the grid means the big investor-owned utilities will screw you.

    3. Re:Why Local storage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without batteries, the system depends on conventional generator capacity sitting idle when the sun shines and running when it doesn't.

      Perhaps the batteries are cheaper than the standby generator capacity.

      If so, cheaper trumps simpler.

    4. Re:Why Local storage? by gdp007 · · Score: 1

      Because some communities have no grid access, especially in e.g. India the utilities never found it profitable to build power lines out to outlying communities. Now those communities can have their own reliable (and clean!) power source, no grid connection required. With distributed generation the main grid can go away in many places.

    5. Re:Why Local storage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calm down there AC....

    6. Re:Why Local storage? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Why not the far simpler and more beneficial Grid tie syncing systems?

      Because the companies who run the grids don't want to play the game. Certainly not unless the terms favor them.

      The batteries means you can say "fuck you", and save power for when it's dark. You no longer have to worry about what time of day you generate power, just how much you can store.

      I think little pockets being off the grid with their own battery storage is far more disruptive than you seem to. Because suddenly they aren't at the mercy of selling it back to the power companies when they can't use it.

      Take the profitability of the power company out of the equation.

      The applications for small islands or secret evil lairs are pretty cool.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Why Local storage? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      You dont have to upgrade the entire grid. These businesses are already using power, using solar to offset that and pipe some back to the surrounding users requires no upgrades to the current grid.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:Why Local storage? by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      Couple reasons.

      1. When the grid goes down, so does your little micro grid. If you have sensitive needs, say for example a server farm, climate control needs, or medical life support equipment you never want it to go down.
      2. The utilities charge you to have connections to the grid even if you do nothing but generate electricity. They charge ALOT to businesses. (Pissess off the crony capitalists aka Republicans and Democrats.)
      3. Also if you have utilities coming onto your property you start getting into property right of way nonsense that gives the gov't or the utilities a way to butt into your business. (Pisses off Statist Progressives)
      4. If you are not connected to the grid your power generation can't be taxed because they have no way of monitoring it, and you won't be forced to pay subsidies to pay for electricity social programs. (Pissess off the Democrats)

      So why just hold out for angering republicans? I say piss them all off.

    9. Re:Why Local storage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Partly because a solar-powered city is gauranteed to still need power at night, and local storage eliminates loss inherent to transmission and distribution. But mainly because trying to tie into the grid means the big investor-owned utilities will screw you.

      Personally, I'd rather take the losses in transmission than the losses in a local storage system that uses batteries... You are going to loose nearly 40% on your convert to DC -> Charge Batteries during the day and the Discharge batteries -> convert to AC at night. Transmission losses are usually under 10% and that level of loss is only really seen on peek load where the (I squared)*R losses are high because the current is high. Peak load is usually not at night, especially where solar systems are useful during the day (in the south).

      Now I guess you are going to argue that solar "power is free" so why does efficiency matter. It matters because you have to build MORE capacity into your system to charge the batteries, and you need battery capacity to cover you for when you don't have the sun to get power from. If you assume that you get 10 hours of useful sunlight a day (highly unlikely), you are going to have to build a storage system that can carry you though 14 hours. Standard power demand peaks at about 3 pm and stays high though about 8 pm. The power day starts ramping up at about 5am. Your batteries will need to cover from about 5pm though 8am with little help, which means you will need a power capacity that approaches the peek demand and a storage capacity that covers at least half your daily consumption. This battery capacity will require that you double your collection capacity plus about 40% more to cover for conversion loss and battery losses.

      So, in summary, you will (by this rough estimate) need to build about 2.4 times the capacity in your collection to support a battery storage system that can carry you for about 1/2 of your power day. You thought solar was cheap? You think you can just use batteries to run though the night too? Solar doesn't start cheap and when you double the cost of your collection capacity and add batteries to this idea, you blow your costs sky high.

      Shall we consider the Environmental costs too? Because solar doesn't do well on that front either... At least photovoltaic solar doesn't.

    10. Re:Why Local storage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eliminate the batteries, but for the reasons other posters have noted, don't eliminate the local storage.

      Tanks are way cheaper than batteries. They're just reinforced, hollow metal... well, tanks. But what do you put in these tanks? Flammable stuff. Stuff you can burn to get energy (and specifically, electricity). And how do you fill these tanks? You capture energy from the sun and use it to produce flammable stuff, which you then store in the tanks. Now let's take a leap into the semi-practical side of things...

      Solar power is plentiful and getting cheap, so use some of it. Now, we have easy DC with high enough efficiency to make it worthwhile. How do we turn that into flammable material? We use water. Water is made of flammable material, and it just so happens that DC can separate those materials from each other. So we have low-cost electrolysis, with the only real costs being physical plant installation and maintenance. Now, we need some tanks to store that sweet, sweet hydrogen and the luscious oxygen that accompanies it. And once we have that, we need a generator that runs on direct-injected H2 and O2, and only runs as demand requires. There would probably need to be a small battery (or capacitor) bank in there somewhere, just as a buffer.

      Ta-da! Sustainable solar power with local energy storage, but without insane amounts of batteries!

      Seriously, though. This isn't hard. Energy storage doesn't have to mean "batteries", and solar energy is essentially free for the taking once you have the equipment installed. You might even be able to do something similar with a trombe wall and a steam-driven generator instead of photovoltaic panels.

    11. Re:Why Local storage? by schlachter · · Score: 1

      1. Musk makes the batteries. He's finding a potentially huge market to build economies of scale into the battery production.
      2. Some communities in the world don't have reliable grids or power generation facilities.
      3. Less haggle with the utilities, less red tape to build a stand alone system.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    12. Re:Why Local storage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have a source for 40%? A little googling makes me think 10% is possible.

    13. Re:Why Local storage? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      The power day starts ramping up at about 5am. Your batteries will need to cover from about 5pm though 8am with little help, which means you will need a power capacity that approaches the peek demand and a storage capacity that covers at least half your daily consumption. This battery capacity will require that you double your collection capacity plus about 40% more to cover for conversion loss and battery losses.

      Are we still talking about households, or about three-shift factories? Households do not have the same power consumption at night. Granted, if you live in an ancient structure with lousy thermal management and you're compensating for it with a AC without heat storage, then yeah, perhaps, but there's no reason in principle why you should be forced to be able to replicate your daylight power use with batteries at night.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    14. Re:Why Local storage? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Germany is really struggling with exactly the problem you dismiss. It is relatively simple to take one isolated pocket and only draw from the grid when the batteries start to run low. If you can give the utility an hour's notice, they can start spooling up generators. Give them notice again when you are going to disconnect and they can orderly shut generation down.

      Requiring the smooth two-way transfer of power is a more complicated problem to solve, even if it eliminates the bank of batteries. It also requires that the entire system be set up to handle distributed generation, whereas the Musk solution makes no such demand. In practical terms, this might make solar more viable in places where it is politically difficult to make infrastructure changes.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    15. Re:Why Local storage? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      losses in transmission than the losses in a local storage system that uses batteries... You are going to loose nearly 40% on your convert to DC
      How do you come to this nonsense numbers?
      Grid losses are around 7%, obviously depending on your country.
      Batteries including everything are between 10% and 15% ...
      Why are there always idiots proclaiming idiotic numbers like 40% loss?
      Transmission losses are usually under 10% and that level of loss is only really seen on peek load where the
      That is complete nonsense. The loss is regardless of load, it depends on transportation distance and voltage used for that.

      The rest of your post makes half sense, but you did not think over it properly, so your numbers are way off.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    16. Re:Why Local storage? by samwichse · · Score: 1

      The more interesting tidbit in this release, to me, is that he's apparently planning to do larger-format Li cells in the new battery factory. I can't imagine doing grid-level storage in something like a billion 18650 cells (a million of them is roughly 10 mWh)... at some point you're going to need to produce something more like this (about the equivalent of 700 18650s):
      http://www.ev-power.eu/Winston...

    17. Re:Why Local storage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      losses in transmission than the losses in a local storage system that uses batteries... You are going to loose nearly 40% on your convert to DC How do you come to this nonsense numbers?

      Easy... AC to DC conversion costs you about 10% (Check out the efficiency of your local switching power supply for an example. 90% is pretty good.) Then you have the IR losses for the power flowing into the battery (about 1-2%). Most battery chemistries are at best about 20% loss. You get about 80% out of what you put in. Then you have the I*I*R losses coming out (about 1-2%) and then a DC to AC conversion which runs about 10% loss.. If you add all these up, you get about 40%, but in reality it's a bit more because you cannot really just add the percentages like I did here, you need to calculate the losses at each stage because they accumulate (i.e. the 10% loss in the last conversion to AC is really only 10% of what you have left...)

      Transmission losses are usually under 10% and that level of loss is only really seen on peek load where the That is complete nonsense. The loss is regardless of load, it depends on transportation distance and voltage used for that.

      Losses are POWER which increase in a transmission line by the SQUARE of the current. (I squared * R) = Power... Let me derive this for you from two common equations. E (voltage) = I (current) * R (resistance) AND Power = I (current) * E (voltage).. If you take the first one and substitute it into the second you get the following: Power = I * (I * R) = I Squared * R.

      So, if you consider the resistance of a power line a constant (and it nearly is) and round off 60 cycles to DC (so we can ignore load factor for simplicity), as you transmit more power, the current goes up linearly (P = IE), but the power lost goes up by the square of the current (P=I*I*R).

      Power transmission lines are designed to use high voltage so they can lower the current for this very reason. This is because it's the I squared R losses and the cheapest way to lower the power lost is by lowering the current. Double the voltage, half the current, and you get half of the losses. To this you must add the magnetic flux losses in the transformers, which are ALSO related to current and increase with increasing power transmission.

      I think YOU don't know what you are talking about...

    18. Re:Why Local storage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with batteries storing power you need not have a grid tie in for evening/peak consumption times...eliminate th ebatteries and you jump right back in bed with power companies/monopolies...no thanks

    19. Re:Why Local storage? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'd rather take the losses in transmission than the losses in a local storage system that uses batteries... You are going to loose nearly 40% on your convert to DC -> Charge Batteries during the day and the Discharge batteries -> convert to AC at night.

      40% sounds bogus to me. On top of that since solar cells produce DC power in the first place why convert it at all before charging the batteries? That's got to reduce any loses.

    20. Re:Why Local storage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then you'd be shocked to learn Tesla and Solar cities batteries are in fact 18650 format batteries...in large packages, like the Tesla car battery pack/home battery pack and their palletized industrial solutions...

      http://www.greentechmedia.com/content/images/articles/straubel3.jpg

    21. Re:Why Local storage? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Solar panels are DC.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    22. Re:Why Local storage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solar panels are DC.

      But pretty much EVERYTHING that is in your house is designed for AC, so we must convert at least once.. DC is difficult to efficiently transmit large distances (Just ask Westinghouse and Edison about that), so unless you collocate the collectors and the batteries within FEET of each other, you can kiss any gains you make from avoiding the DC to AC conversion good bye.

    23. Re:Why Local storage? by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Because the battery and solar cells will operate at different voltages. To charge batteries directly you would need a dc-dc converter at a minimum.

    24. Re:Why Local storage? by samwichse · · Score: 1

      That IS shocking.

      The amount of packaging overhead must be insane to make a bazillion little round cells and fit them in a square box like that.

    25. Re:Why Local storage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the loss thorugh transmission actually higher than through the the charge/discharge cycle of a battery? Transmission losses in the US are significantly less than 10%, if I am not mistaken.

    26. Re:Why Local storage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Phoenix area local utility companies are trying to charge customers with solar panels additional money for service. APS already charges $5 a month and SRP wants $50. The only answer to this kind of approach is independence from these monopolies

    27. Re:Why Local storage? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      This is why those of us in the packaging industry would really like to get their contract :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  5. Re:My only question, where does the LiOn come from by beelsebob · · Score: 1

    That would be, from the gigantic factory he's building along side Panasonic ;)

  6. Great Idea by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is more than just a "green" reason to build local microgrids.
    Energy Security and Grid Reliability are two.

    The American electrical grid, built decades ago and in need of major upgrades, is acknowledged to be a problem moving forward with renewable energy. Utilities complain that they can't handle the load. As utilities whine about what solar and wind will do to their grids(while simultaneously poopooing renewables and how much power they can generate) SolarCity will build microgrids that will allow localized power generation and distribution, so the tender and fragile utilities-of-old won't have to be bothered by pesky solar derived electricity.

    The American megagrids serve a purpose, and they should be upgraded, however we should be simultaneously building infrastructure than is localized and more robust.

    Someone should not lost power because a tree fell on a line hundreds of miles away.

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    1. Re:Great Idea by burtosis · · Score: 1

      There is more than just a "green" reason to build local microgrids. Energy Security and Grid Reliability are two. The American electrical grid, built decades ago and in need of major upgrades, is acknowledged to be a problem moving forward with renewable energy. Utilities complain that they can't handle the load. As utilities whine about what solar and wind will do to their grids(while simultaneously poopooing renewables and how much power they can generate) SolarCity will build microgrids that will allow localized power generation and distribution, so the tender and fragile utilities-of-old won't have to be bothered by pesky solar derived electricity. The American megagrids serve a purpose, and they should be upgraded, however we should be simultaneously building infrastructure than is localized and more robust. Someone should not lost power because a tree fell on a line hundreds of miles away.

      That's all well and good but what if you are producing power from your solar and your batteries are full? I just am not getting the no grid tie in.

    2. Re:Great Idea by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1
      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    3. Re:Great Idea by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      This. We need to take control of our local grids and make them work for us. Then the big utilities can either adapt to serve us or die as we cut them off.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  7. Competing with government-sanctioned monopolies by mi · · Score: 1, Troll

    SolarCity claims its GridLogic program can provide electricity to communities and businesses for less than they pay for utility power

    For decades we were told over and over, how the utility power is a "natural monopoly" and how, therefor, it can not be subject to competition...

    and the facilities can still be connected to their area's utility power grid as an added backup.

    This nod does not seem like anything more than a fig-leaf. Because, if I my campus or block or town can connect to a utility's grid, it can also connect to another town's grid — or simply that of a different commercial power-generation provider (solar or otherwise).

    Either way, the myth of natural monopoly is crumbling.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Competing with government-sanctioned monopolies by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

      Distribution is generally a monopoly, generation is not.

      And "less than they pay for utility power" is a very, very high bar. Installation of a parallel grid, storage, and solar collection? Ignoring the grid, most solar companies I work with will contract to use your rooftop and install a solar system to tie into your grid-based power. You agree to pay $0.30(!) per kWh for all the generated power, they maintain the system. The cost of energy is fixed for the life of the contract (usu 20-30 years), and that's how the financing of the project is secured.

      It's all find and dandy, but to break even you have to assume a large annual increase in local electricity cost (>10% inflation every year iirc). That's a pretty big bet to make, and one that relatively few companies are taking for cost reasons.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:Competing with government-sanctioned monopolies by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      For decades, large-scale renewable power generation was a dream. Things change; doesn't make the old reality a myth.

    3. Re:Competing with government-sanctioned monopolies by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      So you're proposing having two sets of wires running to each house and business? Don't conflate generation and distribution. Power generation is rarely a monopoly, except for areas that cannot connect to the national grid. Even national distribution has competition. But local power distribution can't switch who owns the wire underground or overhead so easy. Even if you go "off grid", all you've done is change monopolies. Just one you now own.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    4. Re:Competing with government-sanctioned monopolies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trouble is with the ownership model.

      If it had been done with the forethought that competition was natural, you would own the lines up to the point they leave your property. The lines on the poles within residential areas would be owned by a co-op of houses and businesses that rely on them. The only duplicates would be supplying the distribution station nearby, and even those would likely be owned by a couple of distribution companies (whose power is kept in check by the fact they're mostly renting to other companies).

      What we've got now is, frankly, a little odd. The same power company owns the lines all the way through my property and into my power meter.

    5. Re:Competing with government-sanctioned monopolies by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Actually, it has been quite some time since utility power has been treated as a 'natural monopoly'.

      There are some vestiges of regulated monopoly stuff, mostly in consumer electrical delivery(partially inertia, partially the fact that political influence over the price of consumer staple goods can be electorally popular, partly because it fits neatly with the usual state interest in not having people cut off for nonpayment and freezing to death, which generates a lot of bad PR per dollar in utility bills collected); but electricity markets(between companies operating generating assets and companies selling to end users) have been in place for years to decades at this point. Sometimes this goes badly(looking at you, Enron); mostly it is fairly uneventful.

      The 'natural monopoly' is in transmission assets. Just as internet backbone and fairly fat pipes at peering points are a reasonably robustly competitive industry; but 'last mile' connectivity is somewhere between a monopoly and an oligopoly; electricity generation is a competitive market(and a surprisingly functional one, given that it has historically been utterly uneconomic to store electricity for even a few minutes, unlike most normal commodities); but 'the grid' pretty much has one path to your house; and nobody has a remotely plausible plan to build multiple, competing, paths; unless you are a really big customer, like an aluminum smelter or something.

      Different utility companies still own different mixtures of generating and grid assets, so the name on your electrical bill can be anything from a 'virtual' electrical company(owns no physical infrastructure, attempts to make its money by carefully purchasing electricity on the market at prices low enough to turn a profit by selling to you at an agreed-upon price); to a distribution company(owns and operates the electrical grid in a given area; but purchases the electricity it carries from generating companies on the market) to a fully integrated outfit(owns power plants and distribution lines, buys fuel, sells electricity to end users on its distribution grid and possibly electricity to other companies outside its retail distribution area).

      The advent of economically practical electricity storage (especially decentralized storage) would be a huge shake-up, because that has simply never been on the table before(a few places are naturally suited to pumped hydro; but that's about it); but energy markets are already more dynamic than you suggest, within the limits imposed by competitive grid building being hard to justify and electricity being hard to store.

    6. Re:Competing with government-sanctioned monopolies by necro81 · · Score: 1

      the utility power is a "natural monopoly" and how, therefor, it can not be subject to competition...

      I would take a more nuanced approach to it. It's not that it cannot be subject to competition, it's more that it is unreasonable to expect competition to magically appear - as one would expect in other markets - due to the impracticalities (i.e., having two sets of power lines) and the high cost to entry.

    7. Re:Competing with government-sanctioned monopolies by mi · · Score: 0

      Distribution is generally a monopoly, generation is not.

      If a campus — of multiple buildings — can be interconnected, why can't multiple adjacent campuses be connected to each other?

      In a reasonably thickly-settled area the distance between multiple homes is less than that between buildings of university or corporate campus. So TFA would seem to suggest, distribution does not have to be a monopoly either.

      most solar companies I work with

      Heh, if the distribution suddenly does not have to be a monopoly, it does not matter, whether the generation is solar or what have you.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    8. Re:Competing with government-sanctioned monopolies by mi · · Score: 1

      So you're proposing having two sets of wires running to each house and business?

      Why not? When I signed up for FiOS, a Verizon technician came over and ran a fiber-cable to my house from the pole nearby. Comcast's coax cables are running from the same pole to my neighbors.

      Why can't the same be done with power cables?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    9. Re:Competing with government-sanctioned monopolies by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      The main reason that distribution became a monopoly was due to the over crowding of spaces with dozens of companies running their lines - take a look at the following link for an example:

      http://io9.com/photos-from-the...

      To stop the over crowding, power companies were forced to merge and de-clutter the streets.

    10. Re:Competing with government-sanctioned monopolies by mi · · Score: 1, Troll

      That picture shows, how unpleasant it is to have cable running on poles instead of burying them underground. It is not about the ugliness of competition.

      To stop the over crowding, power companies were forced to merge and de-clutter the streets.

      Nonsense. Where there is one cable (whether on a pole or underground), there may as well be four or five — from competing companies.

      I'd go further and suggest, gas- and water-pipes can compete too. If Tokyo has competing subway lines certainly NYC (or LA or other large cities) can have competing utilities...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    11. Re:Competing with government-sanctioned monopolies by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      I'd like to invest in your fascinating scheme to sink $Trillions into needlessly duplicating infrastructure. Your concept of buying new 5X cost buried cables to compete with existing overhead wires just brilliant as well. Are you offering stock yet?

    12. Re:Competing with government-sanctioned monopolies by Adrian+Harvey · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure why you're assuming that a competing utility has to have separate lines. Here in New Zealand the power companies are not allowed to own lines - those are a highly regulated monopoly (The national grid is owned by the government, local grids by local lines companies.) Generating companies sell power wholesale via a trading system, Retailing companies buy the wholesale power (priced at grid-exit points) and deal with the consumer and local lines company. You can be a Generator and a Retailer, but not own transmission as well.

      Interestingly the same model is being taken with the national fibre rollout - the fibre owning company will wholesale services to various ISPs and comms providers but will not be allowed to be an ISP itself. This avoids some of the effects you see where several providers build out fibre in the most populous areas, but you end up with monopolies covering less-dense areas and no-one covers the rural areas.

  8. Nice idea but by burtosis · · Score: 1, Informative

    Why are they using lithium batteries? For solar you want the cheapest long lasting low cost electronics overhead solution per kWh, performance to weight or size is almost irrelevant. Lithium batteries are only the best tech for moderate to expensive portable/mobile tech and not power back up installations.

    I think more solar with better tech is the future and worth investing in under many circumstances. But due to no grid tie in and the batteries i can't help but think it smacks of a crappy bundling package like you get from comcast when you just want internet and not the added junk.

    1. Re:Nice idea but by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why are they using lithium batteries?

      Because EVs use them, but when the EVs are done with the packs, the packs are still good for something.

      The plan for Leaf packs was to use them for this purpose from day one. Why not Tesla? Hell, they might be able to get their hands on the Leaf packs cheap.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Nice idea but by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Lithium batteries will be available to them in large quantities, assuming they take back the old batteries from their cars. Lithium batteries that are too old to be used in a car can be used in this way.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    3. Re:Nice idea but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Elon Musk should find someone who knows something about batteries.

      Maybe things have changed? What if the best battery tech (Total Cost of Ownership over all the lifetime of its cycles) happens to be small and light. What if the price of batteries is coming down the the point the shipping costs actually matter?

    4. Re:Nice idea but by unixcorn · · Score: 1

      Grid batteries have to be flexible. That means discharging rates from slow to fast. Lithium batteries offer that sort of performance and they offer good storage performance for their size. Typically batteries described here come in a normal shipping container. The electronics are built in and one only needs to connect them to their own management system. The batteries can be used to augment the grid during high load times or they may be called upon to discharge in seconds during a planned switch from one power station to another thus keeping the lights on. In any case, the batteries offer additional flexibility for whatever power generating circumstances operators must deal with.

    5. Re:Nice idea but by Rei · · Score: 1

      Indeed, the raw materials for li-ion batteries are cheap, especially if it's a non-cobalt-based chemistry. It's all about optimizing mass production. Which is precisely what the gigafactory is all about.

      --
      "TAMS shouldn't be destroyed. They should just tag us before releasing us into the wild." -- Maeglin
    6. Re:Nice idea but by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Why are they using lithium batteries?

      Because Tesla, not coincidentally also owned by Musk, uses lithium batteries.

    7. Re:Nice idea but by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Advanced capacitors (perhaps even pseudocapacitors) could be a much better option. Yes, they're bulky, which is why they aren't used in vehicles, but houses don't care about that, and their cycle life is such that $/lifetime-kWh could be an order of magnitude better than in batteries. Plus, to my knowledge, no rare materials are required, it's generally aluminum foil, some carbon material, and organic liquids.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:Nice idea but by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Except most ev owners don't save up and don't want to foot the 3-10k bill for a new battery. So they run them into the ground, well past slightly used. Additionally these packs to bad with age and 8-10 years useful life on an ev is already pushing it. I'm not convinced that these near death packs would make for a cheap and reliable backup supply (for example switching out half dead packs every few years vs a 20 year solution, reliability, etc) compared to other technologies. Do you have a source?

    9. Re:Nice idea but by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the charge cycles. Pseudo caps and eldc caps tend to have infinite charge cycle lifetimes, in addition to longer lives than batteries (if kept cool).

    10. Re: Nice idea but by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      That's what I meant by what I wrote.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    11. Re:Nice idea but by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Exactly, tesla batteries are not suitable for economical backup. Hence the bundling comment.

    12. Re:Nice idea but by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Do you have a source?

      Battery packs are made of multiple cells, not all the cells go bad at once. Break down a laptop battery sometime. You can find perfectly working cells which are actually fully charged, completely hosed cells which won't take a charge, and cells which appear to work but whose lifetime is very short. The problem is that all of these cells are wired into one pack which has a limited ability to bypass cells. In most cases the pack is only capable of ignoring groups of cells, sometimes as few as two — but it's pretty rare that a cell can actually be cut out individually. So right next to a non-working cell, there can be a cell which will be highly useful in a recycled context.

      I only recently started breaking down laptop battery packs, because only recently did I get any significant number of them. My hit rate for getting good cells out of it is over 25%, and the dump takes the old cells for recycling with no fee... The Tesla in particular uses packs which are made out of 18650 cells, just like a laptop. They have slightly more expensive chemistry and a differently-shaped electrode, but you could stuff them into ultrafire flashlights like cells from laptop packs.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Nice idea but by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Yah, that was implicit in your post, I thought I'd state it explicitly for the slower and Musk worshipers among us.

    14. Re:Nice idea but by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

      I'm very suspicious of the idea of used battery packs being used for grid storage.

      However, lithium is cheap and is well understood. I think Tesla could devote some of their production into non-cobalt based cells, and possibly non-nickel too, and use them for stationary storage.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    15. Re:Nice idea but by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm very suspicious of the idea of used battery packs being used for grid storage.

      If I were designing this plan, I wouldn't literally "use used battery packs", but those packs are full of cells that I would test and reuse. I'd also design the pack to be convenient to stuff with new cells.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Nice idea but by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Do you have a source?

      Battery packs are made of multiple cells, not all the cells go bad at once. Break down a laptop battery sometime. You can find perfectly working cells which are actually fully charged, completely hosed cells which won't take a charge, and cells which appear to work but whose lifetime is very short. The problem is that all of these cells are wired into one pack which has a limited ability to bypass cells. In most cases the pack is only capable of ignoring groups of cells, sometimes as few as two — but it's pretty rare that a cell can actually be cut out individually. So right next to a non-working cell, there can be a cell which will be highly useful in a recycled context.

      I only recently started breaking down laptop battery packs, because only recently did I get any significant number of them. My hit rate for getting good cells out of it is over 25%, and the dump takes the old cells for recycling with no fee... The Tesla in particular uses packs which are made out of 18650 cells, just like a laptop. They have slightly more expensive chemistry and a differently-shaped electrode, but you could stuff them into ultrafire flashlights like cells from laptop packs.

      So no source then. I not only have designed lithium battery packs but also the smart battery circuitry for military grade robots. I've also been working with secondary lithium batteries since before you could get them in America, my first orders came from Australia and Asia. For example alone, as a safety system, the majority of battery packs for laptops include a fusable link where upon failure of a single cell it is shorted and burnt out thereby disabling the entire pack. Simply hooking up a new pack or replacing a damaged cell has multiple problems as you need to reset the smart battery firmware (not available over smbus via the laptop) and replacing a single cell throws off the cell balancing (among other things) quite badly. You basically are fucked and need an entirely new battery or years of experience in hacking battery systems and programming firmware.
      for Automotive packs you may be able to bypass stacks of cells but then your max charge rate and discharge rate is affected quite badly. Furthermore since you are likely using your batteries quite a bit this would likely require maintenance and therefore cost. It's unlikely the battery pack is dynamically arranged into groups of 2 cells, typically the nominal voltage is 3.6-3.7v depending on chemistry and annode/cathode. For higher voltage packs, you likely lose the whole string for a single bad cell. For example even if you bypassed them and had 10 parallel for the first series battery, you would only have 9 parallel at some point and this would unbalance your whole pack and limit you to 9 series equivelant even with cell balancing (which is usually resistive and not capacitive). This then runs the remaining cells harder and puts exponentially more wear on the already nearly dead battery.

    17. Re:Nice idea but by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So no source then.

      If you're half as clever as you think you are, you can google up the information about how this is the plan for recycling Leaf packs.

      Simply hooking up a new pack or replacing a damaged cell has multiple problems as you need to reset the smart battery firmware (not available over smbus via the laptop) and replacing a single cell throws off the cell balancing (among other things) quite badly. You basically are fucked and need an entirely new battery or years of experience in hacking battery systems and programming firmware.

      Yes, because they are designed to fail and to generate additional sales. What about the el cheapo replacements which don't even have a programmed maximum lifetime? Are they as bitchy about replacing cells? Because let's face it, there's absolutely no reason for them to be. A proper balance charger will effectively evaluate cell condition on every single charge.

      Anyway, I'm not rebuilding packs, just repurposing cells for other things. And there's nothing stopping anyone from testing cells' charge/discharge profiles and building packs of matched cells just like we've always done.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:Nice idea but by burtosis · · Score: 1

      It's less to do with planned obsolescence and more to do with the fact lithium cells of almost any kind tolerate very little overcharge before there is a fire. When you pump out a million packs even one fire can create a lawsuit. If you don't have the safety required by the various regulatory agencies, or compared to average products you open yourself to lawsuits. about the only way out is the hobby market which is about 0% of total battery sales and 98% of total fires (you can google these fires destroying homes, cars, etc with high frequency). Imo some of these e-cig manufacturers are going to get fucked because I've disassembled them and there is next to no protection and I've read about many fires in them also.
      yes i googled this ev post vehicle nonsense and all i found were feel good political bs and almost no detail or facts or evidence. They would be better off simply reprocessing the materials and starting over.

    19. Re:Nice idea but by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's less to do with planned obsolescence and more to do with the fact lithium cells of almost any kind tolerate very little overcharge before there is a fire.

      Too bad so many of these cheap chargers will crank your 16850s to 4.2 volts.

      yes i googled this ev post vehicle nonsense and all i found were feel good political bs and almost no detail or facts or evidence.

      You were expecting their business plan?

      They would be better off simply reprocessing the materials and starting over.

      That might be true. Citation?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:Nice idea but by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Too bad so many of these cheap chargers will crank your 16850s to 4.2 volts.

      Nominal voltage is the average voltage over discharge. Often this range is 3-4.2V. Cheap chargers are extremely dangerous as even 4.25V can be hard on cells and anything much over 4.4 is at a greatly increased risk of thermal runaway.

      yes i googled this ev post vehicle nonsense and all i found were feel good political bs and almost no detail or facts or evidence.

      You were expecting their business plan?

      i was expecting some facts. Perhaps some data. I guess facts are too much to ask.

      They would be better off simply reprocessing the materials and starting over.

      That might be true. Citation?

      From page 46 of this report Discussions egarding smart grid applications include using automotive battery packs connected to the grid for temporary energy storage, and as emergency power supplies when power is unavailable. There is also considerable discussion in the industry regarding repurposing used or refurbished automotive battery packs for stationary applications such as home level power storage once the packs are no longer suitable for use in vehicles.70 It remains to be seen whether refurbishment of packs will be practical or economical,71 as cells must generally be well matched to provide good performance in battery packs, and aged cells are particularly difficult to match effectively. In addition, for refurbished pack safety, the issue of determining when a cell should be retired will need to be resolved.
      tl;dr leading industry experts have the exact same concern for the viability as I have mentioned.

    21. Re:Nice idea but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are they using lithium batteries?

      Because Elon Musk has invested a lot in lithium batteries (gigafactory...) and the higher the demand the better it is for his business.
      Elon Musk is not into charities, he is into companies that make money.

  9. Slashdotters miss the point, as usual by BenJeremy · · Score: 1

    Musk is promoting the use of LiOn batteries because the more they make, the cheaper they get (to a point). It's about scaling up the industry as fast and as much as possible.

    Flywheel systems make more sense for power grid applications, but only marginally, and only for the specific engineering. In other words, it makes tactical sense, but Musk is in this for the long run, which requires strategic planning. These microgrids provide the quickest way to sell a lot of batteries, far more than he's selling in Tesla cars.

    If his production costs come way down, so does the cost of his cars... and microgrids... and so forth. Obviously, there is a point where mass production no longer offers any savings, but we are still a LONG way from there where these battery technologies are concerned.

  10. And the "bonus" by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    Oh, those batteries - they'll happen to be in swappable modules that just happen to fit Tesla automobiles. You pay for the infrastructure, Musk magically creates the 1 minute electric car fill-up.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  11. Re:My only question, where does the LiOn come from by Rei · · Score: 2

    My only question, where does the LiOn come from?

    Sub-saharan Africa.

    --
    "TAMS shouldn't be destroyed. They should just tag us before releasing us into the wild." -- Maeglin
  12. Re:My only question, where does the LiOn come from by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
    how does anyone not account for that when they price out some grand new adaptation?

    Kind of like say building disaster proof micro grids that are not under control by government sanctioned utility monopolies? I never understood the whole low IQ concept of "we have to save it for something more important, so we shouldn't use it logic because it might get expensive".

    No we should use the shit out of it to drive the price up to the stratosphere so that the market comes up with either a cheaper way to produce it or more effective technology to replace it and meet the demand.

  13. Dammit Musk by Rei · · Score: 4, Funny

    Will you please stop with these mundane, low-hanging fruit goals and try something lofty and ambitious for once? It's always the same-old, same-old, doing-what-everyone-else is doing with you, isn't it?

    --
    "TAMS shouldn't be destroyed. They should just tag us before releasing us into the wild." -- Maeglin
    1. Re:Dammit Musk by Rei · · Score: 2

      And another thing: it's the 2010s. Where's my flying car?

      ----

      SpaceX Model M Details Revealed
      Posted by timothy on 11:23 AM -- Wednesday June 14 2019
      from the gotta-find-something-new-to-complain-about department.

      Julian86 writes :

      Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX), fresh off their merger this spring with Tesla Motors, has provided the first sneak-peak at the new hybrid electric/LOX/H2 SpaceX Model M. Boasting 800 miles of all-electric range and 3800 m/s delta-V, it is said to be capable of driving from Albuquerque to Los Angeles on a single charge and achieving Low-Earth-Orbit atop a moderate-sized flyback booster. The press conference was widely attended by the press but was briefly disrupted when former Top Gear host Jeremy Clarkson had to be rushed to the hospital after repeatedly slamming his head into a brick wall in a desperate cry for attention.

      --
      "TAMS shouldn't be destroyed. They should just tag us before releasing us into the wild." -- Maeglin
    2. Re:Dammit Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROFLMAO. This hit on so many points for me.

  14. Wouldnt NiFe be a better battery chemistry here? by random+coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They're going to be constantly replacing LiOn packs on any appreciable sized system. Why not go with a NiFe battery system that will last for fifty years? The price won't be much different, especially over the life of the system, or is the system life that short? Its not like you need to keep weight and size down in a building. Also who wants the fire risk that LiOn's pose in their business or home?

  15. Tooth and nail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I expect the mainline utilities will fight this tooth and nail. The idea of people choosing their electrical provider or offsetting their usage seems to terrify them. Distributed generation/storage, even if it is as simple as a little 1kw wind turbine or a dozen or so solar panels is definitely going to be a significant part of our future energy generation but the only thing most of them seem to be interested in is building natural gas plants and ignoring the propensity of fossil fuel prices to fluctuate (we're currently in the low point of natural gas prices).

  16. Re:Wouldnt NiFe be a better battery chemistry here by Rei · · Score: 2

    They're going to be constantly replacing LiOn packs on any appreciable sized system.

    And why would they be doing that?

    Let's say it all together now: "Li-ion != Cell phone batteries". Li-ion is a whole broad range of chemistries that follow a basic mechanism of action involving the intercalation of lithium ions on either side of a membrane. There are an incredibly wide range of anodes, cathodes, electrolytes, and membranes, and these offer widely varying performance in terms of power density, energy density, cost, cycle life, and shelf life. Cell phone and laptop batteries are li-ion batteries specifically engineered with design life deemphasized in favor of high energy density in order to keep their products small and light. They're not climate controlled and they're generally run at high depths of discharge. This is not what you do with all li-ion battery types. Where longevity is of concern, you more carefully control temperature, control charging more carefully, you have many cells in parallel that can allow for individual cell failures, you use a lower DoD, and you use a chemistry that sacrifices some energy density for greatly improved cycle life.

    The exact same rules apply to NiMh. You can get NiMH with high energy density by sacrificing cycle life. A typical NiMh hybrid battery pack only achieves its lifespan by running at a tiny 20-40% DoD range.

    --
    "TAMS shouldn't be destroyed. They should just tag us before releasing us into the wild." -- Maeglin
  17. Re:Wouldnt NiFe be a better battery chemistry here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Simple, Reuse. Its part of his business model for Tesla EVs. They intend to take old Tesla EV batteries and use them in grid storage of various types (car quick charge stations, general electrical, solar, etc). If they get major demand for these kinds of services I imagine they'll fall back to another battery technology but assuming EV's take off like some hope they will there will be A LOT of old EV battery packs that won't have the proper performance for road use but will still have years of possible service life in fixed applications.

  18. Re:My only question, where does the LiOn come from by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where are the future batteries, Obama?

    Your cell phone is running on them. The batteries of today are the future batteries of half a decade ago, and have capabilities that would have seemed very impressive by the standards of the time.

    So it will be with the batteries of tomorrow.

  19. Re:Wouldnt NiFe be a better battery chemistry here by Guspaz · · Score: 1

    NiFe batteries have great longevity, but very poor performance compared to Li-ion. Lithium Ion batteries can store ten times as many watt hours per kilogram, and twenty times as many watt hours per litre. NiFe is also not any cheaper than lithium ion, and when you consider that Tesla is going to be producing a large number of "worn out" battery packs that are still perfectly usable for grid applications, NiFe will end up a bunch more expensive too.

    Also, weight and size definitely do matter. Shipping stuff around isn't free, buildings have load limits, and real estate isn't cheap.

  20. Re:My only question, where does the LiOn come from by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    If LiOn supplies are already tight

    Lithium supplies are very price elastic. When prices are low, it comes from salt deposits in Bolivia, and Chile. When the prices go up, we can extract it from brine wells. If the prices go up even more, it becomes cost effective to extract it from sea water as a byproduct of desalinating water. The oceans contain 230 billion tonnes of lithium. Extraction costs will go down as technology improves. The world is not running out of lithium.

  21. Re:Wouldnt NiFe be a better battery chemistry here by burtosis · · Score: 1

    They're going to be constantly replacing LiOn packs on any appreciable sized system.

    And why would they be doing that?

    Let's say it all together now: "Li-ion != Cell phone batteries". Li-ion is a whole broad range of chemistries that follow a basic mechanism of action involving the intercalation of lithium ions on either side of a membrane. There are an incredibly wide range of anodes, cathodes, electrolytes, and membranes, and these offer widely varying performance in terms of power density, energy density, cost, cycle life, and shelf life. Cell phone and laptop batteries are li-ion batteries specifically engineered with design life deemphasized in favor of high energy density in order to keep their products small and light. They're not climate controlled and they're generally run at high depths of discharge. This is not what you do with all li-ion battery types. Where longevity is of concern, you more carefully control temperature, control charging more carefully, you have many cells in parallel that can allow for individual cell failures, you use a lower DoD, and you use a chemistry that sacrifices some energy density for greatly improved cycle life.

    The exact same rules apply to NiMh. You can get NiMH with high energy density by sacrificing cycle life. A typical NiMh hybrid battery pack only achieves its lifespan by running at a tiny 20-40% DoD range.

    Yes but there is a reason few if any large power backups use lithium technologies of any type. Typically it is lead acids. Using a radically different lithium battery from the tesla wont reduce the cost of tesla packs much and further consumers wont like paying more money up front for less reliable and more expensive solutions just to improve Musks bottom line. Pretty much all lithium batteries are a pain in the ass to work with their main selling point is the power and energy density, both of which are useless for backup.

  22. Screw SolarCity, king of ecoscam by netsavior · · Score: 2

    Go to the solar city website... I'll wait.

    Ok now that you are back you probably know how solarcity works right? No? Weird because you'd think it is pretty simple.

    Here is how it works, once you TALK TO THEM ON THE PHONE they will send you "do not disclose" paperwork that amounts to: You pay to install solar cells on your roof, then you pay to keep them clear of tree branches etc, then you buy electricity from the solar cells at slightly higher than municipal power rates, then you buy the rest of your power from the municipality or other provider at the normal price. Then they uninstall them 20 years later for free.

    100% of tax credits go to Solar City.

    I really don't understand why you would do this over green mountain or some other "renewable at a slightly higher price to make you feel better" kind of place. SolarCity is a complete rip, offering all of the disadvantages of a grid-tied solar install, with none of the advantages. For my particular area, the more power their solar cells would generate, the higher my electric bill would be.

    1. Re:Screw SolarCity, king of ecoscam by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      I don't doubt your terrible experience. But when looking at their web site, they claim that the contracts are open. I assume you are referring to the MyPower product and that, in your location, the rates are higher than traditional grid electricity in which case it wouldn't make much sense. They do offer a standard solar product as well. I'm not endorsing SolarCity or the My Power project but it does seem reasonable. You are locked into a long-term contract with fixed prices for electricity. You're putting no money down and they are taking mpst of the risk. So I'm not surprised that they are getting most of the benefit. Seems too complicated for me; people are bound to be unhappy. I wouldn't touch the My Power project. I would take an interest if they starting offering solar systems with a used Tesla battery pack so that I would hardly ever need grid electricity. But I'd purchase the equipment up-front, not enter into a complicated contract. In any event, this is a long response, but the point is that you can see the contracts before talking to a person. They may or may not be a good deal. http://www.solarcity.com/resid...

    2. Re:Screw SolarCity, king of ecoscam by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      I rescind my post. Clicking on the contract links doesn't get you to a contract, it gets you a form to fill out to request information.

    3. Re:Screw SolarCity, king of ecoscam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You pay to install solar cells on your roof"

      Isn't that completely counter to their business model? The whole point of the company is you don't pay install/panel costs but you do pay for the power produced by the panels for the life of the panels (~20 years). They have a side program where they will install a system that you pay for like a traditional system but I would assume it is a small portion of their installs.

    4. Re:Screw SolarCity, king of ecoscam by CountZer0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've got Solar City...

      You do not pay to install anything.

      You do not pay to keep them clear of branches.

      You *do* buy electricity from the solar cells, but at a much *lower* rate than municipal power. You do buy the rest of your power from your normal provider at the normal price.

      Yes, 100% of the tax credits and rebates go to Solar City.

      In other words, you pay nothing and get cheaper electricity. All you have to do is let them put solar cells on your roof, which they then maintain. It's a pretty nice win-win situation as far as I am concerned. I have a much lower electric bill, and I know that I'm helping the environment, and I had no out-of-pocket expense at all.

    5. Re:Screw SolarCity, king of ecoscam by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Your result clearly depends on local electric costs from the grid. For others it may well not make sense. And perhaps they have more than one package to choose from...with different contracts. (Also, perhaps they offer different such packages in different areas.)

      I'm glad you've been having a good experience. I hope you continue to. But realistically you're dealing with a large corporation in a monopoly situation (i.e., you're locked into that contract for a long time). So be sure you understand what the contract says, and what your remedies are if they start defaulting on their obligations.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    6. Re:Screw SolarCity, king of ecoscam by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      You pay nothing to install, the power price agreed to from the panels is often lower than the local rate (depends on local rate), the price is fixed for the contract lifetime (no inflation) and they maintain the system (except keeping trees off your roof, that's your responsibility).

      Other than all those errors your post was almost totally inaccurate.

  23. Security by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    I wonder if major innovators are safe from the inevitable enemies they will make due to change. Tesla is probably seen as the great Satan by the auto industry and now we can add in the oil and gas industries and power industries, big coal and natural gas to people who are not exactly in love with Mr. Musk. This man deserves to be protected by the secret service as he is a national treasure and in my opinion he is at risk. There are many billions of dollars involved and we have to many people devoid of conscience in our society.

  24. Re:Wouldnt NiFe be a better battery chemistry here by random+coward · · Score: 1

    They will constantly be replaceing because of the number of packs in a large system and the fact the packs are on the downside of their cycle life, and thus why they were removed from cars. NiFe doesn't really have a cycle life like LiOn does. These will be cycling daily for night discharge; this will be an issue. Why not install a low maintenance system to start with rather than be replacing battery packs constantly, or at least several times, throughout the 30 year( 10,000cycle) life of the system?

  25. Re:Wouldnt NiFe be a better battery chemistry here by burtosis · · Score: 1

    I think you just explained why lithium batteries aren't very good for backup, doubly so nearly dead ev packs. The metric to minimize is cost per kWh/year. Including maintaining them. So swapping out failing ev batteries every 1-3 years gets expensive fast compared to a bullet proof long term low maintenance battery. There is a reason so few backup power systems use lithium.

  26. Re:Wouldnt NiFe be a better battery chemistry here by Rei · · Score: 1

    That's not true. PbA is used in the small scale but there is no standard for the large scale. Among the largest battery backups out there today are the NiCd battery backup for Fairbanks, Duke Energy's lead-acid Notrees battery, and AES's li-ion Laurel Mountain battery. Vanadium-redox is fairly common. Sodium-sulfur has some use too. There is no single standard.

    And it's simply not true that "power is useless for backup". Quite to the contrary, high power output battery backups are incredibly valuable for peaking. This is especially important with renewables like solar and wind whose output can change rapidly.

    --
    "TAMS shouldn't be destroyed. They should just tag us before releasing us into the wild." -- Maeglin
  27. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  28. SolarCity Are a bunch of hucksters by sdguero · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I tried to get a quote on a solar system from SolarCity for our home. They were rude, pushy, and kept insisting that I "think of SolarCity as a utility company, not an installer."

    I contacted them because of Musk's association with the company. I have since decided to go DIY, and now I don't really see why "solar companies" are even necessary. Any electrician worth his salt should be able to wire and setup a solar system. The panel, inverter, and battery manufacturers are what matter.

    1. Re:SolarCity Are a bunch of hucksters by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Thinking of them as a utility company is actually more accurate than thinking of them as an installer. But they aren't regulated the way most utility companies are (which has both good and bad points). They are a utility company because they own the generation plant that they install on your property. You are just the only customer of that plant. I'm sorry the salesman you dealt with was unpleasant, but that's not a basis for deciding that the *company* is a bunch of hucksters. (I'm not saying they aren't, they could be. I'm saying that isn't a valid basis for deciding.)

      As for your "Any electrician..." comment, yes. But most electricians don't have agreements with the power company to allow them to connect their devices to feed power into the lines. Most solar companies do. Now if you want total grid independence that shouldn't matter to you. So in that case what matters is that Solar City supplies long term financing that most electricians won't give you. If you don't want it, fine. Some people do.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:SolarCity Are a bunch of hucksters by luckymutt · · Score: 2

      I have to agree. We recently bought a house and one of the first things we did was to cap them because, you know, yea solar. Their big hook seems to be that there is no install costs. Great, but that means they get all the tax incentives, plus you pay them for how much energy you generate, not how much you use. Huh? Plus I didn't like their math. They took our electric bill, divided the TOTAL by the number of kwh used to get to our "rate" to compare with their system. Including taxes and fees. Despite that we would still need to pay our local energy company $12 per month since we are still on the grid. That seemed a bit disingenuous to me. We found 3 reputable companies in our city that can put up a comparable sized system, or even larger, for less than what SC days we can buy the system from them after 5 years. Also, all of them had a low rate finance option so there would be nothing down. In our case, no electric bill + solar loan payment = about break even. For 10 years. Then no payment and free electricity. Unless we refinance and pay the system outright. 20 year lease that has to stay with the home even of you sell? No thanks.

    3. Re:SolarCity Are a bunch of hucksters by sdguero · · Score: 1

      But most electricians don't have agreements with the power company to allow them to connect their devices to feed power into the lines. Most solar companies do.

      Huh? In San Diego (and I think all of CA is this way), once the hardware is installed, you call the power company to come out and do a free inspection before connecting to the grid: And thats it. I have never heard of special agreements and as far as I know companies like solar city still rely on the power company to inspect their work before they can connect it to the grid..
      http://www.sdge.com/clean-ener...

      Now if you want total grid independence that shouldn't matter to you. So in that case what matters is that Solar City supplies long term financing that most electricians won't give you. If you don't want it, fine. Some people do.

      In the end, Solar city was unwilling to give me a quote for an installation without running my credit, and the sales guy that came to our house said they don't do off grid. They also don't really finance you, they put a lein against your house for the length of the contract to buy power from them. It's more like signing up for a cell phone contract where you get locked into buying from them instead of the power company for a set period of time and the hardware is just an afterthought.

      A bank can help you finance a solar installation. Just like how an electrician can wire up a solar array. I maintain that companies like SolarCity are just middlemen muddying up the waters and are not necessary.

    4. Re:SolarCity Are a bunch of hucksters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried to get a quote on a solar system from SolarCity for our home. They were rude, pushy, and kept insisting that I "think of SolarCity as a utility company, not an installer."

      I contacted them because of Musk's association with the company. I have since decided to go DIY, and now I don't really see why "solar companies" are even necessary. Any electrician worth his salt should be able to wire and setup a solar system. The panel, inverter, and battery manufacturers are what matter.

      DIY is usually illegal, justifiably so, on any grid tied system. You screw up and someone ELSE dies. So yes, any decent electrician should be able to do it, and any (good) roofer can hang and rack the panels. But most people aren't roofers/electricians and don't want to change their own oil either.

    5. Re:SolarCity Are a bunch of hucksters by HiThere · · Score: 1

      OK. Possibly I misunderstood what was required to allow a push connection to the electrical grid. OTOH, it was a couple of decades ago that we put in solar panels (with a grid connection, and, obviously, not Solar City), so also perhaps the rules have changed.

      The bank would also want security for the loan, perhaps you could get better terms from them. If the Solar City salesman you contacted said they don't do "off the grid" installations...that doesn't seem to be what the company currently says. Maybe they didn't, maybe it's flim-flam, maybe your salesman didn't want to do it. From your description he was clearly lousy at his job.

      OTOH, this http://www.greentechmedia.com/... might be related to your experience. However this http://blog.solarcity.com/put-... seems to bolster your point. But this http://cleantechnica.com/2012/... disagrees with that. These were all published at different points in time, so quite possibly the position is in flux. Their site doesn't seem to address the question directly for residential customers.

      So I think you are basically correct, if you want an "off the grid" solar installation you should go with someone else until they are ready to make a clear statement. But for the larger installations that they are talking about in this Press Release, attaching to the grid appears to be an afterthought. (It couldn't really be an afterthought, but it seems designed for locations where good grid connections cannot be assumed.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  29. Re:Wouldnt NiFe be a better battery chemistry here by Guspaz · · Score: 1

    Cost is one reason, although NiFe is already more expensive than Li-Ion, and rapidly becoming more and more so. Particularly when EV batteries are available so cheap. They also ought to last more than a year or three. NiFe's cost also needs to take into account the fact that they require a massive increase in infrastructure compared to lithium ion. What you can do with a single building worth of lithium ion batteries would require twenty buildings of NiFe batteries. That's not an insubstantial difference!

    It's also worth noting that nobody uses NiFe batteries for backups either: they use lead acid. That's not a coincidence. Lead acid is still at the point where the lower costs negate the lower efficiency, although that may eventually change.

  30. Re:Wouldnt NiFe be a better battery chemistry here by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    They're going to be constantly replacing LiOn packs on any appreciable sized system. Why not go with a NiFe battery system that will last for fifty years?

    Because Elon Musk owns Tesla - and a giga factory designed to turn out LiOn batteries like Carter's churns out little pills.

  31. Re:Wouldnt NiFe be a better battery chemistry here by burtosis · · Score: 1

    I didn't mean to imply nife batteries are the answer. Merely that burnt out lithium packs pose many problems and even if initially cheap are unlikely to be cost effective in the long run. And yes those packs were only intended to run 8 years it's not just that they likely have sub 70% initial capacity - they are far more likely to fail internally and have much higher internal resistance. Lithium packs not only go bad with age but discharge cycles - they will be cycled once a day in this case making things worse. In fact lithium batteries aren't likely the best solution in general.

  32. Re:My only question, where does the LiOn come from by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    It isn't like it is exactly uncommon.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  33. Re:My only question, where does the LiOn come from by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 2

    Chile, Atacama Desert..

    Whoosh, I ducked and your joke missed.

  34. A lot of this depends on price really. by Chas · · Score: 1

    Currently a LiON system is about 3x the price of a Lead Acid installation. Granted, the LiON has a smaller physical footprint and power spec due to efficiencies in LiON tech. But 3x the cost is 3x the cost. Maybe Tesla can bring that cost down some. Otherwise doing an solar install in locations other than sunny places like Nevada/Arizona don't make economic sense.

    There's also the issue of thermal runaway.
    Granted, current lead-acid batteries have a thermal runaway problem, but LiON is more prone to it due to the higher energy densities involved.

    Lead Acid doesn't normally light up when the casing is breached.

    Look up Lithium Ion fire or cell phone battery fire online and watch videos of LiON batteries burning VERY vigorously.
    What happens if a home user's $45,000 worth of LiON goes Kurgan and decides it'd rather burn out than fade away?

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  35. Re:Wouldnt NiFe be a better battery chemistry here by burtosis · · Score: 1

    It most certainly is true power per weight and volume is nearly useless for backup. The only major first order factor is cost per kWh per year. Glad to hear you say that not only are lithium batteries not really used a lot at any scale but they type used in teslas are not used at all. Thanks for agreeing.

  36. Gigantic resources in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Germany, a cloud-ridden small country which extends from 47 degrees
    *northwards*, already produces tens of gigawatts of solar power.

    How many of the US population live north of 47 N?

    It's amazing how far behind the US is. But this is going to
    change very rapidly now. Just look at the vast areas of available
    land combined with sunshine hours. Texas, Arizona, New Mexico,
    and I hear there's even a 'sunshine state'. We're looking at
    growth rates > 50%/year over decades.

    --Gerhard Wesp

  37. Re:Wouldnt NiFe be a better battery chemistry here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who do you work for, buddy? Just feels like you're trying to take the LiOn's share of the profits..

  38. I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    70% of generated power in homes goes on either heating or cooling spaces/water.

    Why do we even need to convert heating? And cooling?

    Why not use the sun to heat a reservoir of water and use that instead? why not do the same with cooling? keep a frozen "lake" of dunno, alcohol for example and distribute cooling to the entire community with insulated pipes.

    Isn't there a more efficient way than having each home has its own heating/cooling systems and just deliver the end product to our homes? each conversion is costing us efficiency, the biggest question is - are insulated pipes efficiency losses are greater than conversion efficiencies.....

    I can't be the first one who thinks about it, otherwise we're all doomed! ;-)

  39. Re:Wouldnt NiFe be a better battery chemistry here by Rei · · Score: 1

    False. Cost per kWh can be everything or it can be utterly irrelevant, depending on the needs of the backup system. The facts that matter are the particular mix of cost per kWh AND cost per kW needed by the system. Many if not most li-ion batteries have a higher ratio of W to Wh than PbA. Hence saying that "li-ion batteries are expensive" and using a price per Wh as the basis is erroneous.

    Furthermore, costs for large backups are not as simple as multiplying the cost of building things out of X number of small cells. Economies of scale come into play, shipping and housing issues come into play, heating and efficiency come more into play, environmental permitting factors come more into play, hazards come more into play, and all sorts of other factors. Many people worry about fire risks from li-ion, for example (although that's not the case with all li-ion types). But in large quantities, PbA batteries become an explosion hazard, as in some circumstances they can outgas hydrogen. Large PbA battery backups have ended in explosion before.

    --
    "TAMS shouldn't be destroyed. They should just tag us before releasing us into the wild." -- Maeglin
  40. Re:Wouldnt NiFe be a better battery chemistry here by Rei · · Score: 1

    Tesla packs highly resistant to "failing internally". Each brick is made of dozens of cells wired in parallel. It's irrelevant if a handful of cells totally die.

    The li-ion charge retention curve is usually an exponential decay. The lower the capacity of the cell gets, the slower further degradation goes. Now, in many electronic devices, it doesn't seem this way because the device is designed for a particular operational voltage range, and when the pack gets below that voltage it's totally useless. But a large-scale system engineered to use old packs and thus designed for greater voltage flexibility is not bound by this constraint.

    --
    "TAMS shouldn't be destroyed. They should just tag us before releasing us into the wild." -- Maeglin
  41. Re:Wouldnt NiFe be a better battery chemistry here by burtosis · · Score: 1

    Tesla packs highly resistant to "failing internally". Each brick is made of dozens of cells wired in parallel. It's irrelevant if a handful of cells totally die.

    The li-ion charge retention curve is usually an exponential decay. The lower the capacity of the cell gets, the slower further degradation goes. Now, in many electronic devices, it doesn't seem this way because the device is designed for a particular operational voltage range, and when the pack gets below that voltage it's totally useless. But a large-scale system engineered to use old packs and thus designed for greater voltage flexibility is not bound by this constraint.

    From page 46 of this report Discussions egarding smart grid applications include using automotive battery packs connected to the grid for temporary energy storage, and as emergency power supplies when power is unavailable. There is also considerable discussion in the industry regarding repurposing used or refurbished automotive battery packs for stationary applications such as home level power storage once the packs are no longer suitable for use in vehicles.70 It remains to be seen whether refurbishment of packs will be practical or economical,71 as cells must generally be well matched to provide good performance in battery packs, and aged cells are particularly difficult to match effectively. In addition, for refurbished pack safety, the issue of determining when a cell should be retired will need to be resolved. tl;dr leading industry experts have the exact same concerns i do. You are just not well informed. I'm open to any sources you may be aware of because the facts are buried under political bs.

  42. Re:Wouldnt NiFe be a better battery chemistry here by burtosis · · Score: 1
    Again it's simply cost per kWh/year. You simply have a need for kWh at some level of demand. You fail to understand its cheaper to simply buy a slightly larger pack, or different annode/cathode material than use the most finicky fire prone batteries known. I see hand waving but nothing addressing the issue.
    you obviously never have worked with lithium batteries, doubly so packs of 7000 individual cells. Here is a good example of why using these defunct packs is bull.

    From page 46 of this report Discussions egarding smart grid applications include using automotive battery packs connected to the grid for temporary energy storage, and as emergency power supplies when power is unavailable. There is also considerable discussion in the industry regarding repurposing used or refurbished automotive battery packs for stationary applications such as home level power storage once the packs are no longer suitable for use in vehicles.70 It remains to be seen whether refurbishment of packs will be practical or economical,71 as cells must generally be well matched to provide good performance in battery packs, and aged cells are particularly difficult to match effectively. In addition, for refurbished pack safety, the issue of determining when a cell should be retired will need to be resolved.
    tl;dr leading industry experts say the same thing I'm saying. Feel free to cite some actual facts here, say from well cited industry leading experts. Because using burnt out lithium batteries to power your grid is more of a pr stunt than actual economics.

  43. Re:Wouldnt NiFe be a better battery chemistry here by Rei · · Score: 1

    Again, it's simply not. You keep acting like cost per kW is irrelevant. This is absolutely not the case. You're the one trying to hand wave away the power input and output demands of stabilizing a renewables grid. According to your logic, people would never use li-ion for grid storage. Except that they actually do. In new projects it's more common than PbA for the large (greater-than-datacenter) scale (PbA still dominates at the datacenter scale, and probably will for some time to come)

    I would say that you have obviously never worked with lithium batteries. Tesla does not use large format cells. It uses 18650-format cells. One never messes with individual cells, the bricks are designed to allow multiple concurrent failures without significant degradation in performance. And saying that something is "yet to be seen" does in no way shape or form mean "using defunct packs is bull", and it's beyond me how you could read that into that statement. Furthermore, it's also funny how you read that section but entirely missed the lines before it:

    Considerable interest has been generated in the last 2 to 3 years for applying lithium-ion batteries for a variety of energy storage and grid stabilization (stationary) applications. Prototype systems have been installed. Megawatt scale systems typically include thousands of cells housed in shipping container-sized structures that can be situated on power utility locations. These systems usually include integrated fire suppression in their installations. Smaller systems have also been planned and are being delivered for evaluation purposes, particularly for use with renewable energy sources.

    Gee, I thought nobody would want to use li-ion for grid backup? ;)

    --
    "TAMS shouldn't be destroyed. They should just tag us before releasing us into the wild." -- Maeglin
  44. Re:Wouldnt NiFe be a better battery chemistry here by burtosis · · Score: 1

    Your complete neglect of cost is rather funny. It's still cost per kWh/year obviously you need a battery that will meet your actual capacity vs discharge rate. That is a given - what isn't isnt is paying more money for a more compact and light weight solution.
    if you actually read the article they explain how though there is interest, refurbishing packs is not viable. Use of nearly dead packs makes no financial sense in the general case. You will be replacing them all the time, from months to at best a year or two or you need ridiculously oversized batteries to make up for the fact you are losing capacity and discharge rate alarmingly fast. Further you fail to understand as cells to bad it gets exponentially worse as the remaining cells take up the same load, worsening an already bad situation. The only way it's even feasible to use them is if you own both the auto company and the solar company and eat the cost difference between a viable and cost effective economic solution. Sure you can make a great electric car for 100k but he's losing money on them - probably the reason no one else decided on that business plan.
    show me where these large scale systems use the same cells and chemistry as tesla packs. Can't? Because saying lithium is like saying computer or car. A MacBook isn't the same as arduino. The lithium batteries you use for ev are no where near the kind you would use in a grid backup. You can't even read the cited source i posted or provide your own so why should I take your point of view as having any credibility?