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.
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.