Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Will Install More Energy Storage With SolarCity In 2016 Than The US Installed In 2015 (electrek.co)
An anonymous reader writes: Tesla is scheduled to install more energy storage capacity in 2016 with SolarCity alone than all of the US installed in 2015. It was revealed in a recent filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that Tesla foresees an almost 10x increase in sales to SolarCity for behind the meter storage. [From the SEC filing: "We recognized approximately $4.9 million in revenue from SolarCity during fiscal year 2015 for sales of energy storage governed by this master supply agreement, and anticipate recognizing approximately $44.0 million in such revenues during fiscal year 2016."] This revenue projection means Tesla expects to install approximately 116 MWh of behind the meter storage. The U.S. for example installed about 76 MWh of behind the meter storage. SolarCity and Tesla Energy doubled their battery installation volume last year. What's particularly noteworthy is that the 116 MWh expectation does not include SolarCity's biggest project -- Kauai Island's coming 52 MWh system. Hawaii is aiming for 100% renewable energy by 2045 and has contracted with SolarCity to balance the two 12MW Solar Power plants with the Kauai Island Utility Cooperative (KIUC). By 2020, there will be 70 GWh of Tesla battery storage on the road, and Straubel expects there to be 10 GWh of controllable load in those cars.
If the free market wanted your alternative energy storing methods, it would have already happened.
What I read in articles like this is that the "free market" already wants it, and now it becomes more affordable and mainstream, it actually happens. Those batteries are very probable not mainstream enough, but what you see is a market growing. It is happening now.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
The summary claims they are doubling what they did last year. If they keep investing in the infrastructure to keep scaling up each year, being at one millionth right now is only 20 years away from your estimate of what the US would need.
Of course in practice the trick is to stop scaling up when there won't be people who want it or you business goes bust instead of being highly profitable at the end, but yes, this sort of infrastructure overhaul in 20 years is not only a rational timeline but pretty agressive in historical terms.
I live in the center of Texas... and the town that I live in is getting a sizable chunk of its power from a solar array. It already has been asserted that solar is cheaper than coal, especially with the fact that upkeep costs are relatively low compared to other methods of energy generation.
Even though we see a lot of battery improvement announcements, most of them likely flashes in the pan at best, there is a cumulative effect. A battery that holds 1/10 as much energy per volume as gasoline would revolutionize transportation in fundamental ways.
The free market does want alternative energy storage methods. People and companies are sick and tired of being beholden to a very fickle market when it comes to oil and energy, and don't want to see their entire business trashed if another Enron comes to power and is able to cause prices to skyrocket with regards to fuel and grid prices. Of course, few businesses can completely power themselves with their on-site solar arrays, but the cumulative effect does a lot to mitigate what speculators can do.
As for the battery part, it has to meet a lot of criteria. Not just energy dense, but usable in a wide variety of temperatures, idiot resistant, able to be packaged and used in high vibration environments (automotive), and fairly environmentally friendly to produce and use. However, advances are being made on all these fronts because the benefits to this are substational.