Slashdot Mirror


Tesla Announces Home Battery System

An anonymous reader writes: Early this morning, Elon Musk finally revealed Tesla's plans for the home: battery systems designed to store up to 10 kWh of power. The company is leveraging the battery technology they've developed for their electric cars to enable more people to switch to renewable power for their homes. There will be two models of the battery. The 10 kWh version will cost $3,500, and the 7 kWh version will cost $3,000. They can deliver power at a continuous rate of 2kW, with peaks up to 3 kW. Crucially, the batteries will be warrantied for 10 years. Musk thinks the market for home batteries will expand to at least two billion, eventually. But even a much smaller uptake for now will validate the creation of Tesla's "gigafactory."

"The gigafactory is the recipient of the largest incentive package ever given by Nevada at $1.3 billion, which followed a hotly contested tax incentive bidding war between various states to land the Tesla battery plant. For the investment to pay off, Tesla needs to convince hundreds of thousands of consumers per year to buy its cars and battery products, with the gigafactory serving as a cornerstone to the company's sales strategy. ... An early gigafactory rendering released by Tesla stated that the plant will have an annual battery pack output of 50 gigawatt hours — the bulk of which will go toward batteries for cars with most of the remainder to be allocated for stationary batteries, according to figures mentioned by Tesla's chief technology JB Straubel last year. The gigafactory's sheer scope makes other battery products a possibility as well."

13 of 514 comments (clear)

  1. Can't wait to get this installed in my house by talexb · · Score: 5, Informative

    Great idea. My power supplier currently has rates based on TOU (Time Of Use - http://www.torontohydro.com/si...), and I'd love to be able to charge up the battery supply for my house overnight at cheap rates, then run off the battery the rest of the time.

    I just hope it's not going to be one of those "Only available in the United States" deals.

    1. Re:Can't wait to get this installed in my house by RingDev · · Score: 5, Informative

      https://www.we-energies.com/re...

      Up to 17 cents cheaper per KWH (22c day, 5c night).

      Assuming you blow 10kWh per day, primarily between 6am and 11pm, that's upwards of $2.20/day.

      If you move your entire 10kWh load to the battery system and charge it over night, it drops you down to $0.50/day.

      $1.70 savings per day. That's 2058 days to recoup the $3500 expenditure, or just a bit over 5 1/2 years. Over the ten year warranty period you'll save ~$3000, assuming electricity prices remain constant.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    2. Re:Can't wait to get this installed in my house by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Tesla give you a 10 year warranty and maintenance contract with the pack, so clearly these things are rated for more than 5.5 years of operation.

      Since the warranty is 10 years the MTBF must be significantly longer, to keep the failure rate low. It's interesting that the 10kWh pack is for "backup" while the 7kWh pack is for "daily cycling". I'd guess that the 7kWh pack is physically the same as the 10kWh one, only cycled 30% less to extend battery life.

      Realistically they would have to be looking at an average 20+ year lifespan to give you a 10 year warranty and maintain a profitable failure rate.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. unit mismatch by edittard · · Score: 5, Informative

    battery systems designed to store up to 10 kWh of power.

    kW is a unit of power. When you multiply it by a unit of time it becomes a unit of energy.

    --
    At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
  3. The utilities have reason to be upset by DaChesserCat · · Score: 5, Informative
    Many of the utility companies, such as the ones in Arizona and Hawaii, are griping about people adding solar PV to their homes. These people have, typically, used Net Metering; any power they produce in excess of what they consume at any moment is fed back into the grid and, when their demand exceeds their supply, they draw from the grid. The utility company gets to "reimburse" them for the power they contribute. In some areas (California), 1 kWh contributed during peak hours = > 1 kWh they can withdraw during off-peak hours. But that's pretty generous; most power companies don't even like 1 : 1.

    If you put enough PV on your home, you can eliminate your electric bill. At which point, many utilities argue, the costs of maintaining the grid (that's rolled into your electric bill, but not as a separate line item) are covered by the less-wealthy. The poor are subsidizing the grid for the wealthy, they argue. And they argue, further, that they should be able to charge people who are using Net Metering even if they ARE producing as much power as they're consuming.

    Where I live, I pay a monthly connection charge ( < $20 / month) + $0.085 / kWh. In short, my electrical co-op breaks these out as separate line items on the bill. Even if I put in enough PV to go Net Zero, so long as I'm connected to the grid, I'm at least paying the monthly connection charge. The Arizona utility wanted a connection charge / kWh installed PV, to the point that the homeowners who installed the PV ended up paying the same, without or without the PV. In short, they wanted to eliminate any incentive to add PV and connect to the grid. They did get approval for a connection charge / kWh installed, but it was a fraction of what they wanted.

    In Hawaii, where power is routinely $0.39 / kWh (it's made, largely, from imported petroleum), solar PV and Net Metering are so widespread that entire neighborhoods are producing excess power during the height of the day. It's to the point where HECO gets to veto whether or not you can add PV to your home; you have to get permits from them and they're getting harder to acquire. Because the transformers which convert distributed power (typically lower frequency and higher voltage) to the household power (60 Hz / 240 VAC split-phase) are made to work efficiently, one-way. Going the other way, they are considerably less efficient. If you are a net producer and your neighbor is a larger, net consumer, you're supplying your neighbor and the local transformer simply converts less power going into that neighborhood. When the entire neighborhood is a net producer, the transformer has a problem. So they limit how much power can be produced in each neighborhood.

    I used to think this was all about the power/utility companies trying to defend their bottom line. That's still part of it, but I've come to realize there are technical reasons, too. Installing efficient, bi-directional transformers would require:
    1. installing a second, bi-directional transformer
    2. taking down the power to an entire neighborhood while they switch over
    3. decommissioning and moving the old transformer

    at considerable expense. And that latter part, well, you KNOW they're not going to let their executives and/or shareholders eat that cost. And many utilities are regulated, such that they have to get approvals for rate increases. Which aren't easy to get. So there's technical reasons AND financial reasons for the utilities to grip.

    Put a battery pack on your home, like one of these. Get an inverter which feeds excess to the battery and NEVER exports to the grid. The power company loses their only technical reason to gripe, because you are no longer doing Net Metering. At that point, it's all about the Benjamins.

    Indeed, if you get to the point where your home is truly Net Zero, long-term, you can go completely off-grid. At which point they no longer have a say in the matter.

    --
    ... by the Dew of Mountains the thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning
  4. Re:Batteries by robosmurf · · Score: 4, Informative

    Lead-acid batteries typically last well under a thousand cycles, and also deteriorate if you deep cycle them. Thus you'd probably need to replace a car battery solution every couple of years.

    This isn't all that much better though. I don't think they have released the actual specs, but these batteries are likely to have a cycle life of around 3000 (which is consistent with the 10 year guarantee as they are unlikely to have a full cycle every day). This is much better than lead-acid, but as you say they are also much more expensive.

  5. Re:2kW with a peak to 3? by Guspaz · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, you turn them all on at the same time and you draw the extra power from the grid. You're not going off the grid on a single 7 kWh battery pack. If you want to do that, they're stackable, up to nine of them.

  6. Its twice as expensive as the competition by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Informative

    I just did a price check and a 10kwh rolls royce deep cycle system with 4 of those batteries is about 1500 USD. Tesla wants 3000 to 3500. At that price, I could buy 20kwh to 30kwh in conventional lead acid batteries.

    The primary advantage of the Lithium batteries is that they're light. But in a static location what is the point of them? Who cares how much the batteries weigh if they never get moved? They sit in a utility closet somewhere in your house and that's it. I'm really confused as to why anyone would pay DOUBLE for Teslas batteries?

    Am I missing something? Why would I pay TWICE as much per kilowatt hour?

    What is more, deep cycle lead acid batteries can be reconditioned giving them a second life. I don't think you can do that with lithium batteries.

    Help me understand. This makes no sense to me.

    Here is a link to what I'm looking at as competition:
    http://www.wholesalesolar.com/...

    How are the tesla batteries better than that for this application?

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Its twice as expensive as the competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Tesla system consist of:
          - 10kWh batteries
          - 3kW? battery charger
          - 2kW-3kW ac inverter
          - grid disconnect (for backup mode)
          - 3000? deep cycles
          - 10 year warranty

      and you compare it with:
          - 10 kWh batteries
          - 500 deep cycles
          - 3 year warranty

      and wonder why your system is cheaper? Really??

  7. Re: Gamechanger by paulej72 · · Score: 5, Informative

    But what was the humidity level? 40C at 30%RH is much different than 40C 90%RH.

  8. Re:Disposal by jo_ham · · Score: 4, Informative

    You recycle them. They contain some lithium, a transition metal like cobalt or equivalent, and various anions (PF6, BF4, BPh4) that make up the electrolyte.

    You can separate out and recover all of the materials you used to make the battery and make another one.

    Lithium ion batteries also don't contain rare earth metals.

  9. Re:Gamechanger by mspohr · · Score: 4, Informative

    5 cents is low. Most time of use differentials are much higher. In my area, it is 14 cents. At that rate, it works out to $1.40 a day.
    This is $511 a year return on a $3500 investment... pretty good return.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  10. Re:Gamechanger by BlackPignouf · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm working for a project in southern Germany where we do just that.
    The grid operator pays 50% of any battery installed. It's only for one small village right now, and we hope it will grow.