Mercedes-Benz Copies Tesla, Plans To Offer Home Energy Storage

cartechboy writes: It's like a game of follow the leader. First, Tesla announced its Powerwall Batteries, and now Mercedes-Benz plans to follow suit by entering the energy-storage business as well. A division of parent company Daimler has been testing battery packs that can power houses, and plans to launch commercially in September. Supposedly a battery pack for "light industrial, commercial, and private" use is being tested with sizes ranging from 2.5 kWh to 5.9 kWh. While Tesla's building a massive Gigafactory to make all its batteries for its Powerwall and electric cars, it's unclear exactly how Daimler plans to produce its batteries in a larger-scale energy-storage operation.

Comments

Cost effectiveness

[penguinoid]

If it is cost effective to store energy, wouldn't power companies be doing it?

Re:Cost effectiveness

[kriston]

The goal wasn't really to store energy for the house. The actual goal is to store energy to recharge your electric vehicle quickly and without overloading your local power grid.

The use of energy in the house is an added-on benefit and makes it more appealing to buyers. Some might also call this a "gimmick."

Re:Cost effectiveness

[LWATCDR]

Frankly that makes no sense. The 10KWh battery from Tesla is only good for 50 cycles a year. It is a replacement for a back up generator at best. The 7KWh pack could work for solar storage but frankly they are not cost effective no storage method is cost effective except maybe hydro storage.

Re:Cost effectiveness

[amorsen]

In many places electricity is taxed or high distribution tariffs apply. When you combine that with low feed-in tariffs, those with solar panels have a strong incentive to use their own power rather than export and import power.

Thus, it is cost effective to store energy for the consumer, not for the power companies -- and sometimes it is cost effective for the consumer to store energy expensive high-demand power from the middle of the day and use it during the night when power is otherwise cheap. Some power companies are investing in batteries to do the exact opposite, of course.

In the grand scheme of things there are larger fish to fry when it comes to tax and tariffs though, where the interests of society do not align with the incentives provided to individual people. E.g. it is rather stupid to tax labour, which is a clean and beneficial way to improve our society, instead of resource consumption which causes pollution and poverty.

Re:Cost effectiveness

[sribe]

The 7KWh pack could work for solar storage but frankly they are not cost effective no storage method is cost effective except maybe hydro storage.

Actually, at a time-of-day cost differential of about $0.22/kWh they are break-even. So, not cost effective in most areas, but very very close. Bump up the peak prices of power in CA a bit, or bring the PowerWall cost down or capacity up a bit, and you're there.

Re:Cost effectiveness

[thegarbz]

If it is cost effective to store energy, wouldn't power companies be doing it?

Cost effective for who? The idea of something being cost effective has to take into account all sorts of externalities. It is cost effective for me to run my entire life on a surface tablet. It would not be cost effective for the drafters in the office to do the same thing.

The same applies to a power company. If you have a giant turbine that runs all the time and you get paid for running that turbine and there are significant costs to starting and shutting down that turbine then it is not cost effective at all to store energy. If you're a solar power plant operating PV cells in a market that will pay you heavily with high electricity prices then it is also not cost effective.

If you're trying to get off the grid, live in a scenario where there's no net metering, or if you're a power company that can't benefit from large revenues on energy created then you're likely already looking into such a system, except at power company scales they typically opt for a slightly different technology.

Re: Cost effectiveness

[rtb61]

It is not just a battery, it is a 'CAPITAL INVESTMENT'. Do no get sucked in by the PR agents seeking to keep you tied to their last millennium infrastructure, which you must rent access to and then burn you money to get energy. They way you calculate the benefits of generating you own electricity and making that energy available 24/7/365 (no more out of your control black outs, keep the maintenance up though otherwise you will be creating your own), is to look at the capital cost, calculate the value of the energy you will be generating over a year and see whether that percentage return is better than other investments, like bank interests or even loan repayments on that investment. Keep in mind that capital investment does enhance your property value and the more reputable the better.

So powered by Tesla or powered by Mercedes, works for them for marketing purposes (branded equipment and panels, reminds people about other products) as well as for you (they are not just buying a house but reliable energy, that house can generate, based upon the reputation of the manufacturer).

So rent and burn or invest and earn (energy that is). Now that is the message the fossil fuellers hate and really do fear.

Gigafactories don't start out as Gigafactories

[Mr D from 63]

Too much is made of "competing' with a not yet built gigafactory. That gigafactory will initially be more costly to operate than a smaller ones, as they pay for unused infrastructure. Economies of scale won't help until the scale gets big enough. So there is no immediate advantage for Tesla in that regard.

Re:Gigafactories don't start out as Gigafactories

[codealot]

Yes--Tesla has become a giant vaporware producer. Their fans speak as if Tesla has already cornered the EV and battery storage markets, in reality all they've done is ship a few Model S cars and made various announcements for products we can't yet buy (Model X, Model 3, Powerwall).

Re:Gigafactories don't start out as Gigafactories

[radl33t]

But capital markets love vaporware and this kind of ludicrous access to the capital markets is propelling Tesla at a rate equivalent or in excess of the r&d pace that the stodgy old auto mfgs can pursue. It has a kind of perverted logic too it in a highly speculative sense.

Re:Can u say bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

If only that 90-year-old, worldwide, multi-billion-dollar corporation knew as much about how to make money as you do!

I'm sure they're really kicking themselves for not asking your advice before moving forward with this.

Copies Tesla???

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Mercedes-Benz Copies Tesla

Let's not make it "Europe against USA" but Mercedes (Daimler) was in the energy-storage (battery-pack) business (think industrial and defence sectors, plus -much more limited- residential storage - with the same technology as Tesla) looong before Tesla even existed - i don't mean that it is better than Tesla, but please... not "Copies Tesla"!

Re: Copies Tesla???

[EmagGeek]

This is Slashdot. Did you really expect anything other than rampant, hard-core bias in favor of Tesla? It matters not that Daimler and dozens of other companies have been doing battery storage power facilities for decades before Tesla existed.

Interesting Move

[monkeyxpress]

The linked article just appears to be an advert for Mercedes cars, but this is quite an interesting development. I don't know if it is more a response to a market gap given the current issues Germany is having with too many renewables on their grid, or part of a broader strategy around their electric vehicles. Either way it is pretty exciting to see how quickly electric infrastructure is developing.

As an EE who has spent a huge amount of time fixing cars (don't buy a Peugeot) I think electric cars will be a no-brainer for customers once the cost reduces further, and I think Tesla is trying to push that point forward by creating another mass market for batteries. If they can get it right, things could change very quickly, and I think companies like Mercedes can see this.

I hope that Elon Musk can make these businesses viable and sustainable. In an era where most corporations increase profits by finding new ways to screw over their customers and create artificial scarcity, it's pretty exciting to think that in 20 years time driving a car could be cheaper than it is now and potentially even sustainable. In a world where most of the smartest people are trying to find ways to make you click on an advert or manipulate financial markets, this sort of thing is sadly pretty rare.

Trolleys and electric companies

[nycsubway]

That's similar to how many electric companies in the United States started because they had excess generation from their electric trolley lines and then got into the electric supply and distribution business. Eventually the energy companies survived, but their trolley business faded away.

Re:Trolleys and electric companies

[schlachter]

I think alot of people don't remember/realize that in the 1920's the most common car was an electric car.

Energy storage

[DrYak]

wouldn't power companies be doing it?

Here around power companies DO INDEED do it.
And it's called a hydroelectric dam.

- You let it fill when unneeded (and thus store the energy as gravity potential energy). Or you can even actively pump water into it if you want to charge using electricity as an input.
- You start emptying it through the power station to supplement other energy sources when demand exceeds power capacity (as might happen with some forms of renewable energy).

On a really smaller scale, that has also been always the case with isolated usage of solar panels. When you're to remote to be connected to a power grid, instead of feeding the excess electricity into the grid and using the power grid later when needed, you store the excess electricity into batteries and retrieve it when needed.

(And in a way, if you think about it, lots of on-demand energy power-plants - e.g.: nuclear reactor - do in a way store the energy. Except that the form varies (e.g.: uranium/thorium don't store the energy as chemical states as lithium doesr) and usually can't be directly charged using electricity.)

So yes, power companies DO store energy. But due to the scale at which they work, they tend to chose denser (nuclear fuel) or bigger quantities (lakes at electric dam) than a a few kWh worth of lithium batteries.

Re:Can u say bubble?

[Captain Splendid]

I love all you Americans crowing about the uselessness of the coming distributed energy age. Y'all might be correct as far as the US goes (and for now), but for billions of us in the rest of the world, shit like this has either been cost-effective for years or one of the few methods to get any kind of electricity when you don't the massive capital for the old-school way.

So what? It's a good idea.

[Anonanonaon]

Repeat after me: TESLA HAS INVENTED NOTHING NEW. THIS INCLUDES HYPERLOOPS AND ALL THEIR OTHER SHIT. STOP BUYING INTO THE FUCKING HYPE YOU MORONS.

So, Tesla is basically doing what Apple did, except promoting something which is actually useful and not soul-destroying?

-Not to mention.., instead of building it all in slave factories overseas, Tesla is investing in American labor and technology.

I don't see the reason to wax alarmist here.

I'd still go with lead-acid for home energy storage, (they're uglier, but offer the same cost per kwh at around triple the product life span. Lead-acid is just better chemistry for deep cycle installations.)

But seeing the market shift over to renewables, energy owned by the individual rather than the oligarchy, is a pretty great thing, and Tesla is at the forefront of promoting that into popularity. I'm not going to dump on them for being good at marketing when they're also being good at "human".