Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Plans To Disconnect 'Almost All' Superchargers From the Grid In Favor of Solar and Battery Power (electrek.co)
Only half a dozen Supercharger stations or so out of the over 800 stations have solar arrays and batteries, but that may be about to change. Elon Musk said Tesla plans to deploy more battery and solar systems with the upcoming "Version 3" of the Supercharger, adding that "almost all Superchargers will disconnect from the electricity grid." Electrek reports: Previously, Musk said that Tesla's new Powerpack and solar arrays will power some Supercharger stations in sunny regions to go off-grid -- adding that "the grid won't be needed for moderate use Superchargers in non-snowy regions." While it makes sense to add solar arrays and battery packs, it's not clear why there would be a need to completely disconnect from the grid, which is often still useful -- especially if net metering is available. Even in regions where coal dominates electricity generation, electric cars are still more efficient than some of the most efficient gas-powered cars. Therefore, the argument could have ended here, but Musk apparently wants to take Tesla's Supercharger network off-grid as part of the company's mission to accelerate the advent of sustainable energy. Depending on the size and popularity of a Supercharger station, which generally varies from 6 partly used stalls to 20 stalls in almost constant use, Tesla would need some significantly large solar arrays at some stations -- almost football field in size. Unless there are some impressive advancements in efficiency, it's not clear how they would make it happen.
There are so many, for lack of a better word, "Haters" who think that we can't have nice things and all technology must be destroyed if we are going to save the earth. By disconnecting from the grid Musk wants to make a point: This technology is sustainable. There are no outside inputs that need to go into it to make it work once it's setup. Somebody will say that the batteries or the cells will wear out eventually, but if it lasts for more than 20 years, what are they really going to say then? That's the point he wants to make, that there is hope for the future, we're not all going to die, there is another way to save the world besides deindustrialization and the massive drop in standards of living and population that would have to follow.
Don't you people see what happening here?! Elon is going to suck up all the sunlight with his solar panels and we'll have to pay him for electricity to turn on LED light bulbs! With no sunlight, all the plants will die and we'll have to pay him for electricity for our oxygen scrubbers! Someone has to stop this mad man! ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
This is already a solved problem. Slap some batteries or other energy storage devices (e.g. industrial flywheels) on the "unpredictable" sources and you can capture that energy for later use, thus making it predictable. And despite your claim that "[t]hese are just facts", the rest of what you said is actually fact-free philosophizing. Rather elegantly written for a troll, to be sure, but fact-free, nonetheless.
Plus, I gotta ask: why do you think so little of America? You clearly don't believe we're industrious enough to use an "unpredictable" energy source, so you're suggesting we should just call it quits instead. That's a lousy attitude, regardless of your political affiliation.
You've just moved the goalposts. I was addressing the AC's unpredictability concern. You're talking about the physical size of infrastructure, a wholly unrelated topic, and you've dragged nuclear into it too for reasons I can't fathom.
I really don't feel like trying to convince you of anything much, though I will chime in regarding the topic of labor costs: I think they're a red herring being used by both sides. The labor levels are only high for renewables because we're in a state of transition during which there are a lot of one-time installations. Those jobs will disappear as we reach a stable state, along with the benefits and drawbacks tied to them.
Assume on average a 85 kWh battery pack getting a 50% supercharge. 85 kWh * 0.5 = 42.5 kWh. Real-world charging efficiency is about 80%, so 53.125 kWh is needed to put 42.5 kWh into the car's battery.
Assume 160 W/m^2 commercial panels. PV solar capacity factor in the desert Southwest is about 0.185. That is, over a year, a 100 Watt panel will produce the equivalent of a constant 18.5 Watts. So the 160 W/m^2 panels will produce 160 Watts * 0.185 = 29.6 Watts average over 24 hours, or 0.7104 kWh / m^2 in 24 hours.
This means to supercharge a single Telsa S requires 53.125 kWh / 0.7104 kWh/m^2 = 74.78 m^2 of solar panels.
Oh wait, you're gonna store that solar energy in a battery first? That's going to introduce more charging and discharge losses. If you figure 90% for both, that's 74.78 m^2 / (0.9*0.9) = 92.32 m^2 of solar panels needed for every car you want to supercharge that day.
How busy is a Supercharger station? Summary says 6-20 stalls per station, so say 13 average. Figure they're half occupied during day hours, empty at night. At 30 minutes to charge, that's 2 per hour per bay, or (6.5 bays occupied)*(2 vehicles per bay per hour)*(12 hours) = 156 vehicles charged per day.
So to generate enough electricity to supercharge those 156 vehicles requires (156 vehicles)*(92.32 m^2/vehicle) = 14,401 m^2 of solar panels per Supercharger station. Or approx 120m x 120m of solar panels. Or put another way, the average home solar installation is about 30 m^2. So each Supercharger station would need as many panels as 480 homes.
This is just stupid environmental theater. Since electricity is fungible, there is no logical reason to co-locate solar panels and charging stations, other than winning brownie points from low IQ environmentalists that care more about symbolism than reality.
Oh yes there is a logical reason. That reason is to put it right in your face, along with all of the other solar and wind deniers. This technology has gone from it's humble beginnings to we have no need for you now.
The fact that you find it necessary to whine about something that you should not care one bit about shows exactly why they would want those non grid charging stations. Just one more part of the argument you are losing.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I can think of one reason: Power. Not energy, but power. Fast charging cars takes an insane amount of watts, and in some areas that is going to mean upgrading the grid if you want to provide it all at once. Cheaper to fit your charging station with a battery itsself so it can handle the surge load - and if you are doing that, the extra cost of putting some panels on the roof is negligable, and you can be sure that 100% of the energy produced can be utilised so the economics are favorable.