Slashdot Mirror
Tesla To Construct 'Virtual Solar Power Plant' Using 50,000 Homes (cleantechnica.com)
Long-time Slashdot readers denbesten, haruchai, and Kant all submitted this story. CleanTechnica reports:
Tesla and the government of South Australia have announced a stunning new project that could change how electricity is generated not only in Australia but in every country in the world. They plan to install rooftop solar system on 50,000 homes in the next four years and link them them together with grid storage facilities to create the largest virtual solar power plant in history. And here's the kicker: The rooftop solar systems will be free. The cost of the project will be recouped over time by selling the electricity generated to those who consume it.
"We will use people's homes as a way to generate energy for the South Australian grid, with participating households benefiting with significant savings in their energy bills," says South Australia's premier Jay Weatherill. "More renewable energy means cheaper power for all South Australians..." Price predicts utility bills for participating households will be slashed by 30%.
Electrek reports that the project will result in at least 650 MWh of additional energy storage capacity, and Tesla points out that "At key moments, the virtual power plant could provide as much capacity as a large gas turbine or coal power plant."
"We will use people's homes as a way to generate energy for the South Australian grid, with participating households benefiting with significant savings in their energy bills," says South Australia's premier Jay Weatherill. "More renewable energy means cheaper power for all South Australians..." Price predicts utility bills for participating households will be slashed by 30%.
Electrek reports that the project will result in at least 650 MWh of additional energy storage capacity, and Tesla points out that "At key moments, the virtual power plant could provide as much capacity as a large gas turbine or coal power plant."
I suspect it may take longer to recoup the costs, but perhaps not.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
This is great news for rental tenants and others who can't make the numbers work on a solar system. South Australians can register their interest at http://ourenergyplan.sa.gov.au/virtual-power-plant
we .au techs have informed them that it is in fact a Distributed Power Plant, not a Virtual one (but if they want unlimited virtual power i have these solar panels in minecraft they could use).
PSA + bad jokes expended. My work here is done.
Cool, more for those of us who arent paranoid nutjobs, win win.
Because they'll sell you electricity below market rates and not charge for installation or maintenance of the system.
Yeah, that seems pretty obvious when you RTFA
They will sell me the electricity I generate above my market rate for selling it to me, which is zero. I'm better off getting a loan to pay for installation if I have no savings.
Why would I provide my roof (and have holes drilled into it and everything else) so someone else can install solar panels on it and then sell me the electricity that is generated?
Where's the advantage for the homeowner over just telling this lot to go way and continuing to purchase power as today without all of that gear on the roof?
From the summary, it sounds like the homeowner gets a 30% discount on their monthly bill. The average electric bill in Australia is about $100usd so they are basically renting their roof for $30usd / month. A 30% discount sounds nice and he will likely get some people to say yes but it seems like a very small amount of money to deal with the hassle of having a 3rd party installing and then periodically maintaining something on your roof. There could be other benefits too though like not having to worry about brownouts, downed lines, etc...
Solar panels are always connected to the grid. And several other companies have offered to install them for free if the householder pays slightly reduced power costs to the company.
The key point is that only about 1/4 of the cost of buying power is the generation. About half is in transmission and distribution. And the other quarter in admin, solar subsidies etc. So we pay about 21c/kwh, but only get paid about 6c/kwh to give power to the grid.
That means the real benefit is to be able to use the power during the day when it is generated.
The kicker is that soon (5 years?) batteries will be cheap enough for people to go off grid altogether. And then who will pay the 75% of costs that are not related to generation?
(There are some people grandfathered in to receive 40c/kwh. They make a point of using no power during the day!)
in my neck of the woods, but the contracts are just awful. They're structured so that the homeowner takes on all the risk. There's monthly lease payments for the equipment and if the value of the electricity generated doesn't cover the lease you're on the hook to pay the rest. Also if you move you have to buy out the lease or get the new homeowner to buy into it. It's a pretty crap deal all around.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I'd be cautious about their claims of a 30% savings. I had SolarCity give me a very similar pitch. At the time, electricity prices were USD$0.08/KWh. Their offer was that I would be required to purchase from SolarCity 100% of the electricity my roof generated, at $0.13/KWh, for the life of the system. Pay close attention to what I just said - generated electricity, not consumed electricity. If I only consumed half of the electricity generated by my roof, I would sell the remainder to my local utility at the going rate, which is still $0.08/KWh. In fact, it's been $0.08 +/- $0.01 for the past 15 years. The more the sun shined, the bigger the hole I would have been digging for myself. Fortunately for me, I understand basic math, so I declined their offer. I instead purchased my panels from a local installer, and I'm on track to have my system pay for itself within my original 7 year estimate.
You sound really bitter.
At this point, Musk detractors just look like fucking morons whose only consistent quality is being absolutely wrong about literally everything.
This must be sarcasm.
Either way, Musk is a master at getting government contracts. I'm sure it won't be hard to find willing participants to have government pay some of their power bills.
The question is why don't they just do it with cheaper Chinese panels?
But if Tesla can build the solar panelling for ~.50USD/W, it might be doable in 7.5-15 years (I calculated recoup costs at 30 years as requiring ~0.30c/KWh power pricing to make it back, based off an 8 hour/day generation period.
According to this page : https://electrek.co/2017/10/30/elon-musk-tesla-work-harder-australia-power-problem/
South Australia is already paying ~$0.47 per kWh ( not sure if that is AUD or USD )
According to this PDF : https://www.originenergy.com.au/content/dam/origin/residential/docs/energy-price-fact-sheets/sa/1July2017/SA_Electricity_Residential_SA%20Power%20Networks_Standard%20Published%20Rate.PDF
Current network prices are ~$0.40 AUD INC GST ( GST = Sales tax )
Taking the cheaper of the two xe.com says that : http://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=.40&From=AUD&To=USD
works out to be ~$0.3166 USD per kWh
Yes, the government does own these roofs. These are council homes (low income housing).
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
$100 USD average bill in Australia? You canâ(TM)t be serious. Nearly double that I would say.
Yes, the government does own these roofs. These are council homes (low income housing).
If the government owns the roofs (and homes) then the dwellers are not homeowners, by definition. Per my OP:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any government owns a homeowner's roof yet.
That being said, I understand the benefit of encouraging roof colours that are appropriate for the latitudes of the homes.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Meanwhile, people who paid the $1,000 to pre-order a solar roof from Tesla 9 months ago are being told it will be another 5 to 8 months.
I know what you meant, but when the government owns the homes, they themselves are the homeowner that owns the roofs.
I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
He's worth $20 billion dollars.
Are you really that fucking retarded?
It's all very nice. But will the power grid support that infrastructure?
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
Tenants have historically been able to install their own systems on the roof if they so choose of public housing. However if you move, it must be removed.
Because the Chinese panels are not cheaper than Tesla's. They are about the same due to higher efficiency of Tesla. However, Tesla will likely use some Chinese panel.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Has he yet to make a business that actually turns a profit?
Is that your argument against long-term thinking? If a business does turn a profit soon after starting up, you would undoubtedly be carping about "profiteering."
Where exactly is it being "forced" onto anybody's roof ? People are offered a deal, they can either take it or leave it.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
In Europe we've been able to contract our roofs to PV companies for years. They take any profit, the homeowner gets free electricity. With the drop in feed in tariff rates new installations are dead in the UK now but it's still viable elsewhere. The schemes are so old they predate affordable domestic storage systems or grid storage but Tesla aren't really doing anything new.
I did a little looking about the internet and I find that General Electric will sell a 50 MWt/15 MWe nuclear reactor to the US government for use in their navy submarines. By just about any definition of "small modular reactor" this qualifies. This reactor cost the US government about $100 million. To get the same 250 MW of electrical capacity as the Tesla "virtual power plant" it'd take 17 of these nuclear reactors, so about $1.7 billion. These reactors are fueled once and will run for 30 to 35 years. If we assume that these Tesla solar panels also last 30 to 35 years then this should be a pretty easy comparison.
You'd have to include the cost of the 10 or 15 people* who run and constantly monitor each of those naval reactors 24/7/365.25 in your estimates. Qualified nuclear techs don't come cheap.
*A guesstimate on my part but I can't imagine less than 4 or 5 people per shift to run them.
So cool idea but the real question is how do they plan to finance it? Putting solar on that many homes will be a huge up front capital expenditure (with some ongoing maintenance costs too) and that money has to come from somewhere. Furthermore the payback on a system like this isn't going to be in a year or two. It's going to take a decade plus or minus a few years to break even under even the most optimistic of assumptions. So Tesla will have to raise a large amount of capital today for a speculative payback 10 years from now. Tesla doesn't have that kind of cash just laying around so they are going to have to either sell more stock or borrow it to raise the funds unless a government somehow finances it.
Why would I provide my roof (and have holes drilled into it and everything else) so someone else can install solar panels on it and then sell me the electricity that is generated?
Is this a serious question? The answer to why is easy. They give you a deal that benefits you. Why is not complicated. Now the devil is in the details of course but it's not hard to answer why you might do this. Seriously, you cannot figure this out?
Where's the advantage for the homeowner over just telling this lot to go way and continuing to purchase power as today without all of that gear on the roof?
Because it costs you more to keep buying power the way you do today. Aside from a few eco-fanatics, almost nobody is going to install solar panels unless there is a financial payback that makes sense for them. If someone wants to come to me and offer me a deal to install solar panels that costs me less on my electric bill, doesn't hurt the value of my home, doesn't tie me up in a restrictive contract, and costs me nothing up front or to maintain, then that is a deal I'll listen to and so would you.
Because the Chinese panels are not cheaper than Tesla's. They are about the same due to higher efficiency of Tesla. However, Tesla will likely use some Chinese panel.
That sound like a circular disagreement with yourself. IF they use Chinese panels, then how are they more efficient?
Anyhow, I call BS on the more efficient claim. All that really matters is $/kw installed, and operating life, when comparing solar panels.
Because Tesla wants to ramp up its production capacity. ... the production cost is the same everywhere. It is only a difference in currency value at the world currenccy markets that make some places look cheaper.
And bottom line Chinese panels are mot cheaper
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Tesla was founded in 2003. SpaceX in 2002. Solar City in 2006. That's 15, 16, and 12 years ago. So when do they turn profitable? Are these still startups, with a dozen or more years passed since founding?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
And that makes the companies profitable?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
"They are paying in data collection by Musk. You couldn't pay me to sign up for this."
Well, then they'll pay 50.000 other guys and you can pay your bill yourself.
100% savings? Generate excess power and sell it to offset the financial cost of the solar installation. There is no reason why a home can't be a net energy producer.
All of his have, except Tesla. And it's time is coming soon.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The participants' houses won't completely belong to them anymore, just to cut 30% of electricity cost? Now that's a deal. :D
Ultimately, the fossil fuel (including nuclear, just really OLD fossils) industry can afford the troll line, for there are always true believers in global warming as a solution to overcrowding
Growth and future earnings is more relevant than short term profits. It is much more beneficial to plant your seed corn than to eat it.
Depends on the specific numbers: the loan interest, the difference between the solar rate and the market rate, and how much electricity you use. If you have no savings, chances are you're not a good loan risk so your rate may be higher.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Actual experience with my 5 kW system. It cost me $7000. I think the installer probably got a $4000 subsidy in one form or another, so i paid that indirectly, being a taxpayer.
Anyway, over the year that it has been installed its performance matches the predictions almost exactly, and it has generated 7000 kWh. Due to an insane state government scheme, which again i am paying for, I get 14c/kWh for power I feed into the grid, and am charged 24 c/kWh for power I take out. Over the year my total electricity bill is $200 credit, giving a crude payback of about 6 years.
If I had invested that money elsewhere I would pay tax on any earnings, but for idealogical reasons PV income is not taxed, again I am paying for that in other ways. So I'd have to make about 30% pa on that capital to match the return from the panels. I'm nowhere near that good at shares.
So basically, in Australia PV is currently a pretty good bet as other taxpayers are subsidising it. Of course if the ludicrous tarriffs change then it won't be as attractive. But I'll still be saving the planet (haha).
Slashdot's nuke fetishists don't seem to understand the titanic military vulnerability every single terrestrial fission facility represents. Which is weird, since so many of them are hawks... y'know, folks, if you want to send your armies all over the world, having giant centralized power production plants is pretty obviously a bad idea.
Neither link tells us about cost per KW installed. Please try again.
So how many years do you plant seed corn before you start to eat? Do we talk about future earnings still decades out? At what point should a person expect a company to start turning a profit? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? More?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The answer to that is always 'it depends'. If you want to invest based purely on EBITDA go ahead, you'll have good company.
The average is about $1600aud per year which is about $1200usd per year or $100 per month: https://www.canstarblue.com.au...
The average in the USA is also about $100 per month: http://eyeonhousing.org/2015/0...
When I was back visiting in December, I sat down with my mother for half a day and worked up a spreadsheet of their bills for the last year to work out how offers from other electricity retailers would compare to their current provider. (Yes, pricing is that damn complicated!) We ended up finding a provider that would save them $300/year and I switched them over.
It's interesting that you even have a choice. I'm assuming they all share the same lines. In the US, as far as I know, pretty much everyone only has one choice and that is the local provider. The pricing is much simpler and is highly regulated and many are co-ops but the only choice is to use the local provider or to go off-grid.
You know, those solar "leases" where you put the panels on your house and they sell you the power at a "discount"?
Well, Tesla has had 60 quarters, and Solar City has had 48. How many do you worry about in the future? Is 10+ years enough?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
How long is long enough, then, in your opinion? Is it 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? More? At what point is it no longer a startup, at what point do you kill the subsidizing of a company that simply cannot stand on its own?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
And when the wind doesn't blow hard enough - well, you get brown-outs and black-outs, until you can turn on all those natural gas peaker stations
Or the battery could just kick in within milliseconds...
Do you have any idea what you're talking about?